Anti-biotech GM Watch’s connections to Maharishi TM cult, industry money

|

There is one organic industry “front group” I check in on more than any other, GM Watch. The organization regularly publishes up-to-date “news” and opinions about biotech crops. They always seem to be one of the first to publish articles about the latest crank studies that claim to show the benefits of eating like our ancestors or to demonize modern agriculture. They also serve another purpose, to instantly smear any person or organization that seeks to debunk the myths spread by the primitive food movement, almost in real time.

Plan on refuting a study that was designed to scare mothers into eating organic food? They will just call you unscientific. Are you a plant scientist studying the effects of different colored lights, but like to volunteer some of your own time to debunk myths? They will accuse you of subterfuge and of running a network of hooded figures working for corporations. They are anti-vaccine and are quick to even call biotech crops developed by independent researchers vapor ware.

Their hatred of biotechnology knows no bounds. Recently they joined the trend of groups blaming the effects of the Zika virus on anything other than the mosquitoes that actually cause it, essentially because they oppose any type of solution that might come from biotech companies. Limit the population of the number one animal killer of humans? Encourage the production of a recombinant vaccine to immunize populations? No, they would rather try to introduce a potentially invasive species of fish into every body of standing water. A solution that may work on a small scale in some places but is hardly a viable global solution. As is typical of anti-technology extremists, it is all or nothing with GM Watch. Scientists call for a blend of methods but GM Watch highlights one method as an example and make it seem like that it is all the world needs.

According to the GM Watch page, started in 1998, it is currently run by Jonathan Matthews and Claire Robinson. Claire Robinson is well known in the anti-biotechnology world. She is currently on the board of advisers of GMO Free USA, a “research” director at Earth Open Source, and part of a dangerous mind control cult called transcendental meditation (TM). The connection with TM is most interesting, because long time anti-biotech activist John Fagan was given in 2008 the TM title: “Raja with Global Responsibility for Food Purity and Safety and for Healthy Invincibility” (Raja means Indian king or prince). In this capacity he is charged with creating a global network of labs to use scientific testing methods to verify food purity and quality of Maharishi Vedic Organic products.

BOA_JohnFagan_Web

John Fagan

Fagan also happens to be a founder of Genetic ID (though no longer affiliated), which verifies products are non-GMO, has a vested interest in demonizing biotech crops to stay in business. According to the transcendental meditation belief system, the removal of biotech crops from the world food supply will bring about world peace and invincibility for all mankind. Fagan helped kickstart a large “grassroots” campaign against biotech crops when he traveled to England not long before GM Watch was started. TM’s political party in the UK, the Natural Law Party, worked hard to connect all biotech crops with pesticides in the minds of the people there. Even though the first one on the market, a tomato, had no connection with pesticide traits. GM watch’s web page also describes how one of the editors, presumably Robinson or Matthews, received money for work done with the Institute for Responsible Technology, another NGO from the same cult.

If Transcendental Meditation sounds familiar, it is because it has made the headlines many times over the decades. The Beatles flirted with the movement a bit, until John and George finally got fed up when the cult founder was accused of making unwanted advances towards Mia Farrow. The organization would go on to be sued in the 80s by its ex members. Patricia Ryan, daughter of the late Senator Leo Ryan, even equated TM to cults like the one started by Rev. Jim Jones whose followers committed mass suicide in the 1970s and killed her father. More recently Fagan and Robinson’s cult would cost tax payers $142,000 when their unvaccinated adherents brought measles back from India. Accusations against the cult also includes the exacerbation of existing psychological problems, leading to a murder on their campus in Fairfield.

Not much is known about Jonathan Matthews himself. A resident of Norwich, England he is an administrator of an English language school there. A startling thought considering his willingness to maliciously attack fellow educators. After several people on Twitter mounted an organized attack on my own personal life, he offered them a pedestal on which to stand, so they could claim they were somehow the ones victimized. Matthews was largely responsible for a massive smear campaign against Mark Lynas for the simple crime of the latter changing his mind on biotechnology when presented with evidence, and insinuated that Lynas’ apology speech was but a PR ploy. I asked Mark about his experiences with GM Watch, and he had this to say, “GM Watch is at the extreme end even of the anti-GMO movement. They specialize in smear tactics, innuendo and character assassination. They’re not part of any conversation I want to be involved in. The whole site reeks of hatred.”

Hatred seems to be an accurate word to use. GM Watch is part of a large network of web pages that use similar techniques to push their agenda. Spin Watch, which Claire Robinson also writes for, seems to have “a keen interest in the Jews“, and is very anti immigration.

For someone who seems to distrust any money that originates from corporations, and who goes as far as demonizing the wonderful Gates Foundation, he seems to have no problem accepting corporate money for his own organization. The web page proudly claims to have received funding from the JMG Foundation, created from the estate of the late billionaire tycoon James Goldsmith. It should come as no surprise to anyone then that Matthews hangs onto every word uttered by the son of James Goldsmith, millionaire Zac. Zac Goldmisth has served as editor of The Ecologist and has been promoting the primitive food movement campaigns for quite some time. Recently The Ecologist faced criticism for promoting myths about the zika virus and the transgenic mosquitoes set as a solution. This connection explains their lack of guilt.

Any further doubt about their industry ties are laid to rest considering they receive money from the Sheepdrove Trust. The Sheepdrove Organic Farm and Eco Conference Center was started in the 1990s, with the conference center opening in 2004 featuring anti GMO Prince Charles.

Matthews and Robinson have also received funding from the Isvara Foundation. Their web page was set up by The World Development Movement. Under their new name Global Justice Now, this is the organization that recently issued a report demonizing the Gates Foundation for promoting both vaccines and GMOs. The duo fail to state this conflict of interest whenever they criticize the Gates Foundation. The fact that Matthews and Robinson are connected to tractor companies, the Isvara Foundation is a product of Ayman Jallad, is just the icing on the cake that alludes to vested interests. Herbicide and insect tolerant crops allow for the reduction of tilling the soil and chemical applications. Something Big Tractor might not be very happy with?

Is Jonathan Matthews another brainwashed victim of Transcendental Meditation? Is he being bankrolled by the billion dollar organic industry to help them sell fear? Does he just want to watch the developing world die of malnutrition from his home in well fed England? I sent him an email with some questions, but he has so far refused to comment. All said and done, he is probably like everyone in the anti biotechnology movement –  fighting against human development.

This article originally appeared on We Love GMOs and Vaccines here and was reposted with permission of the author.

Stephan Neidenbach is a middle school teacher in living in Annapolis,
MD. He holds a BS in business administration from Salisbury University and a MS in Instructional Technology from University of Maryland University College. He started and runs the Facebook group We Love GMOs and Vaccines, follow him on twitter @welovegv.

  • Gregor Samsa

    Note that anti-GMO personalities Jeffrey Smith and Stephen Druker are connected to Maharishi University.

    • Loren Eaton

      Yes, but do they genuflect at the feet of the Raja?

      • First Officer

        And, that’s the Maharishi Raaaag !

      • First Officer

    • WeGotta

      Everything is connected.

      • hyperzombie

        Don’t think so.

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      I attended a conference on organic food and homeopathy last weekend for fun. The Maharishi were there recruiting.

      • agscienceliterate

        Did they identify themselves as being involved with the organic and homeopathy woo boys and girls? Or did they appear to be there as just another bunch of pseudo-spiritual people, eager to hoover your money out of your wallet, appearing to be unaffiliated with the organic guys?

        • hyperzombie

          I am sure that they are very good at solving “Heavy Wallet” syndrome.

          • agscienceliterate

            It is their duty to separate fools from their money.

          • Peter Olins

            A couple of years ago, I saw a great web ad for a training course for alternative health practitioners to “Repurpose client dollars currently spent on plain vitamins to more lucrative supplements offered by your practice”.

            I guess bank-robbers are simply “repurposing” inappropriately-distributed cash.

            Sadly, I can’t find the link any more.

    • agscienceliterate

      Love the name, btw! Are you a genetically modified kind of fellow that Kafka knew about long before the rest of us?

      • Stephan Neidenbach

        Well, according to 23andme I am 3% Neanderthal.

  • Volksbefreier

    “There is one organic industry “front group” I check in on more than any other, GM Watch.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Says the front group for Monsanto, the Genetic Literacy Project! Give me a break!

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      Except GLP didn’t actually say that. They copied and pasted an article written on my blog, and I have no affiliation with anyone. The true grassroots movement is here. Expect us.

  • Volksbefreier

    Where do the fields of lies end? Every blade of grass has a single atom of truth.

    • agscienceliterate

      It would be very much appreciated if the lies and spread of misinformation stopped with you.

      • Volksbefreier

        “It would be very much appreciated if the lies and spread of misinformation stopped with you.’

        Ermmmm, I guess I’ll take the easy route and turn that right around back at you.

        • agscienceliterate

          Would love to have you try. You have never once posted any citation for your claims about GE food,and instead youhave only repeated myths you have read on the Internet. I would love to see how I am misinformed, based on any studies on GE safety and sustainability,that are not based on falsehoods and promoted by the organic industry. It would be helpful if you looked at those false words carefully and critically, so that you do not just continue to repeat them.

          • Volksbefreier

            The Seralini study was valid. The opposition was generally comprised of people who had ties to industry or were deliberately sent to smear the study in the name of PR.

            You are misinformed if you believe the corrupt FDA which has Michael R. Taylor, expert Monsanto chief super – duper spinmeister lobbyist, as it’s Commissioner.

          • Guest

            Yes, the Seralini study is valid as an example of improper experimental design and statistical analysis; it’s used in graduate level statistics courses as such an example. Yes of course, all of the independent tenured academics who criticized the Seralini study had ties to industry or were deliberately sent to smear the study in the name of PR, what other reason would they have?

          • Volksbefreier

            Please explain to me how the study was flawed. The same rat species used by Monsanto was used in the study and nearly the same amount of rats, too.

          • Guest

            That is beyond my education and training, which does not invalidate the truth of the statement of the study being flawed. Just use the search function on this site for “Seralini” and you will find many excellent articles and Disqus comments that will explain it for you.

          • Volksbefreier

            But i’ve already done it and I myself refuted what many say how the study was flawed using simple logic!

          • Guest

            So to you simple logic trumps graduate-level knowledge in experimental design and statistics?

  • Volksbefreier

    “Except GLP didn’t actually say that. They copied and pasted an article
    written on my blog, and I have no affiliation with anyone. The true
    grassroots movement is here. Expect us.”

    Way to go, you made a man laugh. You have no affiliation with “anyone”? Give me a break, it’s obvious that you are affiliated with at least one person….. and also many, many people especially people who broadcast pro – Monsanto propaganda on this “Literacy Project.”

    This website clearly has several goals, but one of them is to attempt to quite truly brainwash the public into being pro – GMO.

    • Dominick Dickerson

      Ofcourse someone with an ideology not informed by a scientific mindset or an observance of basic facts would take exception to some of the writing here. That’s why sites like GMwatch exist because people like you think you’re entitled to you’re own set of ideologicallynapproved “facts” because your opinions aren’t support by science. Anyone promoting the actual science is just brainwashing to you.

      You know who actually brainwashes people? Cults, like the Maharishi cult mentioned extensively in this article.

      • Volksbefreier

        Scientifically speaking, cropping genes can cause cascades of unintended effects, because genes in organisms don’t just do their own “jobs” and leave other genes alone. Specific genes have specific functions and some of these functions require assistance from other specific genes to operate correctly ; a single disturbance in the genetic fabric of an organism can be disastrous and often is. If an organism begins producing a specific chemical because a new gene or several genes were inserted into it, what if this chemical causes the organism’s other genes, which evolved to operate in an organism without the genes or the chemical, to be affected?

        Sure, you can call the Maharishi a cult. But so is the FDA, one which worships the holy overlords of Big Pharma in the name of obtaining wealth ; the leadership of the FDA is plainly corrupted beyond belief. They don’t care about public health. They do not care about what you care about you are either rich or have the power to make them suffer and know it. Most people have the latter but do not realize such.

        • Stephan Neidenbach

          Unintended effects are equally possible with all breeding methods. The only difference is that this one breeding method is actually regulated, unlike all the others.

          • Volksbefreier

            No, they aren’t quite simply “equally possible with all breeding methods.” But let’s say they are.

            The unintended consequences of directly altering, inserting, or modifying genes in crops, or really any organisms, within the span of less than a thousand years has not been properly studied without conflict of interest to ensure that the unintended consequences, if they exist, don’t cause harm to the people whom then eat the crops or processed remnants of the crops. Because genetic modification has an enormous possibility of causing these effects, it absolutely should be studied properly to ensure that they don’t exist.

            The other breeding methods don’t carry with them such an enormous ability to make harmful or even deadly crops because they give the organism enough time to adapt to the alterations and for people to notice any potential dangers from eating the crop.

            Altering the genetics of an organism within 30, 20, 10 years doesn’t give much time for the organism to adapt to the new genetic terrain and for people to start noticing any potential dangers – UNLESS it’s done properly.

            Current genetically modified crops are simply not studied TRULY independently enough. Basically all the studies on them right now are or were paid for by the biochemical industry in some direct or sometimes indirect (support money for universities) way.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Yeah none of that is true. GE crops are some of the most intensively studied creations humans have ever produced.

            I’ld recommended reaching out to your local land grant university or extension office. You have some pretty glaring deficiencies in you’re understanding of crop breeding, genetics and evolution.

          • Volksbefreier

            Yes, intensively studied by people with huge conflicts of interests. Most studies on them are invalid because of this.

            In fact one major flaw with these studies is the fact that their “screening analysis” of information to be used in the study is INCREDIBLY biased to favor industry which then screws with the entire study.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Yeah.. they’re not. Funding source doesn’t invalidate studies. It gives us a base to examine potential COI, but it doesn’t invalidate the conclusions. And the proportion of industry vs non industry studies is roughly equal.

            Provide a specific example of bias in “screening analysis”. This is an nonsensical claim, you just keep moving the goalpost further and further with each post.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Funding source doesn’t invalidate studies.”

            No, having a funding source does not invalidate a study.

            Here is what I meant, to be more specific :

            A university conducts a study on GMOs. This university accepts grants from Monsanto.

            The study is invalid due to conflict of interest, even though it is from an “independent” source. Period.

            You people keep using the term “independent.” Yes, the proportion of studies directly conducted by industry to those sponsored by industry is roughly equal.

            But the non – industry studies are all conducted with permission from biotech, and also usually by people who have received money from biotech, making them invalid due to a conflict of interest.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Not” invalid because of this” would be more correct. In fact someone has checked on this http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/

          • Volksbefreier

            “Is it really possible that they’ve manipulated tens of thousands of
            scientists performing thousands of studies for three decades with no
            whistleblowers?

            Yes, in fact, it is.

            “Biofortified” claims that the EU studies found that GMO crops are not inherently more dangerous. But the EU studies were conducted with permission from biotech.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Permission doesn’t automatically negate the results of the studies. You are supposed to at least supply a few errors or deliberate falsehoods.

          • Volksbefreier

            Permission usually does make researchers favor the industry, especially after things like the Seralini and Pusztai affairs.

            Before Pusztai’s study on GMO’s, he was a world – renowned highly established scientist.

            Within days of publishing the study his entire reputation was ruined.

            Nobody has ever refuted the Pusztai study. They simply use industry propaganda and say afterwords, “oh, this is how it was defeated….”

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Pusztai and serralini were defeated and remain so. pusztai deserved to have his reputation ruined. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/ And now without any evidence you will make the idiotic claim that this was fraud paid for by the biotech industry. I will then post this. http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/02/analysis-of-pusztai-study-on-gm.html You will make the same incorrect claim and I will wonder how you could be so stupid and still write well.

          • Volksbefreier

            The fuck! I already read the first link you posted and refuted it! Jesus christ! Look at my other posts you ignorant parrot!

            “James is said to have examined the experiments and found them a total “muddle.'”

            Ermmmmm…… what does this mean in this context?

            “The audit committee’s report, released in October of 1998, concluded
            that Pusztai’s data did not support the conclusion that the transgenic
            plants had a deleterious effect on growth, organ development, or immune
            function in rats.”

            But who was on the committee? Did they have conflicts of interest? What exactly was found? Nothing is specified which is dangerous.

            “Their memorandum stated (the following is largely
            verbatim from the WSWS website): “Those of us who have known Dr.
            Pusztai’s work or have collaborated with him, were shocked by the
            harshness of his treatment by the Rowett and even more by the
            impenetrable secrecy surrounding these events. It is an unacceptable
            code of practice by the Rowett and its Director, Professor James, to set
            themselves up as arbiters or judges of the validity of the data which
            could have such a profound importance not only for scientists, but also
            for the public and its health.” The memorandum concludes, “There is no
            doubt in our minds that the reviews will remove the stigma of alleged
            fraud and will restore Dr. Pusztai’s scientific credibility.'”

            Hilarious that you’d post a link to a website which says this.

            “One of the scientists who reviewed Pustzai’s
            work, Dr. Vyvyan Howard, foetal and infant toxico-pathologist at the
            University of Liverpool, told the World Socialist Web Site, “I am
            working on some features of lectin toxicity and that is how I came to
            know Arpad Pusztai, who is certainly one of the world’s experts in this
            field.” Dr. Howard said that he believed Dr. Pusztai’s data was (sic)
            sound. “We think it would pass peer review and be published and we are
            at a loss to really explain why the Rowett Institute came to the
            conclusion it did.” Dr. Howard added that Pusztai’s findings “are of
            considerable importance in the current debate on the safety and hazard
            assessment of genetically modified foods.'”

            Mhhmmmm

            “Professor S. Pierzynowski, from the Department of
            Animal Physiology, Lund University, Sweden, said, ” I must stress that
            there is enough strong evidence that the work of the audit group was not
            objective and per se dangerous, not only for Dr. Pusztai, but generally
            for free and objective science.”

            Eh?

            “But a committee of six eminent members of the
            British Royal Society, set up in April of 1999 to review the Pusztai
            data, reached the opposite conclusion. The committee sent out the
            material they received from Pusztai, the Rowett and other sources to
            scientists with expertise in statistics, clinical trials, physiology,
            nutrition, quantitative genetics, growth and development, and
            immunology.”

            “The committee sent out the
            material they received from Pusztai, the Rowett and other sources to
            scientists with expertise in statistics, clinical trials, physiology,
            nutrition, quantitative genetics, growth and development, and
            immunology.”

            Who were those scientists? Were they even looked at to ensure no conflicts of interest? It’s absolutely opaque and has plenty of opportunities for biotech to get scientists in the scene.

            After the above, the writer goes on and ignores his other findings for a while and just focuses on Lectins.

            “Better yet, Pusztai’s own studies showed that
            purified GNA wasn’t toxic to rats (Pusztai 1990). In fact, he and his
            colleagues had shown that GNA had a protective effect against bacterial
            infection with Salmonella, a nasty intestinal bug (Naughton et al.,
            2000). All of this made the gene coding for GNA an attractive choice for
            increasing the insect resistance of crop plants. To test this
            possibility, the gene was introduced into a number of different crop
            plants, including potatoes and rice. And it does, indeed, increase their
            resistance to some important insect pests (Rao 1998; Foissac 2000).
            Because GNA binds to the surface cells of insects guts and enters their
            blood stream, it is also thought to have potential as a vehicle for
            delivering more toxic peptides to insects (Fitches 2002).”

            Ummm. Alright. What about the organ abnormalities in the rats? If it wasn’t the lectins, it still happened. Because the study wasn’t followed up on, we can’t know for sure, and therefore we must assume – the effects were not random. They were caused by the GMOs.

            “There are many different kinds of plant lectins
            and they are present in most plants, especially abundant in seeds,
            including cereals and beans, and in tubers, including potatoes. They
            tend to survive cooking and digestive enzymes. Pusztai and many other
            investigators have shown that they affect intestinal cells. It isn’t
            surprising that they occasionally cause symptoms of food poisoning
            (Freed 1999). As in insects, some can get into and through cells and
            into the blood stream. Some lectins are also potent allergens. So even
            through GNA appears to be a relatively benign lectin as evidenced by rat
            feeding studies, there is absolutely no doubt that a food expressing
            such a protein needs careful testing, first in animals.”

            This is dangerous. It is like saying because something “occasionally” causes problem it is fine and dandy and that every plant which includes GNA is just as toxic as the GMOs.

            “The chemical analysis of the transgenic plants showed them to be quite different from the parent lines (http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm) – although the audit report curiously concludes that they weren’t (http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmoarchive/gmaudit.pdf).”

            This just means the audit report was shitty and biased.

            “A later study on transgenic potatoes came to the
            same conclusion (Down 2001). Here Pusztai jumped to the conclusion that
            these differences must be attributable to the fact that the plants were
            transgenic – and he went public with his conclusion. What he probably
            didn’t know – because he was neither a plant breeder nor a plant
            biologist – was that the very process through which the plants are put
            during the introduction of the transgene – culturing through a callus
            stage and then regeneration of the plant – can cause marked changes in
            both the structure and expression of genes.”

            Which means – the differences still exist because of genetic modification and thus GMO plants are DIFFERENT from non – GMOs.

            “Unfortunately, Pusztai’s analyses of the chemical composition of the
            transgenic lines were rather superficial. And his quick leap to the
            conclusion that the variation he observed was attributable to the fact
            that they were transgenic was simply unwarranted.”

            Bullshit.

            “Pusztai has been criticized severely for the
            quality of his experiments. His experiments have been attacked for their
            small sample sizes, the use of inappropriate statistical procedures,
            and the fact that a diet of raw – or even cooked – potatoes is a bad
            diet for rats (people too), even when supplemented with a bit of extra
            protein.”

            The first sentence is bullshit because it doesn’t include evidence of why they were of poor quality. The second is half type 1 bullshit for the same reason as above, and half type 2 bullshit because he couldn’t do anything about the lack of nutrients for rats. It was inescapable. The findings of the study were still valid.

            “In Pusztai’s experiments, the control potatoes
            had a different history than the transgenic potatoes and, in particular,
            that history included a culture procedure that induces somaclonal
            variation.”

            What was he supposed to do? His control potatoes represented all non – GMO potatoes and the GMO ones represented all (at the time) present GMO potatoes. Just because they were exposed to different “culture procedures” doesn’t invalidate the study because the potatoes were accurate representations of what they were supposed to represent.

            “In order to be able to attribute the deleterious
            effects of the transgenic potatoes to the newly introduced gene or to
            some other part of the introduced DNA, he would have had to make a
            comparison between potatoes that had the very same history, but either
            had or lacked the transgenic construct. This can be done, but the study
            that Pusztai participated in was simply not designed for such a test.”

            The first sentence is mostly true. However the study still demonstrates – GMO potatoes at the time because of how they were “made” were inherently toxic.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            And I see by your use of vulgarities in this irrational gish gallop that you are mentally stable and have no irrational emotional commitment to the ridiculous claims by pusztai and serralini.

          • Volksbefreier

            You’re a fucking idiot. Period.

            And I didn’t just commit a logical fallacy because I did in fact trash your pro – GMO argument. It isn’t a logical fallacy if you already have achieved a victory through using logic in the argument.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Please add “Perry Mason” to your assignment. He will add to your vast sea of knowledge of “”logic””

          • Volksbefreier

            Why are you still here? I defeated you.

            What you people basically do is argue ad nauseum using the same old defeated fallacies and untruths. I defeated you. And you keep trying.

            Seriously, are you a shill? The shills typically stay after their arguments are defeated because lots get paid to keep arguing.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            You have defeated only yourself. You are delusional, and aren’t even aware enough to realize it. I actually feel a bit sorry for you and especially your family.

          • Volksbefreier

            What you do is stage psychological warfare. I stage logical warfare.

            And logic never loses. Logic always wins. I totally annihilated your claims and “sources” which stated that the Pusztai study wasn’t valid or at least suggested that it wasn’t.

          • JP

            “Logical warfare?”

            Bahahahahahaha! You’re a funny one, aren’t you?

          • Volksbefreier

            But it’s actually true, even if it seems “funny” to you.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            This is really sad.

            This person is so confident in their knowledge they’re completely oblivious to how foolish they look. And he thinks he’s “defeated” someone. If he were a child I’ld say it’s adorable, but since he’s an adult it’s just pathological narcissism.

            This whole back and forth with this person has only strengthened my resolve even more to make sure our government stands with science and to make sure opinions like his get characterized for exactly what they are.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Yeah,

          • Stephan Neidenbach

            Cleary you know nothing about breeding because artificial selection and mutagenesis does the same thing.

            And no, not true about the studies. In fact an indepedent meta analysis in Germany, where no one can say these companies are in bed with that government, came to the conclusion that “our results show that the source of funding does not significantly influence the impact estimates.” http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

            And anyone can get seed from, at least Monsanto, to do studies very easily. http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/

          • Volksbefreier

            A single purportedly “independent” meta analysis from Germany?

            What do you mean “nobody can say these companies are in bed with the government”? You got it backwards?

            Pfft, I looked at that study and it doesn’t even disclose how the screening process went.

            Yes, anyone can get seeds from Monsanto to do studies on them but they risk being sued for infringing on patents.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            They won’t be sued for doing research, thats inane.

          • Volksbefreier

            It’s inane but it’s been done because it infringes on Monsanto’s patents.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Provide a specific example since Monsanto has enacted it’s open research agreement where it has sued any research for infringing it’s patents.

            Research doesn’t infringe patents, purposeful unlicensed replication and commercialization would.

          • Volksbefreier

            Hmmm, I am unable to find evidence that it has actually been done, but Monsanto could easily do it to shut down an independent researcher who publishes findings of health risks due to consumption or exposure to GMOs.

            Research might not infringe on patents persay, but it “reveals trade secrets” if these “secrets” when discovered are published in a study.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            So it’s never happened.

            That’s all you needed to say.

          • Volksbefreier

            I said that it could happen.

            Monsanto has sued farmers for saving patented seeds. Why aren’t you calling that inane?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Because that’s protection of intellectual property and I believe that seed breeders have a right to protect their creation from unlawful and unlicensed replication.

            Patents on novel varieties of plants are nothing new, it goes back to 1930.

          • Volksbefreier

            That doesn’t mean it is morally or ethical acceptable.

            I believe live organisms or their precursors should be unpatentable… and most people would agree if they knew about Monsanto’s draconian tactics.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Their precursors are unpatentable. Plants can only be patented if it’s a novel variety.

            It would benefit you to,actually inform yourself about IP law in plants before forming an opinion on it.

          • Volksbefreier

            By precursors I meant seeds, which are precursors to live plants.

            Okay, i’ll inform myself about patent laws. But afterwords, guess what? I’ll have stored all the information and come back to the same conclusion. Patenting live organisms and their precursors isn’t ethical or moral to do.

          • JP

            Why not?

          • Volksbefreier

            Because it will in the future enable almost all crop to be owned by biotech.

            It’s easy for many crops to crossbreed. GMO crops have been shown to crossbreed with non – GMO ones.

            Once all the crops have genes from the GE ones, all of the crops will be patented and “owned” by the patenters.

          • JP

            You do understand that patents are transient, correct? In fact, the first patent on GMO soy already expired this year.

          • Volksbefreier

            Just because the first patent expired doesn’t mean the others have

          • JP

            But they will. You cannot get to a point where all seeds are patented because patents by definition expire.

          • Volksbefreier

            Patents are also renewable, obviously. What is you’re point?

          • JP

            Only through an act of Congress.

          • Volksbefreier

            And the U.S. Congress is heavily controlled by biotech. Surely they’d be willing to renew biotech patents.

          • JP

            Wow. Yep, we’ve got a real tinfoiler here. I guess it’s nice when you can boil all of your arguments down to “because biotech companies,” isn’t it?

          • Volksbefreier

            I don’t wear tinfoil hats, that’s an ad hominem anyway.

            What I say about the U.S. Congress is really true. So many biotech lobbyists or people paid by biotech are in Congress that it’s absurd. Just think about the Biotech Rider.

          • JP

            No, it’s not an ad hominem. I’m not dismissing your argument because of it, I’m just mocking your clear conspiracy theorist attitude. At this point, I’ve given up on discussion because it’s clear you cannot look at this rationally.

          • Volksbefreier

            “No, it’s not an ad hominem. I’m not dismissing your argument because of
            it, I’m just mocking your clear conspiracy theorist attitude. At this
            point, I’ve given up on discussion because it’s clear you cannot look at
            this rationally.”

            It is an ad hominem. You keep simply dismissing my arguments by using them, and also appealing to the consensus (I.E. appeal to authority) as a way to try to defeat me.

            You’ve given up? Why did you just respond to me then? Get out.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c1e193ddb986c081d2fa8257974fe7b48a3082493aec58761045c19bc2b87b5.jpg

          • Volksbefreier

            More specifically, think about the Biotech Rider and how it shows just how biased towards biotech the entire U.S. Government is.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            That’s a value statement and your free to believe that and make a case for such.

            But the law is that novel plant varieties can be protected regardless of the breeding method used.

          • Volksbefreier

            Morals and ethical behavior are supposed to be utilized by all human beings to the greatest degree possible.

            Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is ethical or moral. Race – based segregation was legal at one point.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            So a plant breeder that uses his skills and knowledge to create a novel plant variety isnt entitled to fair compensation for his efforts? He’s supposed to labor for seasons and years to develop a new variety with desirable agronomic traits and then give it away for free?

          • Volksbefreier

            I’ll go into the specifics of my opinions on patents.

            Patents on live organisms should be legal – but only if the patented strain is unable to genetically contaminate other similar species, and if it can contaminate other species it’s illegal to sue the people who have had their crops accidentally contaminated.

            Rather than using such draconian methods as surveillance and suing, patents on organisms should be enforcable by :

            Forcing the farmer to hand in his / her patented, genetically contaminated seeds and crops to the government, and afterwords making the government clear is field of the remnants of the GMOs. After his / her field is cleared and all GMOs handed in or destroyed, the government will then supply the the farmer with seeds of his choice.

            Other methods are too dangerous.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            No one has ever been sued by a biotech company for inadvertent cross pollination or adventitious presence of GE crops. I’m not sure about other companies but I know that Monsanto’s long standing practice has been to come and remove any adventitious GE organisms at the companies expense.

            Interestingly enough the technology exists for such a thing as you describe to prevent accidental cross pollination; it’s called GURT, genetic use restriction technology. You may know it as “terminator seeds”. But the technology has never been commercialized because of fear spread largely by people like Vandana Shiva.

          • Volksbefreier

            “No one has ever been sued by a biotech company for inadvertent cross

            pollination or adventitious presence of GE crops. I’m not sure about
            other companies but I know that Monsanto’s long standing practice has
            been to come and remove any adventitious GE organisms at the companies
            expense.

            Interestingly enough the technology exists for such a
            thing as you describe to prevent accidental cross pollination; it’s
            called GURT, genetic use restriction technology. You may know it as
            “terminator seeds”. But the technology has never been commercialized
            because of fear spread largely by people like Vandana Shiva.”

            No one has? Here is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

            Monsanto claiming that it has never sued farmers whose crops were contaminated by GMOs is just total bullshit Public Relations propaganda.

            ” I’m not sure about
            other companies but I know that Monsanto’s long standing practice has
            been to come and remove any adventitious GE organisms at the companies
            expense.”

            Bullshit. Total bullshit.

            “Interestingly enough the technology exists for such a
            thing as you describe to prevent accidental cross pollination; it’s
            called GURT, genetic use restriction technology.”

            Yes and such a technology would prevent farmers from replanting seeds because the seeds would be useless for such. Are you seriously unwise enough to be advocating for GURT when it might cause farmers to basically become TOTAL slaves to biotech for survival if every breed got contaminated with the tech?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Check out OSGATA v Monsanto. It’s a case where organic seed growers sued monsanto over this very issue. They were unable to provide even a single case where Monsanto sued for cross pollination.

            It’s not bullshit, it’s directly from Monsanto’s own website.

            So you’ve set up a catch 22. Plants can only be patented if they can’t cross pollinate but you also are against each technology that could enable that very thing from happening.

            I’m not advocating GURT, just mentioning it as a way to get around your ideological predisposition that patented varieties shouldn’t be able to out cross.

            However you can not deny that such technology would address the concerns of people saying inadvertent cross pollination is an issue.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Check out OSGATA v Monsanto. It’s a case where organic seed growers
            sued monsanto over this very issue. They were unable to provide even a
            single case where Monsanto sued for cross pollination.

            It’s not bullshit, it’s directly from Monsanto’s own website.”

            They weren’t? How was I able to do it then?

            “Plants can only be patented if they can’t cross pollinate but you also
            are against each technology that could enable that very thing from
            happening.”

            Strawman, I never said that. Misrepresenting my argument.

            “I’m not advocating GURT, just mentioning it as a way to get around your
            ideological predisposition that patented varieties shouldn’t be able to
            out cross.”

            Another strawman. Never said that plants shouldn’t be patented if they can cross pollinate as the only criteria.

            “However you can not deny that such technology would address the concerns
            of people saying inadvertent cross pollination is an issue.”

            It would, but it would also cause farmers to become enslaved to biotech for survival. Which is better, cross pollination or slavery?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            “They weren’t? How was I able to do it then?”

            You didn’t, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the ruling of the Schmieser case. Schmieser wasn’t sued for cross pollination he was sued for knowingly and unlawfully reproducing and growing RR canola without signing a technology use agreement.

          • Volksbefreier

            So was he supposed to shut down his entire operation and take years to remove the GE crops?

            Because
            that was his only other option. It’s also the only option other than
            being sued for most other farmers who have had or will have their fields
            contaminated with GMOs.

            Our laws are very obviously designed to benefit industry. Especially patent laws.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Do you want me to copy my response from the other comment or can you admit that you’re wrong and the Schmeiser case is not about accidental cross pollination?

          • Volksbefreier

            The Schmeiser case in general was about supporting corporate power. Period. You know it, I know it. It’s blatantly obvious.

            Go ahead copy and paste your prior response which I proved wrong. Keep doing it.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            The Schmeiser case was about protecting intellectual protect rights.

            And what it wasn’t was a case showing Monsanto seeing farmers for accidental crossing or adventitious presence.

            Youre wrong about the facts, Be a gentleman and concede

          • Volksbefreier

            “The Schmeiser case was about protecting intellectual protect rights.”

            Yes, in total disregard of the costs to farmers.

            “And what it wasn’t was a case showing Monsanto seeing farmers for accidental crossing or adventitious presence.”

            Basically, it was, because the farmer had little choice but to use the seed illegally or go bankrupt. Monsanto should have COMPENSATED him and also took away his GM plants, and if they had done so it would have TRULY been about protecting patents instead of protecting corporate dominance / power.

            “Youre wrong about the facts, Be a gentleman and concede”

            If I were a Troo Scottish Gentlemann, you’d have bigger issues.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            He never contacted them about it. And he denied responsibility for it. They had no option but to take him to court. He had the power to prevent it from going to court but he didn’t. He was a thief.

            After the he sprayed the first time to select for the RR canola he shouldn’t have kept it and replanted it. He wouldn’t have gone bankrupt over it. Christ all mighty he wasn’t some dirt scratching subsistence farmer. He was a commodity farmer who wanted to avoid paying for a traited crop that would have improved his profitability.

            Basically it wasn’t, and only through the peculiar contortions of your own mind is it.

          • Volksbefreier

            “He never contacted them about it. And he denied responsibility for
            it. They had no option but to take him to court. He had the power to
            prevent it from going to court but he didn’t. He was a thief.

            After
            the he sprayed the first time to select for the RR canola he shouldn’t
            have kept it and replanted it. He wouldn’t have gone bankrupt over it.
            Christ all mighty he wasn’t some dirt scratching subsistence farmer. He
            was a commodity farmer who wanted to avoid paying for a traited crop
            that would have improved his profitability.

            Basically it wasn’t, and only through the peculiar contortions of your own mind is it.”

            Do you even realize how hard it is to remove such crops after they’ve been grown and been planted? It takes YEARS. They cross – pollinate, too, which means his entire field may have become GMO by the time he realized the contamination existed.

            He was forced into a corner and given two choices :

            1. Remove all of his crops, go basically bankrupt, tell Monsanto and possibly get sued anyway by them

            2. Keep growing the contaminated crops and see if anyone notices

            He chose the 2nd option – which admittedly wasn’t very logical, but he did it anyway, I suspect, to protest against Monsanto’s “Gene Police.”

        • Dominick Dickerson

          oh i see you’re problem, you’ve been told just enough about genetics to be misinformed and scared.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549908/

          Agrobacterium mediated transformation actually suppresses the occurrence of most types of mutations.

          The genome is not so fragile as you imagine it. the vast majority of mutations have no effect on an organisms function.

          The idea that “a single disturbance in the genetic fabric can be disastrous and often is”, is wholly unsupported based upon our understanding of genetics.

          • Volksbefreier

            But this isn’t just about mutations. This is about the direct inserting, removal, and modification of genes used by organisms.

            Mutations are in fact different. Mutations often develop over time rather than spontaneously which allows the organism to adapt to the new genetic terrain over many thousands of years. This is evolution.

            Humans directly adding, removing, and modifying genes within less than 100 years isn’t evolution and doesn’t allow for any real adaptation or for people to notice potential dangers UNLESS done properly (studied independently without support from biotech, too.) Again current GMOs aren’t created properly or studied properly.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. Look up mutagenesis. Done in the lab. Done all the time, including to organic seeds. No oversight, no testing.

          • Volksbefreier

            …..

            Thanks for this small bit of information in the pile of lies.

            However, this doesn’t mean I am dismissing what you just said, nor does it mean I am forgetting your pro – GM propaganda. It means I am going to research different methods of genetic alteration and if I find issues, seek solutions, including opposing any further mutagenesis or direct genetic tampering which takes less than 100 years….

            I’m not going to begin eating non – Organic food, though. The advantages of Organic far outweigh the risks.

          • agscienceliterate

            Since I don’t get paid, it’s not propaganda. Just plain old boring science. Glad you were opening your mind to reading about this issue. Please read more about mutagenesis, which happens over a very short period of time. I find it peculiar however that you think untested and unregulated irradiated lab-created food more safe. And, of course, you are free to eat anything that you like. I choose to avoid organic. Leaving that much more for you. You’re welcome!

          • Volksbefreier

            “Since I don’t get paid, it’s not propaganda.”

            Not true at all. Propaganda has an official definition you know.

            “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to
            promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”

            “Especially of a biased or misleading nature” has morphed into “always of a biased or misleading nature” in modern general usage.

            What you way is infact propaganda.

            I opened my mind to reading about this issue years ago. Prior I ate GMOs. Now I don’t, because I realized GMOs aren’t properly studied and are produced by the same irresponsible, generally evil companies which produced DDT, PCBs, Saccharin, and Agent Orange and hid evidence of those chemicals being toxic.

            I actually avoid irradiated food at all costs, you know.

            What do you mean I am free to eat anything I like? You are supporting keeping a blindfold on consumers to prevent them from making their own choices rather to eat supposedly “SAFE” GMOs or not.

            GMOs should be labeled even if in the future they are proven safe – consumers want them labeled. So should any genetically altered foods altered using methods which take less than 100 years to complete, because such methods do indeed measurably alter the foods.

          • Guest

            We appreciate that you were able to admit that you are a propagandist, even though you admitted it indirectly.

          • Volksbefreier

            And how?

          • Guest

            Don’t ever get cross-examined on the witness stand, particularly if it as a hostile witness.

          • Volksbefreier

            Explain further what exactly you meant in this context – otherwise you could be simply using spin tactics.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Plant breeders don’t pick a gene out of a hat and say this, “this is what we’re using” and then put it in the market. The target gene is analyzed and sequenced, it’s functions are known.

            “inserting, removal, and modification of genes used by organisms” are all forms of mutations. You’re making a distinction without a difference,

            Mutations do not develop over time, mutations occur spontaneously via any number of mechanisms and they occur all the time.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Plant breeders don’t pick a gene out of a hat and say this, “this is
            what we’re using” and then put it in the market. The target gene is
            analyzed and sequenced, it’s functions are known.

            “inserting,
            removal, and modification of genes used by organisms” are all forms of
            mutations. You’re making a distinction without a difference,

            Mutations do not develop over time, mutations occur spontaneously via any number of mechanisms and they occur all the time.”

            I am aware that GE breeding doesn’t involve using random genes. However it is nearly impossible to predict how these genes will actually interfere and “cooperate” with the others in a given organism. If harmful affects are caused by the interactions between the new gene and other genes, it might not cause the genetically engineered organism to die – rather, substances toxic to mammals but not the plant itself might start being produced in greater quantities, or newly produced completely.

            Inserting, removal and modification of genes by human breeders within less than 100 years actually is different from natural mutation. In a natural environment with evolutionary pressures, plants mutate and ones which produce unintended effects typically involve increased rates of defects, increased rates of unintended chemical production, sometimes death of the plant, and these take thousands of years to fully integrate with other genes or disappear due to causing harm to the plant’s survival and reproductive chances.

            Note : Plants eaten by animals often start to have a reproductive relationship with them. These plants, once they fully co – evolve with the animals that eat them, rarely produce chemicals or substances toxic to those animals because it wouldn’t be beneficial to the survival of the plants.

            Human genetic engineering which is done within less than 100 years doesn’t give thousands of years to the plant to see how well it survives. It doesn’t let the plant’s other genes evolve along with the new gene and this can cause a huge host of problems.

            Most importantly this type of genetic engineering isn’t studied properly. If it were by TRULY independent scientists who don’t have a conflict of interest, and those genetically engineered plants were then REALLY proven safe – I would eat them.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            ” However it is nearly impossible to predict how these genes will actually interfere and “cooperate” with the others in a given organism.”

            For you maybe, but not for the molecular biologists working on this. The results of any given transformation event are extensively studied and well categorized as part of the deregulatation process.

            “If harmful affects are caused by the interactions between the new gene and other genes, it might not cause the genetically engineered organism to die – rather, substances toxic to mammals but not the plant itself might start being produced in greater quantities, or newly produced completely.”

            there are proteomic and metabolomic analyses that are done inorder to ensure that unintended proteins and metabolites aren’t produced. This potential effects are anticipated and screened for as part of the often decades long process of developing a GE trait. The problem is that all the other forms of plant breeding could equally cause your scenario about production of unintended toxic compounds and they have. A great example is the Lenape potato.

            ” Plants eaten by animals often start to have a reproductive relationship with them. These plants, once they fully co – evolve with the animals that eat them, rarely produce chemicals or substances toxic to those animals because it wouldn’t be beneficial to the survival of the plants.”

            Domesticated plants don’t produce as much toxic substances as their wild progenitors because human beings have selected for decreased toxicity via domestication. The plants don’t produce less toxins because the plants somehow know what’s beneficial to their survival. They produce less toxins because human beings selected for plants with that quality and as humans do this repeatedly over generations the plants lose the capacity to produce these toxins. A perfect example of this is seen in the domestication taro.

          • Volksbefreier

            ” The plants don’t produce less toxins because the plants somehow know what’s beneficial to their survival.”

            No, they aren’t sentient or conscious beings. It’s called evolution. Whatever traits help an organism survive are selected for, and traits which are not beneficial to an organism’s survival as a species or an individual are phased out through this process.

            A plant which relies on mammals to spread seed by eating it or did historically would not have survived if it kept producing or started producing toxic chemicals which harmed or even killed those organisms which ate it.

            Human beings selected for it, too, but all of these effects to reduce toxin production or eliminate it are now being nullified by pesticide usage and other toxic technologies.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            First off at the risk of sounding pedantic consumption of seeds would result in the destruction of the embryo meaning no new organisms result. It’s precisely for this reason that many seeds still do contain toxic or bitter components, like cyanide in pome seeds and stone fruit pits or persin in avocado pits.

            Plants that rely on mammals to disperse their seeds, typically have some sort of fleshy structure rich in carbohydrates and lypids to entice them. The seeds themselves have chemical or structural measures that enable them to survive digestion if consumed whole or to discourage consumption of the actual seed in the first place.

            And in this case it’s a very special type of evolution that occurs through a process called artificial selection. In the case of taro, the reduction of raphides would be a great disadvantage to the organism in the wild since the point of the raphides is to discourage herbivory . Yet because humans have selected against, almost all modern taro varieties produce little or no raphides. So in artificial selection and domestication the determining factor for a genes suitability is based upon human needs not that of the plant.

            Human beings selected for decreased production of certain toxins in plants to make them edible in the first place. It does not relate at all to the use of pesticides.

          • Volksbefreier

            Many seeds do, in fact, survive mammalian digestion.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/science/how-can-plant-seeds-survive-the-digestive-process.html

            Certain exceptions do exist.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I didn’t contend that they didn’t. Infact I said that seeds tend to have chemical or physiological means of surviving digestion if they are consumed whole. But if an organism is masticating the seed itself then it would not survive digestion.

          • Volksbefreier

            “First off at the risk of sounding pedantic consumption of seeds would
            result in the destruction of the embryo meaning no new organisms result.
            It’s precisely for this reason that many seeds still do contain toxic
            or bitter components, like cyanide in pome seeds and stone fruit pits or
            persin in avocado pits.”

            This invalidated the rest of what you said in the following paragraphs.

          • First Officer

            Mutations occur suddenly. You go from AGCT to ACCT, not to ACCT for a trial period. Then, either the affected organism finds it advantageous or not to itself, regardless of how other species find it affects them.

          • Volksbefreier

            ….

            Here, let me speak in more specific, understandable terms.

            By “genetic terrain adapt”, I mean other genes need to mutate to adapt to the newly inserted, removed, or modified gene – without this process the organism is weakened.

            Because mutations occur suddenly, but not frequently, it takes thousands of years for the other genes to mutate properly in order for the entire plant’s genetic terrain to cooperate and function – properly.

            At the same time, “Then, either the affected organism finds it advantageous or not to itself, regardless of how other species find it affects them” is what happens.

          • First Officer

            “By “genetic terrain adapt”, I mean other genes need to mutate to adapt to the newly inserted, removed, or modified gene – without this process the organism is weakened.”
            That is an assumption that simply is not borne out in observation. Besides, if it was such a weakening, it wouldn’t be much of problem in spreading to wild strains as such individuals would be quickly weeded out by competition.

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      Citation needed. Take off the tinfoil hat. Since all you have is the “shill gambit”, you are the one who is a joke. I bet you can’t even identify a single risk against biotech crops that can’t be applied to other breeding methods.

      • WeGotta

        Tell that to sugar beet farmers.
        There’s definitely the risk that consumers will avoid it.

        • Stephan Neidenbach

          Only because of the fear mongering from the anti-technology movement.

          • WeGotta

            How utterly thorough and scientific is your analysis of why all the people who are against it are against it.

            Whatever the reason, it’s an observable and provable fact, reviewed and confirmed by your peers. So don’t be anti-science by denying scientific fact.

          • Stephan Neidenbach

            That fear campaigns created by astro turf groups work to hurt farmers? Unfortunate for the sugar beet farmers, but true.

          • Volksbefreier

            “That fear campaigns created by astro turf groups work to hurt farmers?”

            Sounds like Monsanto PR to me. HAH!

          • Stephan Neidenbach

            And the reason you say that is because the organic astroturf groups just assume everyone else is doing that.

            Conventional farmers in the US are not exactly complaining about using biotech seed. They have thousands of seed companies to choose from. Remember, market share does not equal monopoly.

          • Volksbefreier

            Organic “astroturf” groups? No, most are real turf grass. The few which aren’t are rare.
            This damn website is a form of an astroturfing operation. So are most other pro – GMO ones.

            This website obtains most of it’s funding from Monsanto and most of the people who post in favor of Monsanto here are the people who operate the website!

            Farmers don’t represent the majority of people who eat food. Farmers are producers and if people stop buying what they grow they will start growing what people want to buy and eat.

            When did I say market share equaled monopoly? Is that straw of yours you just threw at me GMO?

          • Stephan Neidenbach

            “They disagree with me so they must all work for Monsanto.” Chanting that over and over again must get tiring for you.

          • Volksbefreier

            But it’s mostly the truth.

          • WeGotta

            I doubt astroturfers are out to deliberately hurt farmers. That’s just a side effect of that stupid and deceitful practice. Many stupid things have bad side effects. That’s why we call them stupid.

            Creating a food system based on the corporate model in a country where the government is in bed with corporations is stupid.
            That hurts farmers too.

            Creating a financial system based on debt is stupid.
            That hurts farmers too.

            I’m waiting for letters and comments from journalists and scientists about those things.
            I’m waiting for scientists to launch public outreach about those things.

            Learn about those things and apply your scientific thinking. Then people may do the same for GMO and support you.

          • Farmer Sue

            This cement-dwelling idiot yuppie big-mouthed activist knows nothing about sugar beet farming, and wouldn’t last even one 14-hour day in the field. And he’s too lazy to call his farm bureau to get legitimate information about farming, and just spews ignorant and insulting misinformation about farmers with everything he posts.

          • Volksbefreier

            “This cement-dwelling idiot yuppie big-mouthed activist knows nothing
            about sugar beet farming, and wouldn’t last even one 14-hour day in the
            field.”

            What, you talking about Stephan? Pretty accurate.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Anti – technology”

            If I was anti – technology I wouldn’t be using an electronic device.

      • Volksbefreier

        Genetic Modification in the sense of directly inserting, removing and altering genes within organisms in a timespan of less than a thousand years is a relatively new technology in comparison to other, more time – proven – to – be – safe ones.

        Simply going full ahead with a new technology which still needs to be studied more is incredibly unwise. We’ve done such many times in the past as a society with horrifying results, including birth defects (a huge array of chemicals, including naturally occurring ones), lowered I.Q. (lead additive in fuel, along with other chemicals), nuclear bombs (radioactive contamination), properly contained nuclear reactors (radioactive contamination), many pesticides like DDT (birth defects, postnatal hormonal system abnormalities and issues), fire retardants and electrical stabilizer chemicals like PCBs and PBDEs (lowered I.Q.s, brain damage, hormonal system problems, birth defects), the list goes on.

        You’re telling me to trust GMOs? MONSANTO is telling me to trust GMOs, the same chemical which produced Agent Orange, PCBs, rBGH, Aspartame, Saccharin and covered up the true dangers of these chemicals?

        Perhaps I should simply follow the orders of that man in the all – black uniform with Swastikas and go to the camp which none of my other family members returned from and rumor has it that they died.

        • Stephan Neidenbach

          Wow, enough red herrings to feed a family for a life time. How about just one risk that applies to biotech crops on the market now, that doesn’t apply to conventional crops. Just one.

          • Volksbefreier

            Red herrings? Boy, please inform me of when prior to the past 100 years genes were directly removed, inserted, and modified from an organism within a timespan of less than a thousand years.

            I just trashed your argument. Go back to momma Monsanto and cry for Roundup playtime.

          • Stephan Neidenbach

            Will give you two examples right off the top of my head. The Russett Burbank potato in the 1800s. Crossbreeding goes back at least to 1720 with an Englishman making a hybrid carnation/Sweet William. The Church feared Fairchild was “playing god” when he did that.

          • Volksbefreier

            The hybrid carnation / Sweet William wasn’t for eating. Keep that in mind.

            The Russet Burbank potato is a fair example, but it doesn’t prove my other points wrong. Modern GMOs in fact have more potential for unintended affects than ones 200 years old which have still had time to evolve.

            And of course we are actually finding out now that fried potatoes especially Russet Burbanks are full of toxins even when organic.

          • hyperzombie

            Russet Burbanks are full of toxins even when organic.”
            Wow, then you really just love the new GMO potatoes, less toxins when fried, ain’t science great.

          • Volksbefreier

            The new GMO potatoes have other big risks.

            The solution is to not eat fried potatoes.

          • Peter Olins

            That would be un-American.

          • hyperzombie

            Un Canadian as well…..how can you make Poutine without fried spuds?

          • Peter Olins

            Poutine is an affront to humanity. In the wrong hands it could quite possibly cause an irreparable tear in the fabric of space-time. While I respect your judgement, HZ, even you may not have the strength to control it.

            Step away from the Poutine.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            You have over steeped your bounds sir, Tears in the space time continuum are best left to those with real expertise. To speak on the topic is to invite disaster into the “5th Dimension” Thus negating any attempt to complete the coded activity known as a “stone soul picnic” Spock would not approve.

          • Peter Olins

            To quote my niece, who has a far more sophisticated grasp of these issues,

            “whatever”.

          • Volksbefreier

            I’m American. If I stop eating fried potatoes will I be deported?

          • gmoeater

            What risks? What are you talking about? These GE potatoes do not contain a certain kind of cancer causing ingredient. You are completely backward on your claim. I would love to see some documentation on this claim. But yes, that’s a great solution for you, if you are afraid of those kind of potatoes. Don’t eat them. Elegant solution. Leave the rest of us alone to eat whatever potatoes we want

          • Volksbefreier

            No independent review of the potato. No valid safety testing. A corrupted FDA which doesn’t care about public health.

            Because evidence hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It means we are probably looking to the wrong people to look for it.

          • JP

            Gotta love the “nobody’s found any basis to my paranoia but that just means nobody has looked hard enough” argument.

          • Volksbefreier

            Nice strawman. How many more you got?

          • Guest

            A concise description of your approach to debating does not constitute a strawman.

          • Volksbefreier

            What he said was not a “concise description of my approach to debating.”

            It was a misrepresentation of my argument – a common PR tactic.

          • Guest

            Sorry, no, he nailed it. You might look into why you’re the only one who doesn’t realize this.

          • Volksbefreier

            Explain how he “nailed it.” I’ve already tried to find out why, and haven’t discovered why.

            In fact what he did was misrepresent my argument and then defeat his own version of it – which is invalid.

          • Guest

            You have reinforced the principles that science should be peer-reviewed, a person should not represent themselves in court, and a person cannot serve as their own therapist.

          • Volksbefreier

            “You have reinforced the principles that science should be peer-reviewed,
            a person should not represent themselves in court, and a person cannot
            serve as their own therapist.”

            “You have reinforced the principles that science should be peer-reviewed,” – Well, ermm. Alright. Thanks.

            This isn’t about court. A court case, and the legal system, is different from pure logic. It’s heavily influenced by society – which isn’t based on logic, it’s based on traditions, cultural aspects, etc.

            What’s that about therapy? Bullshit, that’s what it is.

          • Guest

            The point
            ________

            Your head

          • agscienceliterate

            Yeah, why don’t go out for a couple of years and look for it. Report back later, after you’ve found it. See ya.

          • hyperzombie

            What other big risks? Too much potato awesomeness for people to take? Way to delicious? Less expensive?

          • Volksbefreier

            No independent review of the potato. No valid safety testing. A corrupted FDA which doesn’t care about public health.

            Less expensive? Yes, for an individual who lives his life in the present without thought of future health problems which will cost thousands of dollars to merely “treat” instead of prevent.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Name and explain the “other big risks” this should be entertaining.

          • Volksbefreier

            I’ve already done it – but I will do it again.

            1. GMOs simply have not been tested enough with long – term term studies, and follow – up studies to shorter ones by independent scientists.

            2. GMOs have been found “guilty” of being toxic several times but these studies were shamed and the scientists who made them shunned forever. Wouldn’t it make sense to instead thoroughly review the studies and refute them instead of using the biotech industries’ propaganda to smear the scientists?

            3. GMOs are very able at genetically contaminating other similar breeds. This can and will destroy all un – modified populations of the crop’s species.

            4. GMOs are being produced by the same companies which also produced other toxic chemicals and denied their toxicity. Simply looking back over the past decades you will see it happen time and time again ; Monsanto and many other chemical manufacturers created veritable walls of public denial of their chemical’s toxicity through lobbying, bribery, and PR campaigns. It really WAS a conspiracy which has been proven to exist, so you can’t call people who talk about it “theorists” anymore.

            5. GMOs are a relatively new technology. This in itself is a big risk.

            6. GMOs are being supported by scientists who refuse to use the precautionary principle. In the past, when the precautionary principle has been ignored, horrible results have followed especially when it is the very scientists who are supposed to be protecting the public that toss it away.

            7. Many GMOs REQUIRE non – organism based pesticides to be sprayed on them to grow properly. This will be an environmental holocaust if their genes which force them to require pesticides to survive make it into all similar species through crossbreeding.

            8. GMOs are being supported by the uninformed members of the public who aren’t aware of the issues. This in the past has caused regulatory delays in banning toxic chemicals, when the public simply believed that the chemicals were safe because they relied on what industry tells them or flawed studies by people affiliated with industry.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Well, that is a long list of errors. Especially 7. Unless you can list a few crops that “require” pesticides or they will not grow.and can then show how they will come to be dominant without those pesticides.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Yeah this persons supposed “knowledge ” on the issues is a joke, I went back and forth all day yesterday. They don’t believe organic farmers use mutagenic crops and they’re personal food ideology is only plant breeding method from before 1940 are acceptable.

            They think Percy Schmeiser stealing traited crops was a justified act of civil disobedience and see opposition to modern plant breeding as a way to stick it to the man and hurt corporations, science be damned.

            They don’t believe in the rule of law relating to IP and just absolutely adore Jeffrey Smith, and consider him to be an expert.

            It’s probably just better to walk away rather than engage this guy. just a fair warning. They had every opportunity to amend their beliefs to align with the evidence but instead just kept shifting goal posts.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Yup, folks like this are why I was so glad to see Purdue’s president speak up and ISU ignore the banana protesters.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Take a look up at the comments he just made. Pretty funny in some ways. Very sad in reality thought.

          • JP

            When your only argument is “because biotech companies,” you can see the shadows of that argument behind everything. Those kinds of people are beyond reasoning.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Yeah, his thinking is highly conspiratorial.

            I guess on the upside, his arguments aren’t taken seriously by most politicians and almost all academics. So while it rattles our cages and we can see the damage his kind of thinking could potentially have, I’m fairly confident our nations policies are insulated from such lunacy.

          • Volksbefreier

            A long list of errors? And how?

            Most of you people just argue on semantics and ignore the bigger idea. GMOs are unwanted and VERY PROBABLY toxic. The public does not want GMOs even if they keep eating them. It’s going to reach a breaking point where Monsanto is thrown out eventually.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            No, they are wanted. That is why farmers buy them. The demand will increase as the disease resistant and nutritionally enhanced varieties are released. There is no evidence they are toxic. http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html And the biotech companies and researchers all deserve a round of applause from the rest of us.

          • Volksbefreier

            “There is no evidence they are toxic.”

            Pusztai study, which you tried to claim was toxic but failed.

            “And the biotech companies and researchers all deserve a round of applause from the rest of us.”

            Give em a round of applause, boys. Agent Orange was beneficial.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            AO is not a g.e. crop. But just might be a clever name for the g.e. citrus being developed by U.F, IFAS here in Florida. I will suggest this. Thanks.

          • Volksbefreier

            When did I say Agent Orange was a GMO crop?

            Agent Orange is an example of a past chemical at one point touted as “beneficial through consensus” by “scientists” who were supported by corporate money and the corporation itself who created it.

            Do you understand now?

          • JP

            Somebody REALLY needs to learn some history and not keep making it up as he/she goes.

          • Volksbefreier

            But it’s actually true. Was Agent Orange safe?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Agent Orange itself isn’t “a chemical “. It is actually a mixture of 2 synthetic plant auxins, 2,4D and 2,4,5T.

            Those compounds aren’t the problem.

            The issue was that the hasty production of 2,4,5 T resulted in the creation of a dioxin called TCDD. its the TCDD that’s the problem. The government/military was informed of this impurity but it was disregarded.

            So are the components of Agent Orange “safe”, yes. They’re two synthetic plant auxins, which are just chemicals that regulate plant growth. Was the use of Agent Orange by the US military safe? Absolutely not especially after they were warned to the contaminant.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Those compounds aren’t the problem.

            The issue was that the
            hasty production of 2,4,5 T resulted in the creation of a dioxin called
            TCDD. its the TCDD that’s the problem. The government/military was
            informed of this impurity but it was disregarded.”

            So Agent Orange was toxic, and the U.S. Government was informed of the toxicity .but the warnings were ignored.

            GMOs are toxic, and the FDA’s own scientists warned the government of such. But the warnings were likewise ignored. Thus the same tactics, at the very base, are being used to defend GMOs as Agent Orange.

            You’re point being….?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            No, the dioxin impurity was toxic. It’s constituent components were not.

            GE crops are not toxic.

            Have you been reading Steven Drukers garbage book? You already admitted a slavish devotion to Jeffrey Smith. His cult compatriot Drukers latest book is of the same poor quality and you appear to be simply parroting the same unsubstantiated nonsense that the two have been trying to push for years.

          • Volksbefreier

            “GE crops are not toxic.”

            Bullshit, the FDA’s own fucking scientists said they were and were ignored, some got “removed” from the FDA, too.

            “No, the dioxin impurity was toxic. It’s constituent components were not.”

            But the Agent Orange was inherently toxic because of the impurity. Are you autistic?

            “Have you been reading Steven Drukers garbage book? You already admitted a
            slavish devotion to Jeffrey Smith. His cult compatriot Drukers latest
            book is of the same poor quality and you appear to be simply parroting
            the same unsubstantiated nonsense that the two have been trying to push
            for years.”

            When did I admit a “slavish devotion to Jeffrey Smith”? Are you insane? Hallucinating?

            “Have you been reading Steven Drukers garbage book?”

            Thing is, you likely haven’t even read it to know what is in it, while I read pro – GMO websites all the time and discredit them.

            “His cult compatriot Drukers latest
            book is of the same poor quality and you appear to be simply parroting
            the same unsubstantiated nonsense that the two have been trying to push
            for years.”

            Butttttttt plenty of evidence exists for my claims. You are the one parroting the same old arguments.

            The difference between what I say and what you say is that ;

            What you say is supported by appeals to authority, bandwagoning, and strawmen (logical fallacies) along with some misleading semantic – based arguments tossed in,

            While what I say is frankly simply logical and based, too, on common sense. I don’t argue based on semantics to try to fool people who can’t decode them.

          • JP

            Wow. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just spitting out claims with absolutely no basis at this point.

          • Volksbefreier

            I’ve already given you so much evidence in favor of my claims.

          • JP

            No you haven’t. All you’ve really provided is circular reasoning. You think biotech companies are evil, therefore you think everything they do is evil and that evil is pervasive, therefore they must evil and should be eliminated.

          • Volksbefreier

            ” You think biotech companies are evil, therefore you think everything
            they do is evil and that evil is pervasive, therefore they must evil and
            should be eliminated.”

            Not EVERYTHING they do is evil. Bribing scientists to make them into shills in return, corrupting the regulatory process by inserting veritable “agents” like Michael R. Taylor, and preventing independent research on their products is evil. Evil really is pervasive in these companies because the companies use these tactics.

            The benefits presented by biotech companies to society are outweighed by the risks. The same is true with their toxic products which are approved through their sneeringly corrupt and arrogant tactics.

            Sure if biotech companies stop being so toxic to society they wouldn’t have to be terminated.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Specifics isn’t semantics mon frere and I deal in the former.

            Citing the global scientific consensus of experts isn’t a fallacious appeal to authority. It’s an appeal to the correct authority. Citing Jeffry Smith and Steven Druker is a fallacious appeal to authority, since while they may be experts in things like yogic flying and losing lawsuits their expertise does not extend into matters dealing with genetics and plant breeding.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Citing Jeffry Smith and Steven Druker is a fallacious appeal to
            authority, since while they may be experts in things like yogic flying
            and losing lawsuits their expertise does not extend into matters dealing
            with genetics and plant breeding.”

            It is not an appeal to authority at all. It is citing them and using what they have said because the concerns they raise are valid – you can’t exactly call them authority figures because they aren’t in positions of authority on, well, anything really, and I don’t even regard them as leaders.

            On the other hand, citing a global consensus and using the faulty evidence given by pro – industry scientists / the industry itself IS an appeal to authority and bandwagoning / appealing to conformity, because the global consensus is created by “experts and authorities” in their corresponding fields who are pro – biotech, sometimes paid by biotech to support Biotech publicly. You can’t deny this and still be telling the truth. Citing a “global consensus” for anything is in itself an appeal to conformity because it is basically saying “most scientists say it’s alright, so therefore it is alright regardless of the evidence.”

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Do you not appeal to scientific authority on other matters, like climate change?

            Same thing here, infact the consensus is stronger for biotechnology.

            So what you’re suggesting is that the biotech industry which is tiny compared to the petroleum industry can buy a consensus but fossil fuels couldn’t?

          • Volksbefreier

            “Do you not appeal to scientific authority on other matters, like climate change?”

            Scientific authority / consensus on climate change aren’t supported by any huge industry which has financial interests in promoting them. Scientific authority / consensus on GMOs are, which makes it an appeal to authority with no basis in logic.

            “Same thing here, infact the consensus is stronger for biotechnology.”

            That’s simply bullshit. The “consensus” among pro – biotech scientists can’t even be used because it is logically invalid.

            “So what you’re suggesting is that the biotech industry which is tiny
            compared to the petroleum industry can buy a consensus but fossil fuels
            couldn’t?”

            Climate science and regulatory science for foods are two different things, so yes the biotech industry is able to buy a consensus while the petrol industry isn’t.

            Climate scientists extremely rarely have financial interests in proving that the world’s global climate is changing. They do not need to ask the petrol industry for permission to study the climate. Climate scientists cannot be easily forced into a pro – petroleum industry consensus because of these factors.

            Food regulatory scientists quite often have financial interest in proving a certain product is safe, but rarely in proving it unsafe. This is because many accept money from the very industries which produce the products they are supposed to regulate. They do need to ask the biotech industry for permission to study a given product produced by the industry because most of these products are protected by patent law from studying them without permission from the patentholders. Thus, food regulatory scientists are easily bent into a consensus, because they nearly 100% of the time willingly bend to the will of biotech when they are being paid by biotech or have a financial interest in approving a biotech product. After the pro – biotech scientists get their “consensus” assigned to them by biotech, it is forced upon the rest of regulatory scientists.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            What ever you say buddy.

            It was interesting to watch the senate Ag committee during its meeting today. While their was some debate on how to address consumer interest in labeling, the entire committee was unanimous that the scientific evidence shows the safety and utility of GE crops. Democrats Republicans all in agreement about the scientific evidence.

            what you and a minority of people believe about genetic engineering doesn’t really matter. We live in a world where people still deny evolution and geology and believe in ghosts and spirits. I guess I’ll just have to come to grips with the fact there are people like you who are just the agricultural equivalent of a young earth creationist. You have no respect to facts or the evidence and instead just see the whole world as being prey to a nefarious cabal and you’re self as the righteous defender. But in reality youre just don Quixote tipping at windmills.

          • agscienceliterate

            And the windmills always, always win.

          • False. Climate scientists have a massive conflict of interest because the amount of pork available to them is determined by their findings on the AGW threat.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Yes, I understand completely. You are a liar as there was never a consensus that AO was safe. Further Monsanto warned the military that it is not safe. Also, The creator of AO was not a corporation.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Yes, I understand completely. You are a liar as there was never a consensus that AO was safe.”

            Yet you state that GMOs are safe when as much of a “consensus” exists on GMOs as did about Agent Orange.

            “Further Monsanto warned the military that it is not safe. Also, The creator of AO was not a corporation.”

            Monsanto warned the military that it wasn’t safe, and the government didn’t listen.

            However FDA’s own scientists warned the government that GMOs likely are not safe, and the government didn’t listen this time either.

            “Also, The creator of AO was not a corporation.”

            Ermmm, alright. That isn’t even relevant to the basic point of my claims.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            There is no basic point to your claims

          • Volksbefreier

            My point is that Monsanto and other biotech companies which wield immense power are too dangerous to humanity to exist and should be eliminated.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Nope, You have no evidence. [see Judy] and many of the products are beneficial. That is why they are purchased. Strike 49285 and yer out.

          • Volksbefreier

            I’m not “out.” I’ve already given you evidence which you dismissed as being “outrageous”, “absurd” and “provided by shills” – (not with this specific wording.)

            The products are beneficial if you are very narrowminded and shortsighted, yes they are beneficial to farmers in the short term (until they start causing loss of non – GMO species and super – resistant insects) – otherwise you realize just how dangerous they are.

          • JP

            You’re missing quite a few steps of logic to get to that conclusion, especially for someone who continues to state how logical he thinks he is.

          • Volksbefreier

            Show me what “steps of logic” I am missing. Simply jumping to saying “the consensus exists so therefore it’s safe” is missing many steps of logic, because it ignores the fact that most scientists who support the consensus either do it because :

            They want to be a part of the already existing consensus and are afraid of speaking up about the flaws with this (note not all of these apply with eachother at the same time for every single scientist who supports the consensus on GMOs. Don’t say this and be a clown again.)

            They are paid by biotech;

            They work at organizations, like universities and nonprofits, which are also paid by biotech or pro – biotech even without being paid by biotech;

            They are biotech shills quite simply and are puppets controlled by biotech;

            They know that GMOs are toxic but ignore the evidence because it’s too inconvenient;

            They are working at a biotech company which makes GMOs or would be benefited by more GMOs being sold;

            They are unaware of the evidence that GMOs are unsafe and support the consensus without knowing about this evidence, thinking the consensus is actually based on non – twisted and PR spun science.

          • JP

            Or, the more simple (and correct) explanation: GMOs actually are safe, and that’s what the evidence continues to show.

            Oh, I forgot. The evidence doesn’t actually show that because biotech companies.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Or, the more simple (and correct) explanation: GMOs actually are safe, and that’s what the evidence continues to show.”

            Fuck you mate.

            “Oh, I forgot. The evidence doesn’t actually show that because biotech companies.”

            No, it’s because of corruption, conformity, and bribery in the name of profit – which biotech companies practice.

          • JP

            “Fuck you mate.”

            Strong refutation. I mean, you just tore my premise to pieces with that zinger, and you demonstrated clear knowledge of the topic. Don’t know how I’m ever going to recover.

          • Volksbefreier

            I already refuted that specific argument, so I can use a pure insult when you bring it back up.

          • JP

            No, you didn’t.

          • agscienceliterate

            It’s either profanity, or shill accusations, when there is nothing more to hurl, even dog poop. I think we have seen this in at least one of our current presidential candidates, who also has nothing to offer except garbage and insults. Some people do buy into it, however. The rest of us? Not so compelling.

          • Jason

            Modern GMOs in fact have more potential for unintended affects than ones 200 years old which have still had time to evolve.

            According to what evidence? The world wide concensus seems to be just the opposite. So what information do you have that they don’t?

          • Volksbefreier

            The worldwide consensus is between pro – industry scientists. The evidence rests with them, but all of their thousands of studies are biased due to the way GMOs are patented.

            Because evidence of danger hasn’t been discovered yet doesn’t mean the crops are safe. It merely means most studies on the topic are highly biased to favor biotech’s interests.

          • Jason

            You’re so full of sh!t. I love how your reasoning for why no one has found evidence of harm is because “most studies are highly biased”.

            Yah….sounds legit. Good luck with that one.

          • Volksbefreier

            Thing is, most studies ARE biased and therefore any findings which show that GMOs are harmful are never published because of the bias.

            It’s legitimate. I don’t see why you support a company which has poisoned millions and hid the evidence.

          • Jason

            Oh yes…. Of course! The studies are biased because you don’t agree with the results. Makes sense.

            I’m not supporting any company. I’m supporting a technology that science has shown to be safe and useful.

            Your arguments sound like those of someone getting all their info off of Facebook.

          • Volksbefreier

            No, the studies are biased because they withhold certain information which would be vital to forming a conclusion on whether GMOs are safe or not.

            Most of them have totally opaque source sampling methods. They are all made with permission from biotech companies which is a conflict of interest and many are created WITH MONEY FROM biotech.

            I don’t understand how you can consciously support a company which was responsible and is responsible for countless lost lives. I’d estimate and others do too that Monsanto has caused MILLIONS of lives to have been ruined, but that’s just approximate.

            How can you support a corporation responsible for mass poisoning?

            You are making me sick. You and all the others who support this corporation.

            Think about all of the Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange, all of those Vietnamese babies born defective in ways ranging from subtle to extreme, all of those people poisoned by PCB dumping, all of those people exposed to DDT and damaged forever.

            All of the animals with smaller bodies which are more easily poisoned who are now damaged. They are living beings. They can feel pain. They have brains.

            Monsanto covered up the evidence that those chemicals were toxic. They are doing the same with Roundup and GMOs.

          • Jason

            No, the studies are biased because they withhold certain information which would be vital to forming a conclusion on whether GMOs are safe or not.

            For example? You’re being exceptionally vague here. And while you’re at it, how could it be that literally thousands of studies all concluding more or less the same thing are all withholding information without anybody (but you) finding out about it?? Sounds like you have yourself a Pulitzer prize winning piece of journalism here… So? Where’s the evidence?

            They are all made with permission from biotech companies which is a conflict of interest and many are created WITH MONEY FROM biotech.

            So, all of the independent studies were also funded by biotech companies?? That doesn’t seem quite right. Anybody can go buy GMO grain and run any tests on it they want to run. You should probably look into that a bit more. What about this one? Was it “industry funded” too?
            https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

            You seem to have missed it the last time I said this. I’m not supporting any corporation. I’m supporting science. And I enjoy exposing people who make up flat-out lies just because they have a hard on for one of the companies involved in biotech.

          • Volksbefreier

            Examples : http://www.psrast.org/criticssuppr.htm

            I’m not the only one who knows about this. Clearly if that were true a LOT fewer anti – GMO people would exist.

            “So, all of the independent studies were also funded by biotech
            companies?? That doesn’t seem quite right. Anybody can go buy GMO
            grain and run any tests on it they want to run. You should probably
            look into that a bit more. What about this one? Was it “industry
            funded” too?”

            No, I said SOME of them are / were funded by Biotech. Regardless they were all produced with permission from biotech and a lot of the researchers forced to sign forms saying that they can’t release info pertaining to “Trade Secrets” on GMOs.

            Yes anyone can go buy GMO seeds and run tests but they risk being sued if they don’t get permission from the company who owns the patents first.

            You’ve clearly demonstrated that you don’t support science.

            Nearly all of the studies on GMOs aren’t science. They are bullshit.

            These aren’t lies. The website we are on is based on those, though.

          • JP

            So, really, you have absolutely no evidence that the studies are flawed in any way. All you have is your belief that they must be, because biotech industry.

          • Volksbefreier

            ….

            Did you even look at the link?

          • JP

            Yep. I see a flying yoga instructor with no education in agriculture or genetics complaining that proven crap science was proven to be crap.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Flying yoga instructor”? That’s an ad hominem attack…..

            He has no education in agriculture or genetics? Oh, please. That doesn’t mean he knows too little to be an activist in both fields.

          • JP

            You’re right. It takes no special knowledge to be an activist. Of course, being an activist doesn’t give one carte blanche to completely make up claims and cherrypick things like he does.

          • Volksbefreier

            Show me one example of him cherrypicking.

            Just a single one.

            It seems to me like you are doing the cherrypicking and others like you in regulatory agencies when they toss out info which would harm the safety “consensus” on GMOs and keep the “evidence” of them being safe.

          • JP

            His entire Pustazi example leaves out any of the glaring errors of Pustazi’s study, and that the study didn’t at all conclude what he did in his TV appearance.

          • Volksbefreier

            What were the glaring errors of the study? I’m curious.

          • JP
          • Volksbefreier

            “Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work”

            What were the names of these specific “experts?” Did they have ties to biotech? Whom funded them? And when were they funded? This info isn’t revealed.

            “No differences were seen between the groups of animals”

            Differences WERE found. Differences in internal organ sizes were discovered. The study was never followed – up so it’s impossible to know if the differences were random, or if they would have kept occurring had more studies been done repeatedly. THIS DOESN’T MEAN GMOS DO NOT CAUSE ORGAN ABNORMALITIES. IT MERELY MEANS GMOS HAVEN’T BEEN STUDIED ENOUGH.

            “Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure”

            That was just the only way to feed the rats using potatoes. The rats were also given the same types of supplements to help them cope long enough. The “raw potato” group wasn’t used to draw any conclusions about the other groups.

            “Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV”

            I’m not sure what this is for. What is it intended to prove? Arpad made his findings public near immediately in an attempt to get the message that his findings revealed to the public ASAP. Then the website goes on and says “Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound either.” So what is the point? Was he not supposed to public his findings at all? That would have been excellent for industry, mind you.

            Arpad Pusztai was a perfectly respected scientist – before he published his inconvenient study. Sounds suspicious to me. Last of all, Academics Review doesn’t even reveal it’s funding sources, and HAS THE SAME WEBSITE FORMAT AS MANY PRO – GMO PR WEBSITES.

          • JP

            You’re beyond help if your only refutation is to presume evil biotech companies behind every corner and complaints of your arbitrary designation of how much study is enough.

          • Volksbefreier

            But biotech companies really are nearly everywhere when it comes to who is behind studies on GMO crops…. it isn’t fallacious to say this, it’s actually true. They wield enormous power.

            My “arbitrary designation of how many studies are enough?”

            If you study a pesticide once, with zero proper follow up studies which use the same methods to look and see if the effects shown were randomized or actually caused by the pesticide, or if new effects appear, it isn’t studying the pesticide enough – especially if the study was sponsored by the company who makes the pesticide which represents a conflict of interest.

          • JP

            Well, it’s a damn good thing that’s not what has happened then, huh?

          • Volksbefreier
          • Guest

            How about you provide us with a citation or two to back up your claim, rather than dazzling us with your response above?

          • Volksbefreier

            You didn’t even tell me what the flaws with the Pusztai study were. I looked at a pro – industry website which purported to be able to show the flaws of the study, but I myself figured out why the website fails at doing so.

          • gmoeater

            Why, I do believe you are on Smith’s payroll. Your defense of his woo is beyond the pale.

          • Volksbefreier

            “woo”

            So when pro GM scientists make claims that GMOs will solve world hunger when we already have enough food to feed everyone, it’s not woo?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c1e193ddb986c081d2fa8257974fe7b48a3082493aec58761045c19bc2b87b5.jpg

          • JP

            Strawman. No scientist has claimed that GMOs on their own.

          • JP

            *will solve world hunger.

          • Volksbefreier

            Monsanto “scientists” have.

          • JP

            No, they haven’t.

          • Volksbefreier

            Whatever you say.

            Monsanto’s website says it.

          • JP

            Point me to it, then, bud. Shouldn’t be difficult.

          • Volksbefreier
          • JP

            I’m sorry, I must be missing it. Where on that page does it even mention GMOs?

          • Volksbefreier

            Is it not obvious that the website link I gave you implies use of GMOs?

            http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/our-commitment-to-sustainable-agriculture.aspx

          • JP

            No, it’s not obvious at all. In fact, the only breeding method they specifically name is hybrids. In addition, they mention other methods of conserving water and being able to produce more food. I’d say that page and there “who we are” statement projects a much more comprehensive set of solutions than your overly simplistic characterization of “GMOs will feed the world.”

          • Volksbefreier

            “I’d say that page and there “who we are” statement projects a much more
            comprehensive set of solutions than your overly simplistic
            characterization of “GMOs will feed the world.”

            Yes, comprehensive for making tidy profits for Monsanto, but not for doing what it purports to actually do.

          • JP

            There goes your circular logic again.

          • Volksbefreier

            Monsanto makes product —> Monsanto agents inserted into FDA to approve product —> Monsanto product begins moving through regulatory process —> Monsanto agents approve product and ignore resistance from FDA scientists —> Product makes it to market and is publicly proclaimed safe —> Product begins moving through regulatory processes in other countries —> Independent non – U.S. based scientist completes study on product, finds that it is toxic —> Monsanto uses FDA approval as evidence that it’s safe, smears scientist and ruins his reputation

            So Monsanto isn’t practicing circular logic?

          • JP

            Do you believe that every GMO-producing company has “agents” in the FDA to make sure their products get approved? If not, how does Syngenta’s products get approved, or J.R. Simplot’s potatoes, or Arctic Apples? Your conspiracy theory is really starting to stretch the limits of Occam’s Razor.

          • Volksbefreier

            Syngenta is basically Monsanto.

            J.R. Simplot spends millions on lobbying the U.S. government into accepting their products, so they’ve corrupted the government and doubtlessly have turned many govenment officials into their agents. Arctic Apples doesn’t even reveal how much money they have spent on lobbying.

          • JP

            Wow. You really are as paranoid as you seem. You really do see biotech company shadows everywhere you look. I feel sorry for you.

          • agscienceliterate

            What is wrong with Monsanto (and Syngenta and Bayer) making profits? If they sell what farmers want, and what consumers are obviously buying off the grocery shelves, how is that a problem? Do you similarly have a problem with the organic industry making $70 billion a year? Or, in your Alice-in-Wonderland thinking, are only SOME profits okay, and others not?
            ALL food addresses world hunger. Some food growing methods have more yields and sustainability environmentally than other growing methods.
            Your continual posts to a flying yoga dance instructor link are nothing less than irrelevant and ludicrous.

          • Volksbefreier

            “What is wrong with Monsanto (and Syngenta and Bayer) making profits?”

            History has shown that when these companies make profits it’s usually because they mislead the public using PR propaganda, buy their way into regulatory agencies and then approve their own products, and “purchase” scientists to advocate for them.

            Of course, later on, the “anti – science” people who tried informing the public on these facts and were ignored are revealed to have been speaking the truth, when government agencies finally ban one or multiple of their products for being toxic, which has been done.

            ” If they sell what farmers want, and what consumers are obviously buying off the grocery shelves, how is that a problem?”

            The consumers only buy their products because they are unaware of the truth about these companies, are willingly ignorant about the truth, or are simply “brainwashed” by corporate propaganda by these companies into believing that buying their products is in their best interest.

            If the public was informed, most agrochemical companies would probably be in shambles because their H.Q.s would be burned down to the ground.

            Profits themselves fuel more profits and more immoral and corrupt behavior when it comes to agrochemical companies. It’s the way corporations achieve them using money through deceit, propaganda, lobbying, and corruption which make too much profit an issue.

            “ALL food addresses world hunger. Some food growing methods have more
            yields and sustainability environmentally than other growing methods.”

            Yes, all food addresses “world hunger”, but world hunger isn’t the problem – it’s lack of nutrition itself, but if the nutrition is supplied by corporations which enslave the people and force them to keep buying their seeds, what’s the point?

            GMOs aren’t even properly safety tested, so no feeding the world using GMOs is not a good idea at all especially when you add in the slavery which stops farmers from saving seeds. It’s systematic exploitation in the name of profit.

            “Your continual posts to a flying yoga dance instructor link are nothing less than irrelevant and ludicrous.”

            Nice parroted bullshit, say it again so I can show why it’s idiotic again, will you?

          • agscienceliterate

            Uh huh. But when the organic industry makes such claims, and lets woo internet hype-sters like Mercola, Seralini, Smith, Benbrook, and others profit by their false claims, that is perfectly okay with you.
            Your truthiness does not pass my sniff test, my consistency test, my logic test, or my scientific acumen test. Nonetheless, people are free to buy into whatever woo they wish to believe. There is always someone ready to make a buck off you.

          • Volksbefreier

            Organic foods which aren’t sprayed with large amounts of pesticides of any kind are fundamentally safer for humanity than ones sprayed with artificial pesticides, large amounts of pesticides of any kind, or are genetically engineered. It doesn’t matter if certain shysters promote them with lies, because this assertion that they are safe is also supported by fact.

            Organic foods, historically, and in modern times, poison people because of bacterial contamination, or in only a few cases faulty breeding.

            GMOs, spraying large amounts of pesticides on crops, and using artificial pesticides are now being proven to cause insects and other pests to develop resistance to pesticides, more so than Organic foods which are rarely sprayed with large amounts of pesticides, even natural ones. Thus they are inherently less safe and likely will cause thousands of people to die if crop failures result from these, which they are in India, increasingly, more and more resistant organisms.

            This is also part of the reason why claims that “GMOs will increase crop yields” are ignorant.

          • agscienceliterate

            Absolutely false. In my area, GE farmers have a 30% yield increase over their previous non-GE crops. I do not know where you get your misinformation, but you are full of incredible misinformation. Internet sites? At any rate, there is no point in further communication, as you doggedly continue to dispute well-known findings about yield, sustainability, environmental benefits, and health studies. You are happy with your misinformation, and we will leave it at that.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Strawman. No scientist has claimed that GMOs on their own.”

            What is this even intended to mean?

          • gmoeater

            That is how he is described on his own website.
            Man, you do not read anything before you post, do you?
            I agree with you that activists don’t need to know anything in order to be activists. That’s what makes them activists. That, however, does not give them any credibility. An ignorant activist is not worth listening to.

          • Volksbefreier

            But it’s an ad hominem attack – an attack on his personal traits in an attempt to invalidate what he says, which is a fallacious line of bullshitty reasoning.

            So if I describe myself as Christian and say that God is watching over me and if I trust God he will magically make me go to heaven it’s perfectly fine and it can’t invalidate what I say, but not if I am a flying yogic instructor?

            Obvious hypocrisy

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Sometimes add hominem attacks are correct. In order to be an ad hominem fallacy. there would need to be error.

          • Volksbefreier

            The ad hominem fallacy is in itself an error. Stop using white lies and PR spin tactics – which is literally what you just did.

          • Jason

            Jeffrey Smith??? The Yogic Flying instructor??

            Get back with me when you have legitimate sources. You’re being fooled by activist nonsense.

            Yes anyone can go buy GMO seeds and run tests but they risk being sued if they don’t get permission from the company who owns the patents first.

            This is how I know you’re clueless. This is a very common activist argument and one that is totally without merit. No one eats the seeds that Monsanto or any other GMO company sells. They eat the grain that is produced by those seeds. And anyone can obtain gmo grain and run any tests they want to run. There are no contracts that are signed in order to buy GMO grain.

            Nearly all of the studies on GMOs aren’t science. They are bullshit.

            I bet it’s really easy to come to the conclusion you want when you discount all of the evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.

          • Volksbefreier

            Explain how Jeffrey Smith has been “discredited.” Tell me – what did he do wrong?

            What do you mean legitimate sources? The U.S. government or universities which BOTH RECEIVE MONEY FROM BIOTECH? Or purported “INDEPENDENT” agencies which, too, receive money from Biotech and support flawed shit studies?

            “This is how I know you’re clueless. This is a very common activist
            argument and one that is totally without merit. No one eats the seeds
            that Monsanto or any other GMO company sells. They eat the grain that
            is produced by those seeds. And anyone can obtain gmo grain and run any
            tests they want to run. There are no contracts that are signed in
            order to buy GMO grain.”

            Way to misrepresent my argument. “No one eats seeds that Monsanto or any GMO company sells?” Never said they do. The seeds are what is patented.

            I already said that people who run truly independent studies like you suggest run the risk of being sued. GMO grain is patented for god’s sake.

            All of the “EVIDENCE” to the contrary isn’t evidence. It’s pseudoscience.

            At one point Agent Orange was claimed safe. Remember that.

          • JP

            No, it wasn’t.

          • Jason

            Explain how Jeffrey Smith has been “discredited.”

            YOGIC FLYING.

            Way to misrepresent my argument. “No one eats seeds that Monsanto or any GMO company sells?” Never said they do.

            You said that people risk lawsuits for doing independent testing. I showed why that is a B.S. argument. The seeds are patented, but feeding trials aren’t done with the seeds. There is no risk of lawsuit from testing GMO feed.

            At one point Agent Orange was claimed safe. Remember that.

            No. I do not remember that. In fact, AO has never been approved for use on any crops in the US at all. It was used only by the Dept of Defense during war time.

          • Volksbefreier

            “YOGIC FLYING.”

            Ummmm…. alright, but that’s an ad hominem. It doesn’t prove that he is scientifically illiterate. In that case scientists who believe in religions are all “quacks.”

            “You said that people risk lawsuits for doing independent testing. I
            showed why that is a B.S. argument. The seeds are patented, but feeding
            trials aren’t done with the seeds. There is no risk of lawsuit from
            testing GMO feed.”

            It isn’t really a BS argument. It merely has not happened yet, which doesn’t inherently mean it will never happen.

            The seeds are patented, indeed. Feeding trials aren’t done with SEEDS but are done with the plants which grow from them. The seeds contain genetic encoding used in the plants, so studying them is somewhat risky because the genes of GMO plants are patented.

            “There is no risk of lawsuit from
            testing GMO feed.”

            This is false. It’s really like saying “there is no risk of all life on Earth going extinct” because it hasn’t happened yet. That is idiocy and ignorance of the very real risk.

          • Jason

            I don’t care if you consider it ad hominem or not. He automatically disqualifies himself from any serious discussions because of that.

            If that’s not enough, he goes on to cite 3 or 4 soundly discreditied studies as if they still have any merit.

            If you stand behind junk science, you are discrediting yourself.

            “There is no risk of lawsuit from testing GMO feed.”

            This is false. It’s really like saying “there is no risk of all life on Earth going extinct” because it hasn’t happened yet.

            No… it’s like saying “no one signs a contract and agrees to anything when they buy GMO feed so they can not be sued for breaching anything they didn’t sign or agree to.”

          • Volksbefreier

            “I don’t care if you consider it ad hominem or not. He automatically
            disqualifies himself from any serious discussions because of that.

            If that’s not enough, he goes on to cite 3 or 4 soundly discreditied studies as if they still have any merit.

            If you stand behind junk science, you are discrediting yourself.”

            “no one signs a contract and agrees to anything when they buy GMO feed
            so they can not be sued for breaching anything they didn’t sign or agree
            to.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c1e193ddb986c081d2fa8257974fe7b48a3082493aec58761045c19bc2b87b5.jpg

          • Guest

            Wow, really compelling argument.

          • Volksbefreier

            Compelling? Explain what you mean in this context.

          • Guest

            *Sarcasm*

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            I think this idiot is the result of modern breeding methods. A hybrid between Ted and TZ.

          • Volksbefreier

            I looked at that link you posted. The first study didn’t even verify that GM rice is safe for consumption.

          • Jason

            It does not matter. Your assertion is that all studies are industry funded. I provided an entire decade of studies that were not industry funded. So, now that you know that you claim is false, are you still going to keep repeating it? Because that would make you a liar.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            How long something has been around is no indication of safety.

            The sweet potato contains gene sequences from Agrobacterium it picked up during its domestication. We know this because the wild progenitor of sweet potato does not contain these sequences and all tested domestic cultivars do. So all domesticated sweet potato variety contain bacterial genes that were directly inserted into the wild ancestor of modern sweet potato.

            Checkmate

          • Volksbefreier

            What do you mean checkmate? The sweet potato is ancient and safe in comparison to GMOs.

            This means the sweet potato – which relies on human beings to survive now – has had thousands upon thousands of years to evolve into safety.

            Modern GMOs haven’t had this ability.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            That’s not how safety determination works.

            You’re trapped by several fallacious lines of reasoning. This one specifically is argumentum ad antiquitatem. You falsely believe something is safe because of how long it’s been around.

            Sweet potatos and the majority of GE crops are the result of the same process, agrobacterium mediated transformation. The safety of the process is equivalent regardless of when it happened.

          • Volksbefreier

            No, I am arguing that because something has been around for so long, in this context, it means indeed that enough time has been available for transparent, independent researchers – and / or simple evolution – to bring into light and eliminate toxic effects.

            Sweet potatoes and most GE crops both received genes from bacteria, but the ways in which this happened were different.

            Sweet potatoes had the agrobacterian genes given to them thousands of years ago, allowing the sweet potato to evolve and adapt to the change, people to force the sweet potato into being safe for consumption, and scientists to study it to ensure it is safe.

            Modern GE crops given bacteria, on the other hand, have appeared within the last 30 years, giving a very small timespan for the genetic terrain of the organisms to adapt to the change in such a way to ensure health of the crops and safety for mammals to consume them, and independent research simply isn’t tolerated on them.

            Thus the safety is not bloody damn equivalent between the ways Sweet Potatoes received bacterian genes and modern GE crops received them.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            No the way in which it happens is the same. It’s all agrobacterium mediated t-DNA transfer.

            You have some misunderstands about how evolution works mom frere. The cultivated sweet potato didn’t evolve and adapt to the change from the insertion of the bacterial DNA. the insertion occured over the course of a single generation. It’s hypothesized that the inserted DNA may have Influenced the storage structures we call the sweet potato (since the sweet potatoes wild relatives are vines in the morning glory family).giving those plants a selective advantage when it comes to artificial selection.

            Organisms don’t have to adapt to ensure safety of a gene insert. It either iis beneficial deleterious or has no function. This can be established because molecular biologists spend years categorizing the specific function of the targeted gene, figuring out its roles in biosynthetic pathways. They know what the specific gene does and they know how it is affected by and affects other genes. Your arguing from personal incredulity, you don’t know therefore it is unknown. But the molecular biologists and geneticists who study and create these crops do know.

            And again there has been me than enough research independent or otherwise done in to the effects of consuming GE crops and there’s no danger posed by those GE crops currently on the market.

            The safety is equivalent. Sorry bub

          • Volksbefreier

            But I already told you why natural gene transfers are different from very direct, human – caused ones which last less than around 10 centuries.

            “Organisms don’t have to adapt to ensure safety of a gene insert. It
            either iis beneficial deleterious or has no function. This can be
            established because molecular biologists spend years categorizing the
            specific function of the targeted gene, figuring out its roles in
            biosynthetic pathways. They know what the specific gene does and they
            know how it is affected by and affects other genes. Your arguing from
            personal incredulity, you don’t know therefore it is unknown.”

            Tell me ; has every gene in a GE potato been mapped? In GE wheat? GE corn? GE salmon?

            If not, it’s impossible to predict accurately what the effect of altering or inserting ONE SINGLE GENE will have. It can cause cascades of unintended consequences because genes interact in complicated ways. One gene needs to have corresponding genes/gene to assist it or replace it or modify it or etc etc etc. Without the entire organism’s genetic field mapped it is incredibly risky.

            Especially without adequate safety testing. Which you keep telling me has been done, but frankly hasn’t. I ALREADY TOLD YOU, SO MANY DAMN TIMES why the “independent testing” is invalid. You keep telling me, over and over and over and over again, that it has been done.

            But it’s inadequate because of a conflict of interest.

          • JP

            No, it’s inadequate to you because you don’t believe it.

          • Volksbefreier

            “You must beliiieeevveeeee in the power of biotech’s holy power….”

            I don’t believe it because it’s BS.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I mean you’re just so wrong about so many things.

            There is no scientific reason why HGT in nature would be safer than HGT mediated by humans. None at all.

            It’s impossible for you, not impossible for people with relevant training.

            The research is not inadequate. only people on the fringe usually with vested interests (either monetary interests like the organic food industry or ideological interests like you or the Maharishi cult which combines both) against biotechnology could look at the decades of studies, the hundreds of thousands on man hours of research conducted by a wide range of scientists both in with the industry and in academia and the overwhelming scientific consensus on both the lack of unique risks and the incredible utili of genetic engineering and say “the science is inadequate”.

          • Volksbefreier

            “The research is not inadequate. only people on the fringe usually with
            vested interests (either monetary interests like the organic food
            industry or ideological interests like you or the Maharishi cult which
            combines both) against biotechnology could look at the decades of
            studies, the hundreds of thousands on man hours of research conducted by
            a wide range of scientists both in with the industry and in academia
            and the overwhelming scientific consensus on both the lack of unique
            risks and the incredible utili of genetic engineering and say “the
            science is inadequate.”

            ….

            Look. I’ll explain it again.

            The research is inadequate because it has to be conducted with permission from the companies which hold the patents on the crops, or risk being sued by the patentholders. Once permission has been granted to the researchers who are going to study the crops, they typically would risk being sued / discredited if their studies find anything dangerous about GMOs because biotech has huge power now and has been known to launch smear campaigns. The French Court found Seralini to have been smeared by biotech, in fact. Just because someone has relevant training doesn’t mean they represent public interest and are going to defend public health, especially in the face of huge pressure to accept GMOs by corporations which make them and patent them who are only interested in making profit off of them.

            Most of the studies conducted during the past decades are invalid because of the above.

            “People on the fringe with vested interests”? Fine, i’ll let you have one – Most are on the “fringes”, but because they were smeared in campaigns by biotech to discredit them or are simply not well known amongst academics. But most don’t have vested interests in GMOs “losing”, while most GMO proponents who create websites advocating GMOs do. So this one about “Vested interests” is not valid.

            Unique risks do exist. FDA’s own scientists said this years ago but were ignored and some fired / sent into powerless positions and kept silent. This has been confirmed by whistleblowers and those who were fired.

            GMOs do have incredible “utility” in obtaining profit. Not in supporting public health. Not in helping non – corporations.

            GMOs are about feeding the world. And taking away all other sources of food.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            “The research is inadequate because it has to be conducted with permission from the companies which hold the patents on the crops, or risk being sued by the Patent holders”

            This may have been true at one point but it is no longer true at least with Monsanto. No researcher has ever been sued by Monsanto, we went through this.

            “Once permission has been granted to the researchers who are going to study the crops, they typically would risk being sued / discredited if their studies find anything dangerous about GMOs because biotech has huge power now and has been known to launch smear campaigns. The French Court found Seralini to have been smeared by biotech, in fact. ”

            If researchers found a valid reproducible issue with the safety of GE crops they’ll get a Nobel prize and the accolades and praise of the entire world. No what the courts found was that there was no evidence that Seralini committed intentional fraud, meaning the results of his “study” are simply due to either poor study design or incompetence.

            “Unique risks do exist”

            Not according to the global scientific consensus as represented through the opinions of of hundreds of scientific organizations and the scientific literature.

            This is a pointless arguement as it’s clear you’re very personally invested in hating biotechnology based on… well I’m not quite sure what it’s based on actually. It’s certainly not informed by dispassionate analysis of the evidence or by looking to relevant and qualified experts.

          • Volksbefreier

            “This may have been true at one point but it is no longer true at least
            with Monsanto. No researcher has ever been sued by Monsanto, we went
            through this.”

            I suppose you disproved my claim of Monsanto not allowing research without prior permission – at least now at univerisites in the U.S., studies on GMOs are allowed without needing to specifically ask Monsanto for permission. But Monsanto COULD sue researchers – they have the ability to do it, but it doesn’t mean they would win any theoretical cases, or that any hearings would be called.

            However, keep in mind that at this point most universities with an ability to study GMOs in the United States and in certain other Western countries are receiving or have received grants from biotech now. This represents a conflict of interest.

            “If researchers found a valid reproducible issue with the safety of GE
            crops they’ll get a Nobel prize and the accolades and praise of the
            entire world. No what the courts found was that there was no evidence
            that Seralini committed intentional fraud, meaning the results of his
            “study” are simply due to either poor study design or incompetence.”

            How ironic. Not one valid, reproducible issue has been found? You still haven’t told me why the Pusztai study was invalid so ill use it as an example. Why not try to reproduce it? Apparently the study was valid.

            The courts ALSO found that a smear campaign had been launched against him.

            “This is a pointless arguement as it’s clear you’re very personally
            invested in hating biotechnology based on… well I’m not quite sure
            what it’s based on actually. It’s certainly not informed by
            dispassionate analysis of the evidence or by looking to relevant and
            qualified experts.”

            I am personally invested in “hating” biotechnology? We are all personally invested in something, are we not? I am invested in multiple things, not just discussing biotechnology.

            I would be just fine with mutagenesis and gene clipping if these methods were studied by people who don’t possess conflicts of interest and found to be safe.

            “Relevant and qualified experts?” At this time most “experts” are too afraid of speaking up because they receive grants from the industry or simply want to avoid the backlash. Many experts know that real risks exist, but decide to ignore them and not speak up about them. Keep in mind that the FDA’s own scientists found GMOs to be unsafe but they were dismissed. After their dismissal many started speaking up against our entire food system.

          • hyperzombie

            How come peanuts did not evolve into safety? They are still killing hundreds per year.

          • Volksbefreier

            People with Peanut allergies are a very small subset of the population.

            Typically, they have allergic reactions when they eat Peanuts, not when they are exposed to peanut dust in the air or through other paths of exposure.

            On the other hand, GMOs haven’t even been properly studied to see if they cause allergic reactions and most people aren’t even aware of this.

            Most people who would theoretically be allergic to GMOs would not be able to avoid them. They would, if severely allergic, die. But we aren’t sure if less than 100 people die due to this theoretical allergy or thousands. It hasn’t been studied by people who lack industry ties or need to ask permission from industry.

          • Peter Olins

            Teach a man to fish, and he’ll have red herrings for a lifetime.

          • Volksbefreier

            Aren’t Monsanto’s GMOs supposed to prevent me from needing to fish for myself?

            (Sarcasm)

    • agscienceliterate

      Like many other readers here, I am not paid by any organization or corporation or person. I am just strongly pro science, and years of reading and study on this topic have convinced me that GE technology is safe and environmentally sustainable. Would love to know what Internet sites you read, for your own information.

      • Volksbefreier

        Yes, you’re pro science. You’re pro “science” which is biased towards the very corporations which create it. Conflict of interest, anyone?

        Future GMOs COULD be safe. They honestly could. But only if made properly and afterwords studied PROPERLY and independently.

        Our current GMOs aren’t made properly or studied properly in such a way to minimize risk to the people who eat them instead of maximize profit to industry without care to their actual risks and benefits to society.

        • Stephan Neidenbach

          Why not hold that same standard to other breeding methods? Not all biotech crops are corporate controlled, like the papaya. Countless more conventional crops are corporate controlled. Lay off the organic industry propaganda.

          • Volksbefreier

            In that context you used it in, humans are biotech.

            Give me a break. Use the publicly accepted meaning – biotech is generally regarded to mean crops which have had their genetic “terrain” altered within less than 1000 years through the direct inserting, modification, and removal of certain genes.

            Countless more conventional crops are corporate controlled. Yes, I agree. But those corporations usually aren’t renowned to the same degree for making toxic chemicals, marketing them to the public, and then putting responsibility for their toxic affects on other people.

            Current biotech companies are known for this – Just look at their past “Great, Safe Products, like Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, Saccharin……

            It’s not propaganda if it is sincerely, honesthearted truth which has not been spun to favor a certain party or individual. What you spew is the real propaganda.

          • G

            When you talk about biotech, then you must also be talking about mutagenesis, which has been in use for less than 100 years and covers many more plant species than transgenic technology, and is also allowed in organic agriculture, yes?

          • Volksbefreier

            No, I am currently researching mutagenesis. I won’t make any conclusions on that until I am done.

            When I speak about biotech I specifically mean modern, recently – approved methods which involve directly inserting DNA with precision instruments.

          • Guest

            Keep researching then, and if you haven’t done so, become knowledgeable in genetics by reading college textbooks and/or taking college courses from accredited institutions.

          • Stephan Neidenbach

            Wanna bet? Try BASF, and any number of european pesticide companies. If you think all your problems go away if biotech crops go away, they you are delusional. They would probably get worse, as again, mutagenesis and artifical selection are not regulated.

          • Volksbefreier

            When did I say “all my problems would go away if GMO crops are eliminated”?

            Another piece of straw tossed at me.

            They would probably get worse? You don’t even know what my problems are. Are you saying GMOs are now a requirement to prevent my life from getting “worse”?

            My life didn’t get worse when I started eating Organic.

            So, what? European pesticide companies are also generally renowned for irresponsibility and corruption.

          • A Scientist

            You do realize that it is the same companies that produce both biotech and conventionally-bred seeds, don’t you?

          • Volksbefreier

            I don’t eat foods derived from conventionally bred seed. I oppose conventional breeding which involves the use of toxic pesticides.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Hahahahaha.

            You’re a hoot.

            So which plant breeding practices are acceptable to you?

          • Volksbefreier

            None in modern use.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Then what do you eat?

          • Volksbefreier

            Crops bred with pre – 1940 methods.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Lol, good luck with that.

          • Volksbefreier

            So you are saying most or at least half of Organic food has been exposed to radiation or chemicals deliberately by humans to make them mutate? And that without those now modified foods I won’t be able to receive enough nutrients, vitamins, etc to survive?

            No? Because if not I can live without specific Grapefruit breeds and brown rice.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I’m saying that you’re quest to turn the clock back on plant breeding is futile.

            I’m saying that organic crops can and do come from every type of plant breeding method besides “genetic engineering”. Because there’s no such thing as “organic” as a plant breeding method. Crops grown under organic management practices can be derived from any number of plant breeding methods.

            There are thousands of mutagenic plant varieties it’s not just red grapefruit and brown rice.

          • Volksbefreier

            It isn’t futile if it is possible. If it is impossible – it is futile to attempt it.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            So, only ancient Mayan teosinte heirloom breeds of corn are acceptable at your summer cook outs?

          • Volksbefreier

            Plant breeding methods in modern usage are inherently different from those used prior to the very early stages of the “Green Revolution” during the late 1940s, when new breeding methods were developed and introduced.

            The “Green Revolution” introduced new methods of breeding crops, such as exposure to radiation, exposure to chemicals, and very direct alteration of plant genes by removing them, inserting them, modifying their genes by inserting special tools into the plants. Using these methods it is far easier to make plants dangerous for consumption, and at times nearly void of of nutrients which humans require, because it inherently has less of an acceptable margin of error after which the plant becomes dangerous to consume. The line between danger and safety is easier to go across and takes less time to do so. All it takes is a very short time.

            The slightest mistake can cause the plant to become unhealthy for consumption or less viable and this mistake can be done extremely easily, and when this does happen it’s perfectly fine as long as the plant survives and is seen as more beneficial than non – modified versions. “Beneficial” can simply mean more profitable to the patenters regardless of how really safe the plant is for people to eat or grow.

            Traditional plant breeding, however, involved very slowly forcing plants to change their genetics over thousands of years, by only replanting the best of these crops for a special purpose, thus eventually creating entire populations of these new breeds for use in that particular purpose. Rarely using this method did plants directly receive genes from other species, and when they did time was on the plant’s side to let it completely adapt and on the side of human beings to allow them to discover over thousands of years if the plant was really beneficial for consumption or not. The line was extremely thick and far more difficult to cross between danger and safety with traditional methods.

            Modern breeding methods are not as transparent as traditional ones, because using modern breeding it is difficult for independent scientists to really study the modified plants due to “patent guarding” by the corporations which conduct the modification. The same is true with modern pesticides. When independent scientists try to do so they need permission from the corporation, and this is just a disastrous conflict of interest.

            Too much information which pertains to modern breeding methods is withheld as “trade secrets” protected under patent law, preventing independent scientists from studying them. Thus modern methods are simply less trustworthy.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Gish gallop of complete crap. All unfounded speculation. Further the article I posted clearly showed that the industry studies are reliable.

          • Volksbefreier

            That’s simply false.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Why? because you refused to read the article?

          • Volksbefreier

            How would I be able to prove it false if I didn’t read the article?

            I read it and refuted it.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            No, you made a foolish claim. You posted no evidence. I strongly recommend you watch some episodes of Judge Judy and learn what evidence means.

          • Volksbefreier

            Bullshit.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            And he is reduced to a one word vulgarity. I win.

          • Volksbefreier

            Bullshit has a meaning and it was accurate. What you said was bullshit.

          • hyperzombie

            What do you eat, wild berries and fish?

          • Volksbefreier

            Organic isn’t conventionally bred.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Yes they most certainly are.

            organic refers to a management system used on the farm. The only plant breeding methods not allowed in organic are genetic engineering. Seeds produced from radiation and chemical mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, somatic fusion amongst others are all permitted to be used in organic agriculture.

          • Volksbefreier

            Mutagenesis isn’t used on Organic seeds intended for sale. It’s a very rare method.

            Induced polyploidy also isn’t used on Organic seeds.

            Somatic fusion also isn’t used on Organic seeds.

            Just because these methods are allowed doesn’t mean they are actually in use. They should be banned for use on Organics anyway.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Yeah that’s not true, sorry buddy.

          • Volksbefreier

            What do you mean it’s not true? You a troll? Provide evidence.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            You can look at the organic standards yourself and see if they prohibit those forms of plant breeding,

          • Volksbefreier

            They don’t prohibit mutagenesis and polyploidism, but those methods are rarely used on them anyway.

            You can’t provide evidence that mutagenesis and polyploidism are used on even a medium scale in Organic crops because they aren’t.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Do you have a crystal ball that tells you how often different plant breeding methods are used?

            The question wasn’t how frequently are they used, it was are they used. The answer is yes, they are used and you were incorrect when you said “organic isn’t conventionally bred”.

            Just admit you were wrong.

          • Volksbefreier

            I admit that I was wrong about those methods being used in Organics at all.

            But I won’t admit that I am “wrong” about them being used on a widespread basis. Because they aren’t used on such a widespread basis, and polyploidism has actually been studied by independent scientists, they aren’t as dangerous as modern”gene clipping.”

          • Dominick Dickerson

            okay believe what you want regarding prevalence of varieties with a gene sequence from mutagenesis being used in organic agriculture. No skin off my teeth. But if you think that by eating organic you’re avoiding conventional plant breeding techniques, the only person you’re fooling is your self.

          • Volksbefreier

            You didn’t show my any evidence to show that Organic “conventional breeding” is widespread.

            Mutagenesis is different from HUMAN INDUCED mutagenesis, because human induced means exposing the the crops or their seeds to actual mutagenic chemicals or radiation both of which cause some serious problems to the entire genetic fabric of the crop.

            Organic crops altered through human – induced mutagenesis are rare. If I failed to specify human induced mutagenesis, you proved me wrong – I am arguing with multiple people at a time and also doing other things.

          • Jason

            Organic Ruby Red grapefruit – created by radioactive mutagenisis
            http://goorganicnyc.com/ruby-red-grapefruit.html

            Organic seedless watermelons – Created by Induced polyploidy
            http://www.doortodoororganics.com/shop/products/melon-mini-seedless-watermelon

            Organic brown rice – Produced through chemcial mutagenisis
            http://www.lundberg.com/product/organic-brown-short-grain-rice/

          • Volksbefreier

            I said, Mutagenesis isn’t USED. USED being forced by humans using chemicals. So the Ruby Red isn’t an example.

            Seedless watermelons are a fair example, but induced polyploidy has been studied by independent researchers. It’s safe – beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Brown rice takes up unusually high levels of lead from soil……

          • Jason

            Excuse me? Ruby Red grapefruit was produced by forcing the mutation with radiation. Something you said isn’t used.

            If you’re going to hold a bunch of kooky beliefs, then you need to learn how to admit when you’re wrong.

            Edit – and what does rice absorbing lead have anything to do with whether or not chemical mutagenisis is used in organic production?? You seem to be deflecting.

          • Volksbefreier

            Only certain Grapefruit breeds were modified using that process. The original Ruby Reds from the ’30s weren’t.

            Brown rice absorbing high levels of lead means it isn’t safe for consumption unless grown in special soil. It’s also known to absorb high levels of other toxic metals.

            Normal rice doesn’t take up as much. Could the mutation have caused this difference? If so it means brown rice is an example of GE going wrong.

          • Jason

            Trying to deflect with made up bull shit? Please.. that doesn’t work here. Go peddle your woo somewhere else.

          • Volksbefreier

            It’s not made up. You are just starting to erupt in lies now for real.

          • Jason

            The “made up” part is referring to the relevance to our discussion. You’re barfing unrelated facts that do not address the original issue…. your claim that “conventional methods” aren’t used in organic agriculture.

            They are, as I have demonstrated.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Made up” can be used to refer to something being relevant or not? Who knew!

            More spin.

            How am I using unrelated facts?

            Yes, they are. If you mean ancient breeding methods, you are correct. If you mean mutagenesis and polyploidism, you are also correct, but ancient breeding methods are more popular than these.

            Actual Monsanto – style gene cropping? No, that’s illegal for use in Organics.

          • Jason

            You’re making up crap to discuss that is irrelevant. For example… Your BS about “ancient breeding methods”. It’s total nonsense. Ancient breeding methods are essentially, selecting the best looking produce, save those seeds and replant them. That is not used at all in modern organic production.

            Your view of agriculture is pretty f’d up.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Ancient breeding methods are essentially, selecting the best looking
            produce, save those seeds and replant them. That is not used at all in
            modern organic production.”

            Ermmmmm………….. actually, yes, these methods are used in modern Organic production, but really not on such a large scale anymore.

            Most Organics aren’t even really “bred” anymore for anything save the ability to be Organic, but some farmers do in fact try to save only the best seeds and replant only them.

          • Jason

            The only farmers saving seeds the way you describe are subsistence farmers in underdeveloped countries. It’s not used in modern agriculture. We have better ways.

          • Volksbefreier

            Better for making fat profits yes. Better in terms of safety? Not quite…………..

          • Jason

            Feel free to produce any evidence that modern seed production techniques are any less safe than “ancient methods”. Otherwise, you’re just making up more B.S.

          • Volksbefreier

            The evidence really rests with industry. Industry hasn’t proved that their methods are safe, other than polyploidism. This doesn’t mean the methods are safe at all.

          • Jason

            The scientific community disagrees with you . They are satisfied on the issue of safety. So if you disagree with them, it’s on you to prove they are wrong.

          • Volksbefreier

            ….

            That’s a logical fallacy.

            The evidence rests with the scientific community and biotech to prove that GMOs are safe because they are the people proposing as such.

            So if a man says “i’ve been shot” you are supposed to look for the evidence instead of himself?

          • Jason

            No, Volks… it is not a fallacy. I’m saying that the scientific community, at large, is satisfied that safety has been proven. Period.

            So…if you disagree with that consensus, then show evidence that they are wrong. otherwise, you’re just one man with an opinion. A rather ill-informed opinion.

          • Volksbefreier

            1. Appeal to Authority

            2. Burden of Proof fallacy

          • Jason

            lol… you’re hilarious.

            So, who should one “appeal to” if not the “authorities” that were tasked with evaluating the available information and providing a scientific assessment? Should we appeal to our yogic flying instructor instead??

            Sometimes experts in a field are experts in that field because they know a lot about that field.

            As for the burden of proof… I didn’t ask you to prove anything… just provide some evidence that their conclusions are wrong. After all… you’re the one making the claim that they are wrong. So, provide it.

          • Volksbefreier

            “So, who should one “appeal to” if not the “authorities” that were tasked
            with evaluating the available information and providing a scientific
            assessment? Should we appeal to our yogic flying instructor instead?”

            The scientific and regulatory authorities have been proven unreliable in protecting public health, and their recent “studies” on GMOs aren’t an exception.

            So, yes. It’s time to begin using activists, because the authorities have gone to shit.

            “Sometimes experts in a field are experts in that field because they know a lot about that field.”

            This is true, but even if someone is knowledgeable about science it does not mean he or she is going to protect public health when placed in a regulatory agency SPECIFICALLY CREATED to do just that.

            “As for the burden of proof… I didn’t ask you to prove anything… just
            provide some evidence that their conclusions are wrong. After all…
            you’re the one making the claim that they are wrong. So, provide it.”

            Burden of Proof fallacy

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c1e193ddb986c081d2fa8257974fe7b48a3082493aec58761045c19bc2b87b5.jpg

          • Jason

            I think you may be a little confused. YOU are making the claim that their conclusions are wrong. So, if the burden to prove that claim isn’t on you…. who is it on?

            The scientific and regulatory authorities have been proven unreliable in protecting public health, and their recent “studies” on GMOs aren’t an exception.

            This is your opinion and one that you haven’t backed up with anything. Who has been more reliable and by what evidence?

          • A Scientist

            Yes it is. Same seeds, produced by the same companies.

          • Volksbefreier

            Organic IS NOT bred using modern conventional methods.

            Oh, so Monsanto sells organic seeds?

          • gmoeater

            Yes, Monsanta oh and other GE sowing seed companies also sell organic seeds. Look it up. You are not only grossly misinformed, but you are incredibly lazy.

          • Volksbefreier

            I admit that Monsanto indirectly sells Organic seeds, but a lot of other major “biotech” companies do not.

            So you proved my point wrong that Monsanto doesn’t sell Organic seeds.

            I am not however “grossly misinformed”, unless being informed means believing lies fed to me by industry like has been done for around 70 years pertaining to many past and present chemicals and their safety through various methods.

          • hyperzombie

            Organic can use any breeding method that they want as long as it is non GE.

            Powerful mutagens (chemicals and radiation) 100% Ok in Organics

            Forced polyploids 100% Ok

            Wide cross, yepers, that is OK too.

            Cell Fusion, that is good to go in Organic.

            like I said everything but GE is allowed.

            Organic is mostly marketing, nothing much to do with natural.

          • Volksbefreier

            Yes, but mutations are rarely induced for use in food crops due to the inherent risks involved.

          • gmoeater

            Baloney. Mutagenesis for creating food is done and labs all the time. Look it up. Organic ruby red grapefruit for example. Tested? No. Thousands of genes affected? Yes. Any oversight? No. You keep your own self. You’re beginning to sound really silly.

          • Volksbefreier

            Ruby Reds weren’t forced to mutate by – or induced directly into mutation by humans using radiation or chemicals. They were simply discovered.

            Forced mutagenesis by humans for organic crops is very rare. One of the examples one of your pro – industry friends cited, brown rice, takes up high levels of lead.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            “A similar story unfolded in Texas. In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.”

            So they’re correct, they just got the variety name used incorrect. The majority of red grapefruits derive from mutagenesis.

          • Volksbefreier

            I will remember not to eat those latter two grapefuit breeds, which are in fact isolated cases in the greater scheme of Organics, then.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Also calrose rice and any of the varieties derived from calrose rice.

            There are thousands of registered mutagenic crops and many of them have been bred into other varieties meaning the true number of crops containing a mutagenic derived sequence is much much higher.

            Like I said, good luck trying to eat like its 1920.

          • Volksbefreier

            1920? Where did you get that number from?

            Well, just because it is difficult does not mean it is impossible for me to eat foods which haven’t been forced into mutation, through exposure to mutagens, by humans or have inherited some genes specific to these crops but aren’t really, ermmmm… “pure” human – mutated through exposure to mutagens.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I picked a time before 1940 since that’s you’re arbitrary cutoff date for which plant breeding methods you find acceptable.

            It’s exceedingly difficult bordering on impossible to avoid crop varieties either bred using conventional breeding techniques like mutagenesis or crops that result from crosses with those mutagenic crops.

            Like I said, it doesn’t matter to me. You’re just deluding yourself it really doesn’t impact me what your personal food ideology is so long as you don’t force the rest of us to comply with it.

          • Volksbefreier

            Supporting GMO use is basically forcing GMOs on everyone. It WILL cause mass genetic contamination if the GMOs aren’t grown in airtight, walled – off, pressurized containers.

            This removes consumer choice and forces them to buy only GMO crops.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            It will not cause “mass genetic contamination” more then any other plant variety would, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.

            Luckily the systems of identity preservation used by voluntary labeling systems like nongmo project and USDA organic which by law can not contain GE ingredients. Those products will continue to provide consumer who want it the choice to avoid GE crops.

          • Volksbefreier

            “It will not cause “mass genetic contamination” more then any other
            plant variety would, there is absolutely no evidence to support that
            assertion.”

            However, GMOs in particular are the biggest threat against Organics, simply because when they contaminate Organics the Organics get forced into non – compliance with USDA Organic regulations. This also makes the farmer who owns the contaminated Organics get sued, sometimes if a biotech company spy finds out that his crops have GMO genes.

            When non – GMO crops crossbreed with Organics, they do not make the Organics non – USDA Organic compliant. They stay Organic as long as they are raised according to the Organic regulations pertaining to growing them.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Well that’s a problem with the organic standard. The people writing the laws defining organic made a decision to disallow GE crops. I personally think that’s a really stupid policy but I didn’t write the law.

            Farmers are not sued for inadvertent cross pollination or adventitious presence of GE crops. They never have and never will.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Well that’s a problem with the organic standard. The people writing
            the laws defining organic made a decision to disallow GE crops. I
            personally think that’s a really stupid policy but I didn’t write the
            law.

            Farmers are not sued for inadvertent cross pollination or adventitious presence of GE crops. They never have and never will.”

            I already showed you an example of farmers being sued for inadvertent cross pollination. Stop being an industry apologist.

            It’s not a problem with the Organic standard. It’s a problem with Genetic Engineering.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            No Schmeiser wasn’t sued for cross pollination. He was sued for knowingly and unlawfully growing RR canola without signing the technology use agreement. I suggest you read the actual case law rather than relying on what you heard in a documentary on Netflix.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Knowingly and unlawfully”
            So was he supposed to shut down his entire operation and take years to remove the GE crops?

            Because that was his only other option. It’s also the only option other than being sued for most other farmers who have had or will have their fields contaminated with GMOs.

            Our laws are very obviously designed to benefit industry. Especially patent laws.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            No Percy knowingly choose to grow the GE canola. The levels of RR canola in his fields greatly exceeded what could have been accidental contamination.

            From the case law.

            “Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000.”

            Percy Schmieser want RR canola so badly he was willing to infringe the patent in order to do so.

          • Volksbefreier

            But he had few other feasible options. He was in a corner. After all, he was only human. Was he supposed to dismantle all of his GMO crops which would take years upon years?

            Just because THE LAW say he should have doesn’t mean it’s ethically correct.

            You must realize, these farmers rely on their crops as their own source of money, sometimes food most of the time. Removing the GMOs would have meant disaster.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Tough titty.

            Schmeiser broke the law knowingly growing a traited commodity crop in circumvention of Monsantos intellectual property protection.

            Yes after he initially sprayed and discovered the RR canola in his field he should have gotten rid of it if he didn’t want it, purchased new seed or contacted Monsanto who would have came and removed it.

            But instead he kept it and replanted it he next season and did this enough to grow over a thousand acres of traited canola.

            He wasn’t sued because of the initial adventitious presence of the GE crop. He was sued because he selected for the GE crop and then kept the seeds to replant the next year.

            So as I said before there are no cases of Monsanto suing farmers for accidental cross pollination or adventitious presence, as per the ruling found in OSGATA vs Monsanto.

            Be a gentleman and concede.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Tough titty.”

            Should have told that to the child workers who were obeying the law and so were their employers

            “Schmeiser broke the law knowingly growing a traited commodity crop in
            circumvention of Monsantos intellectual property protection.”

            Yes he broke the law but civil disobedience helps society revitalize because laws don’t inherently represent ethical or moral behavior simply because they are favored by governments / sometimes corporations.

            “But instead he kept it and replanted it he next season and did this enough to grow over a thousand acres of traited canola.”

            Civil disobedience at it’s best. Screw Monsanto and their cruel patents.

            “He wasn’t sued because of the initial adventitious presence of the GE
            crop. He was sued because he selected for the GE crop and then kept the
            seeds to replant the next year.”

            Basically he was because otherwise he’d have very likely lost his only source of money.

            “So as I said before there are no cases of Monsanto suing farmers for
            accidental cross pollination or adventitious presence, as per the ruling
            found in OSGATA vs Monsanto.”

            Basically an appeal to semantics……

            “Be a gentleman and concede.”

            That’s what all past activists were told, like fighters for equal civil rights for blacks and whites, against slavery, etc.

            Most ended up winning. Just like we will.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            No you won’t because the evidence and science doesn’t support your positions.

            Nice backhanded comparison of a plant breeding method to racial segregation and slavery. Keep up with that hyperbole, you just discredit yourself.

            ah there it is, I figured if we dug deep enough we’ld see the anarchistic fact free activism hiding under all that scientific ignorance.

            Good on you.

          • Volksbefreier

            “No you won’t because the evidence and science doesn’t support your positions.”

            Shut up, please, mate. I’ve already told you why that purported “science” is invalid so many times that I feel like I may soon vomit.

            “Nice backhanded comparison of a plant breeding method to racial
            segregation and slavery. Keep up with that hyperbole, you just discredit
            yourself.”

            Backhanded? No, I was using it as an example of past activist movements which succeeded.

            “ah there it is, I figured if we dug deep enough we’ld see the
            anarchistic fact free activism hiding under all that scientific
            ignorance.”

            “Anarchistic fact free activism”, eh? What a joke.

          • Volksbefreier

            *THE LAW says

          • Dominick Dickerson
          • Guest

            The Dunning Kruger is strong in this one.

          • Volksbefreier

            Ermmm, I phrased that obscurely.

            Organic was conventionally bred at one point, but isn’t anymore. Modern conventional breeding is different from ancient methods of conventional breeding.

            “Traditional” breeding was at one point conventional. It isn’t conventional anymore because modern conventional methods involve exposure to chemicals, radiation, or direct altercation of genetic structure using tools.

          • Guest

            However many mutagenic varieties (and there are thousands) are backcrossed into other varieties, which then introduces some of the mutated genes (which are never studied or regulated) into the new variety. So these genes are much more prevalent than you realize.

          • Volksbefreier

            However that does not mean I will give up on trying to avoid them.

          • Jason

            Yes. It is.

          • Volksbefreier

            Not using modern conventional breeding methods, no. Organics aren’t bred using non – traditional (ancient) methods.

            GE is basically conventional now.

          • Jason

            Organic seeds are bred conventionally. I know. I sell them.

          • Volksbefreier

            You still didn’t prove my claim wrong.

          • Jason

            Yes. I did. See the other thread where I showed many examples of organic products bred using the methods you claim that don’t use.

          • Volksbefreier

            But some of those were invalid.

          • Jason

            No. I’m afraid you are wrong. All 3 examples were of organic product produced using methods you claim were not used.

            Thank you. Have a nice day.

          • Volksbefreier

            Some varieties of grapefruit were created using mutagenesis, but you didn’t specify which one you meant, watermelon was created using polyploidism which beyond a reasonable doubt is safe, and brown rice isn’t even safe to eat when grown under normal conditions.

          • Jason

            You claimed they weren’t used. i showed you that they are. You were wrong. End of discussion.

          • Volksbefreier

            Eh, it doesn’t actually end the discussion. This is going to go on forever because I am here to serve an opposing force against you biotech proponents.

          • Jason

            OK… sure. Biotech Proponents. That sounds legit.

            I love how you’re perfectly willing to lie & mislead so long as it serves your ideology. You’re a real stand-up guy!

          • Volksbefreier

            “I love how you’re perfectly willing to lie & mislead so long as it serves your ideology. You’re a real stand-up guy!”

            That applies directly to yourself, and not to me.

            Biotech proponents, yes. It’s legitimate. You propose that biotech is the solution to our food supply and hunger problems, when in reality YOU are using industry – sponsored studies, which are bullshit lies, to support YOUR ideology.

          • Jason

            I’ve given you citations to everything I’ve said and shown you to be wrong. So that you still repeat the same nonsense makes it lying.

            So…. You have fun with all that. Ok?

          • Volksbefreier

            Ermmm………. you absolutely have not given me “citations” of everything you have said. That’s just a total lie. When you have given me citations, I proved why they weren’t valid. You apparently weren’t able to disprove my claims that the citations were invalid.

          • Jason

            Oh christ.. I gave you a citation showing that not all gmo science is industry funded. You did not refute it.

            I gave you 3 examples demonstrating that modern breeding methods are used in organic production. Your attempt to refute that was basically “not all grapefruit” and “oh yah? well rice absorbs lead”. None of that disputes the facts I gave.

            So, now… you were saying?

          • Volksbefreier

            The citation actually DIDN’T prove that not all GMO science is funded by the industry. It didn’t even mention all of the ways in which industry has infiltrated universities, independent organizations, nonprofits, even governments like the U.S. one.

            It doesn’t dispute the facts that you gave? Actually, it does. I demonstrated why two of your examples were invalid. The real example wasn’t quite disputed by me.

          • Jason

            If it is an example of non-industry funded sources, then it proves not all sources are industry funded.

            Were you dropped on your head as a child?

          • Volksbefreier

            But I never claimed that every study on GMOs is funded by the biotech industry anyhow. I only claimed that most are.

          • Jason

            You said “The worldwide consensus is between pro – industry scientists. The evidence rests with them, but all of their thousands of studies are biased due to the way GMOs are patented.”

            And later you said “They are all made with permission from biotech companies which is a conflict of interest and many are created WITH MONEY FROM biotech.”

            I showed you that an entire decade of research from Europe did not fit that description. Europe, in general, would never be described as “pro-industry” where GMOs are concerned… wouldn’t you agree?

            The bottom line is that if you have no evidence all their conclusions are wrong, then why are you wasting my time?

          • Volksbefreier

            “I showed you that an entire decade of research from Europe did not
            fit that description. Europe, in general, would never be described as
            “pro-industry” where GMOs are concerned… wouldn’t you agree?

            The bottom line is that if you have no evidence all their conclusions are wrong, then why are you wasting my time?”

            Too bad it didn’t disprove my claim that all GM studies are made with permission from biotech and many with money from biotech.

            Why don’t you just stop posting here and let me win?

            You are wasting your own time by trying to fight me. Why not give up? If what I say is too illogical to combat and so stupid that you can’t tolerate it, why not give up and just dismiss me by ceasing to respond?

          • Jason

            If what I say is too illogical to combat and so stupid that you can’t tolerate it, why not give up and just dismiss me by ceasing to respond?

            I guess I have a sick fascination with idiots.

          • Volksbefreier

            Clearly you yourself are the agrochem industry apologist idiot.

          • Jason

            OK.. sure. That sounds legit.

          • Volksbefreier

            Just because it doesn’t “SOUND” (appear to be) legitimate doesn’t mean it isn’t actually legitimate.

          • Jason

            Good to know. I’ll take that into consideration.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I wasn’t even going to engage this guy until he made that crazy claim about mutagenic so not being used in organic.

            As a purely academic question do you know if those kinds of statistics are gathered anyway? It would be interesting to break down the prevalence of mutagenic or mutagenically derived varieties used in organic agriculture.

            I’ve never seen hard data on that, but I see no reason why adoption of mutagenic crops would be widespread amongst organic farmers.

            You’re a seed dealer right? Do you have organic customers who specifically avoid mutagenic varieties.

          • Jason

            I really don’t know if that data is gathered or not. It seems like it isn’t simply because breeding methods have not been an issue worth focusing attention on until recently.

            Yes, I am a seed dealer. Well, more accurately, I run a territory of many dealers. We do service some organic customers. And no, aside from GMO, they’ve never made any requests for any specific breeding methods. Most don’t even know what mutagenisis is. We deal in commodity crops, so that may be different for veggies & such. But in our situation, the organic farmers sometimes even take seed treated with synthetic fungicides & insecticides. All they need is to show the inspector that they couldn’t find untreated seed & they’ve met the requirements.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            That’s what I suspected. I think the enforcement of the NOP standards are bunk. From my understanding it’s basically the honor system, theres no regular spot testing only verification of paper work. I think that might be another motivating factor in why organic food is against genetic engineering. As genetic engineering grows organic producers are going to have to incur far more costs inorder to test and maintain their identity preservation standards.

          • Jason

            Personally, I think “big organic” made a huge mistake by not opting to adopt genetic modification from the get go. Now that they have, they’re stuck vilifying it to defend their decision.

          • agscienceliterate

            Without pay, of course. Just to share your superior knowledge. While I admire your largesse, I cannot help but think you are addicted to Internet pseudoscience sites, as every single thing you have posted regarding biotech crops is incorrect.

          • Volksbefreier

            Sure, many anti – GMO websites advocate pseudoscience, but EVERY pro – GMO website does.

            Oh, every single thing is? I find that highly false. You just ignorantly believe in industry – funded studies, right? As if they are actually helpful to the public and as if they will ever be useful for finding something wrong with GMO crops if something wrong exists.

            Same thing that my grandfather had to face, when he was actually exposed to toxic chemicals himself. Same exact bullshit. Same systematic denial.

          • agscienceliterate

            Tell that to Mercola and Food Babe and Jeffrey Smith. They live on brown rice and organic stuff they peddle. And organic yuppies all over the world love brown rice. But you may have some superior knowledge about brown rice that we don’t? DO share. Love to see what you think about brown rice. Autism? Cancer? Mental illness? Cognitive dysfunction?

          • Volksbefreier

            Brown rice just contains unusually high and dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, more so than non – Brown rice.

          • Volksbefreier

            In this context “conventionally bred” means bred using modern conventional methods.

            I eat crops bred using pre – Green Revolution methods.

          • A Scientist

            Are you for real? What do you eat then?

          • Volksbefreier

            ….

            Heard of Organic food?

          • A Scientist

            Same seeds, my friend. From the same companies.

          • Volksbefreier

            Monsanto doesn’t produce Organic seeds.

          • A Scientist

            Seminis is a Monsanto subsidiary.

          • Volksbefreier

            Very well then. However this is another problem in and of itself.

          • agscienceliterate

            Great! You have very little to eat, then. Organic production can, is allowed to under USDA certification, and often does use toxic pesticides. Please start doing your own simple research rather than just posting erroneous statements. In any case, you are free to eat whatever you wish.

          • Volksbefreier

            The pesticides used in Organic production aren’t anywhere near as toxic as artificial ones used in conventional farming. Sometimes pesticides aren’t used at all and instead specific anti – pest insects are used to deliberately keep pest populations under control.

            No, I am not free to eat anything I wish for my entire life as long as GMOs keep slowly spreading into Organic farms until nothing is really Organic anymore.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Toxicity is independent of origin. There is no simple heuristic of organic pesticide is less toxic than synthetic pesticides that holds true upon examination of the toxicology data comparing the two subsets of pesticides.

            IPM is just good farming, it’s not an organic only practice. Indeed things like Bt crops actually are a boon to IPM methods because it eliminates or at the very least dramatically lessens the need to broadcast application of insecticides. The only insects affected are those that directly consume the crop. This means that beneficial insects are spared from pesticide application. And they’re use in conjunction with refuge planting are the most surefire way to inhibit resistence.

            Look, I get it man. It’s really really appealing to uncritically assume organic =sustainable and that biotech is the great Satan responsible for all the terrible things wrong with agriculture. I used to think just like you. But it’s just not true. Once you remove your ideological blinders and actually critically examine the evidence, I’m certain you’ll change your mind and there is absolutely no shame in that. It’s okay to have been wrong and it’s not you’re fault. I think we as humans are preconditioned to get trapped in fallacious ways of thinking, naturalistic fallacies and appeals to antiquities. And there are powerful forces at work who see dollar signs by scaring people to be afraid of their food by demonizing modern plant breeding and then turning around and gouging their wallets with organic food at inflated prices that’s neither safer nor more nutritious than its conventional or GE counterpart.

            It’s never to late to change, but only you have the power to do so. There’s Nothing I or anyone else can do besides offer you criticism of your beliefs and point of the misinformation you’ve been led to believe. But atleast on my part, I’ve got nothing but love and hope in my heart that you and all people will come to see the truth about the science of genetic engineering.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Toxicity is independent of origin. There is no simple heuristic of
            organic pesticide is less toxic than synthetic pesticides that holds
            true upon examination of the toxicology data comparing the two subsets
            of pesticides.”

            That’s because heuristics aren’t good enough.

            Show me : Where did you find toxicological data which demonstrates that organic pesticides are less toxic than synthetic / artificial ones?

            “The only insects affected are those that directly consume the crop.”

            Yes, pertaining the pesticide but not the actual altered genetic structure of the crop which causes other issues.

            “Look, I get it man. It’s really really appealing to uncritically assume
            organic =sustainable and that biotech is the great Satan responsible for
            all the terrible things wrong with agriculture.” :
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c1e193ddb986c081d2fa8257974fe7b48a3082493aec58761045c19bc2b87b5.jpg

            “But it’s just not true. Once you remove your ideological blinders and
            actually critically examine the evidence, I’m certain you’ll change your
            mind and there is absolutely no shame in that.”

            Hypocrisy

            ” I think we as humans are preconditioned to get trapped in fallacious
            ways of thinking, naturalistic fallacies and appeals to antiquities.” :

            Classic Strawman

            “And there are powerful forces at work who see dollar signs by scaring
            people to be afraid of their food by demonizing modern plant breeding
            and then turning around and gouging their wallets with organic food at
            inflated prices that’s neither safer nor more nutritious than its
            conventional or GE counterpart.” :

            Hypocrisy, general bullshit

            “It’s never to late to change, but only you have the power to do so.
            There’s Nothing I or anyone else can do besides offer you criticism of
            your beliefs and point of the misinformation you’ve been led to believe.
            But atleast on my part, I’ve got nothing but love and hope in my heart
            that you and all people will come to see the truth about the science of
            genetic engineering.” :

            Appeal to emotion, bullshit

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I seem to have struck a nerve, no need for nastiness.

            There are many resources that detail toxicology profiles for pesticides. This is the one I use

            http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/index.html

            Feel free to examine the data at your leisure.

            You said “The pesticides used in Organic production aren’t anywhere near as toxic as artificial ones used in conventional farming. ”

            That is an assertion not matched in reality. It’s not really something up for debate.

            I’m glad you know how to copy/paste my words and then attach short insults to them without really any qualifying statements.

            Judging by your harsh reaction I think our exchange has come to its undignified end.

            You are unwilling to change your mind regardless of how many times I and others have demonstrate the short comings in your knowledge of the subject. Perhaps you will in time.

          • Volksbefreier

            I never actually used words known as insults. “Classic Strawman” is a form of logical fallacy.

            “Judging by your harsh reaction I think our exchange has come to its undignified end.

            You
            are unwilling to change your mind regardless of how many times I and
            others have demonstrate the short comings in your knowledge of the
            subject. Perhaps you will in time.”

            Yet you keep responding to me. How hilarious of you to say this.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            What can I say, like a moth to the flame I have a need to correct people when they say incorrect things.

            I only wish you didn’t invite so much opportunity for me to do so.

          • Volksbefreier

            “What can I say, like a moth the flame I have a need to correct people when they say incorrect things.

            I only wish you didn’t invite so much opportunity for me to do so.”

            No, you have a habit of spreading pro – Monsanto “pesticides” (lies, white lies, euphemisms, semantic arguments, logical fallacies) all over the surface of whatever you touch.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I don’t think Monsanto has been given a fair shake in regards to genetic engineering but I’m not pro-Monsanto. I’m a student of the evidence and I’m decidedly pro-science, and the best scientific evidence out there supports the idea that genetic engineering is no riskier to human or environmental health than any other breeding method.

            Monsanto could go away tomorrow and it wouldn’t really matter one fig. (I would lament the loss of American STEM jobs it would entail and the loss of another American company) All the best GE crops are being developed by NGO’s, universities and government Ag research anyways. they’re already here and more coming on the way.

          • Volksbefreier

            “I don’t think Monsanto has been given a fair shake in regards to genetic engineering but I’m not pro-Monsanto”

            By definition in this case you are in fact pro – Monsanto if you want them to be given anything more than they’ve already taken from us.

            “I’m a student of the evidence and I’m decidedly pro-science, and the
            best scientific evidence out there supports the idea that genetic
            engineering is no riskier to human or environmental health than any
            other breeding method.”

            This is just bullshit. I’ve proven you wrong multiple times when it comes to this garbage.

            “Monsanto could go away tomorrow and it wouldn’t really matter one fig.”

            It’d matter to a lot of people. That means, by definition, it would matter.

            “(I would lament the loss of American STEM jobs it would entail and the loss of another American company)”

            Oh, how sad, another “Good Ol’ Amerikan Kompany” gone. Such is the way of the world. One society dies and it’s position taken by another in the scheme of things (U.S.A. being traded in for China)

            “All the best GE crops are being developed by NGO’s, universities and
            government Ag research anyways. they’re already here and more coming on
            the way.”

            Best for corporate profit yes. Not for public health.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Ah it’s the old “if your not with me your against me is it”. I’m not going to bend over backwards to vilify a company based on things it hasn’t done, like your patently disproven claim about Monsanto suing for cross pollination. I’m politically ambivalent towards Monsanto. I’m interesting in biotechnology and it application to agriculture. Really straight forward.

            You have only proven you don’t know much about genetic engineering or agriculture. You never demonstrated any evidence regarding the the risk of genetic engineering. You showed you don’t really understand evolution or genetics.

            Are you mentally challenged? How do crops being made by governments and NGO’s help corporate profits.

            You don’t get to decide on the definitions of things buddy.

            It pretty clear you lack the necessary scientific background to understand issues relating to genetic engineering. your dog in this hunt is a sociopolitical critique of big Ag and your ideology is preventing you from critically and dispassionately examining the the evidence,

          • Volksbefreier

            “You have only proven you don’t know much about genetic engineering or
            agriculture. You never demonstrated any evidence regarding the the risk
            of genetic engineering. You showed you don’t really understand evolution
            or genetics.”

            Just because the actual valid studies haven’t been done doesn’t mean they are safe. I did in fact give you evidence – massive contamination by conflict of interest does the trick.

            You seem to be dismissive of conflicts of interest. Why?

            “Are you mentally challenged. How do crops being made by governments and NGO’s help corporate profits.”

            Governments and “NGOs” don’t actually produce the seeds / crops for sale and usage after the basic genetic modification has been laid down. They need to contract the production out to corporations.

            “You don’t get to decide on the definitions of things buddy.”

            Strawman

            “It pretty clear you lack the necessary scientific background to
            understand issues relating to genetic engineering. your dog in this hunt
            is a sociopolitical critique of big Ag and your ideology is preventing
            you from critically and dispassionately examining the the evidence”

            Bullshit

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Okay now I’ve gone down far enough in the rabbit hole.

            At the end of the day the important thing is that the people wielding the power align with the science which aligns my beliefs. We need only safeguard that from demagoguery disguised as activism.

            Have fun being wrong little buddy! I hope youre quest to eat pre 1940’s foods works.

          • Volksbefreier

            “At the end of the day the important thing is that the people wielding the power align with the science which aligns my beliefs.”

            That’s absolute bullshit! The people wielding the power align with what gives them more power and more money. History has shown this true many times – do I need to show you even one example of this?

            That is how GMOs got legalized – this is how numerous chemicals, too, have been legalized.

            Agrochemical industries lobby or send “agents” into government /-/ Government officials agree to support Agrochemical industry by passing pro – industry laws or repealing regulations and / or preventing new ones from going into effect if Agrochem industry gives them money when they do it /-/ Agrochem industry gives people in government who agreed to support industrial interests money or political support /-/ Later, the people who supported the Agrochem industry, when faced with certain issues which threaten their positions in government, slide on over into a comfortable position in an Agrochem company, preferably the one which lobbied them, or into some kind of other firm which supports Agrochem industry /-/ After some time in Agrochem company, or pro – Agrochem industry, the ex – government officials head on over to government again and get appointed positions, sometimes new ones /-/ Agrochemical industries lobby or send “agents” into government /-/ Government agr….

            The cycle won’t end until proper conflict of interest laws are put into effect to prevent this shit.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Ah it’s the old “if your not with me your against me is it.'”

            Piece of straw

            “I’m not going to bend over backwards to vilify a company based on
            things it hasn’t done, like your patently disproven claim about Monsanto
            suing for cross pollination.”

            What about all the other bad things the company has done? Are you going to ignore them? Are PCBs not toxic?

            Simply poisoning people and then compensating them with money is not good enough. The solution is to avoid poisoning people in the first place because it’s unethical.

            We’re making the same mistakes which we made with all of Monsanto’s other now – proven toxic chemicals.

            We’re trusting Monsanto to protect us. And it only works to protect Monsanto.

            “I’m politically ambivalent towards Monsanto. I’m interesting in
            biotechnology and it application to agriculture. Really straight
            forward.”

            Ah, yes, so straightforward. If most people thought like you, most people would be… dead and poisoned / disabled by the minority of people who don’t think like you and aren’t as trusting.

            I have plenty of reasons to distrust studies directly or indirectly sponsored by Monsanto on it’s own products.

            You have only proven you don’t know much about genetic engineering or
            agriculture. You never demonstrated any evidence regarding the the risk
            of genetic engineering. You showed you don’t really understand
            evolution or genetics.

            Are you mentally challenged? How do crops being made by governments and NGO’s help corporate profits.

            You don’t get to decide on the definitions of things buddy.It
            pretty clear you lack the necessary scientific background to
            understand issues relating to genetic engineering. your dog in this hunt
            is a sociopolitical critique of big Ag and your ideology is preventing
            you from critically and dispassionately examining the the evidence,”

            I already responded to this.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            You draw me back in you vixen you.

            I was very clear to specify that that my interest is in genetic engineering and was speaking specifically about Monsantos role in genetic engineering . Monsanto as we know it today is actually not the same Monsanto as pre 2000. It to was originally 3 different company’s Ag, pharmaceutical and chemical. The company that made PCP was the chemical company, they only share a commen name with the Ag company. The chemical company was spun off in a company called Solutia and it was bought by Eastman Chemicals.

            And for the record being correct about facts is not inherently being pro-Monsanto (the Ag company). But it’s important to examine the actual evidence with a sober mind and a level head. There are plenty of good reasons to hate and distrust corporations. What you’ve presented through your posts, which quite generally are devoid of factually correct statements and rife with misunderstandings and seemingly an almost willful ignorance, doesn’t lay out a good case for it.

            But as I said before it’s really all inconsequential to me. I’m much more concerned about your misunderstanding of genetics and evolution than your opinion on a company. How one feels about a company is a value statement that can be argued. However what you revealed you don’t understand about evolution and genetics is much more troubling. But I’m not gonna be able to change your mind and correct your misunderstandings. We as a society need to make sure that we have a government that continually makes its policy decisions based on science and an eye for evidence and is unafraid to make an unpopular but correct decision. And there’s every indication that’s the direction we’re going.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Monsanto as we know it today is actually not the same Monsanto as pre
            2000. It to was originally 3 different company’s Ag, pharmaceutical and
            chemical. The company that made PCP was the chemical company, they only
            share a commen name with the Ag company. The chemical company was spun
            off in a company called Solutia and it was bought by Eastman Chemicals.”

            This is mostly true – however modern Monsanto is basically the core remnant of the old and as such still is responsible for pollution by the “old” Monsanto.

            “And for the record being correct about facts is not inherently being
            pro-Monsanto (the Ag company). But it’s important to examine the actual
            evidence with a sober mind and a level head. There are plenty of good
            reasons to hate and distrust corporations.”

            This is true – but once you reach a certain point, you really cannot be “levelheaded” on the issue anymore, if you are similar to myself.
            Once you reach the threshold and you know just how evil a corporation is, and you have researched this corporation using pure logic for years, it’s almost impossible to keep emotionally intact instead of exploding in emotion against the corporation.

            “What you’ve presented through your posts, which quite generally are
            devoid of factually correct statements and rife with misunderstandings
            and seemingly an almost willful ignorance, doesn’t lay out a good case
            for it.”

            This simply is not true. In fact you are the one who usually “misunderstands” (actually does understand, but spins it around in an effort to act as a PR master for Monsanto).

            “However what you revealed you don’t understand about evolution and genetics is much more troubling.”

            Explain exactly how I “revealed” this. I have some ideas on how I could have done so.

            “We as a society need to make sure that we have a government that
            continually makes its policy decisions based on science and an eye for
            evidence and is unafraid to make an unpopular but correct decision. And
            there’s every indication that’s the direction we’re going.”

            The first sentence in the above was true – but the second was bullshit.

          • Volksbefreier

            You do realize Cornell accepts money from biotech right?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            And that’s relevent to this discussion how?

            They also do a lot of research on agroecology and organic. I used to live in Ithaca I’ve been to the research food forest located on campus that grows shiitakes and oyster mushrooms and paw-paw. I know what the research climate is like there.

            You can see directly in that page where the source of funding comes from for this program. Its right at the top.

            This program I linked you too is a collaborative effort from several land grant university’s most of which are public schools. Even Cornells agriculture school is publicly funded similar to the relationship that SUNY ESF has with Syracuse.

          • Volksbefreier

            “And that’s relevent to this discussion how?”

            Too stupid to know what a conflict of interest is, or too ethically retarded?

            “They also do a lot of research on agroecology and organic. I used to
            live in Ithaca I’ve been to the research food forest located on campus
            that grows shiitakes and oyster mushrooms and paw-paw. I know what the
            research climate is like there.”

            Sure you do. So what was the “research climate” like those years ago, before they started accepting Monsanto grants?

            “You can see directly in that page where the source of funding comes from for this program. Its right at the top.”

            But the university itself as a whole receives grants from Monsanto, which means the entire university is going to be pro – Monsanto so they can keep getting grants.

            “Public schools?” As in universities?

        • agscienceliterate

          According to the rules of Volks? Actually, yawn, thousands of studies have been done for decades. Do your research.

          • Volksbefreier

            But I proved why they are invalid, you imbecile!

          • Guest

            No, you explained why you won’t accept them, but you have not demonstrated they are invalid. There’s a difference. Just be honest.

  • T.Neid

    As I head off for my daily bike ride into mangrove country I’ll be wondering if this may be my last day. Will it be the gmo banana I just consumed? Will it be the Zika bite I’m overdue for? Or maybe that croc I spotted yesterday……

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      You are only about 100 miles from Cuba. Clearly it will be the communists that get you.

      • Volksbefreier

        No, the fascists will get him. He’s within their country already and the Communists will not be able to reach him in time.

  • Shlomo

    since these hypocrites like to accuse other of smearing people, I invite any to take a look at the claim that TM is in any way a cult and decide for yourself who is really involved in a smear campaign. Absolutely this article is a crude attempt to smear individuals and is an ad hominum attack against GMO opponents. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm
    Transcendental Meditation teachers have always been eager to have their techniques validated by independent scientific analysis, which is just the opposite of the GMO industry. I invite anyone to research the studies on TM for yourself, and likewise do your own research into the health effects of GMOs. I have no doubts about the conclusions you will come to and that is becoming ever more evident in the choices of consumers and institutions.

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      Even better. Look for web pages and blogs from ex-members. http://www.suggestibility.org/ and http://comingtolifestories.com/about/

    • agscienceliterate

      Well, you may just want to start having doubts about the conclusions we will come to. Those of us who have studied GE policy and technology for decades are light years ahead of you. Your link to an anti-science website does not add to your credibility, by the way.

  • Shlomo

    anyone can see by this article just who exactly is eager to engage in slander rather than talk about the facts, since that is an argument they can’t win.since these hypocrites like to accuse OTHERS of smearing people, I invite
    any to take a look at the claim that TM is in any way a cult and decide
    for yourself who is really involved in a smear campaign. Absolutely
    this article is a crude attempt to smear individuals and is an ad
    hominum attack against GMO opponents. http://www.truthabouttm.org/tr

    Transcendental
    Meditation teachers have always been eager to have their techniques
    validated by independent scientific analysis, which is just the opposite
    of the GMO industry. I invite anyone to research the studies on TM for
    yourself, and likewise do your own research into the health effects of
    GMOs. I have no doubts about the conclusions you will come to and that
    is becoming ever more evident in the choices of consumers and
    institutions.

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      Says the brain washed cult member. You think meditation will create thought bubble leading to world peace and think the removal of biotechnology will lead to invincibility. But, you are probably just a victim like the others. Hopefully one day you will wake up.

      • Volksbefreier

        Nice strawman, mate. Is the straw GMO? (Sarcasm)

        • Stephan Neidenbach

          They denied being in a cult. I pointed out some very cultish beliefs they accept.

          • Volksbefreier

            And I clearly stated that I was being sarcastic.

  • Peter Olins

    Claire Robinson is also managing editor of the gmoseralini website—a vehicle which allows Seralini to perpetuate his ideas, even in the face being retracted by an actual scientific journal. The obscene images of tumor-ridden rats still feature prominently on the site.
    http://www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/

  • Dominick Dickerson

    Also Earthopensource, is directly related to the Maharishi cult as well.

    It’s a collaboration between Fagan and a British PR group called Blue Marble Consulting. The most cited document seen from that source is something called “GMO myths and truths” written by none other than Fagan and Robinson

  • scotty perey

    I cannot tell you how happy I am to see the Maharishi connection get more exposure. Maharishi University graduate Jeffery Smith’s CV was my first revelation of this notorious “Fairfield, Iowa” network (the “university” and Smith and the headquarters of Genetic ID all have their home in that same locale).

    For a jaw-droppingly comedic — though 100% real — reflection of the culture of the Maharishi University of Management (!), check out this video of the 2014 graduation ceremony with the now “Dr.” Jim Carrey giving the commencement address (having just been bestowed an honorary doctorate himself)

    I do declare, satire is dead.

  • Volksbefreier

    The truth on modern GM techniques and the real coverups : http://www.psrast.org/criticssuppr.htm

    • gmoeater

      Oh, for heaven sake’s. You keep quoting Jeffrey Smith with that same link. Jeffrey Smith, the flying yoga, has zero expertise in GE, and all he has is an anti-GE mouth. Jeffrey Smith is a known quack, and is not considered a credible source of information about GE. Just thought you should know. Try again.

      • Volksbefreier

        Known quack?

        Nice shill gambit, matey.

        Too bad what he says is the truth and what you spew is cow feces. He basically compiles valid information for spreading among the public while what you do is the opposite.

        • gmoeater

          OK. You pretty much described your mental state and thinking process pretty clearly here. You believe that anyone who posts scientific information is a shill. You didn’t know that Monsanta oh sells organic seeds. You didn’t know that modern foods, including organic, are made in labs all the time, through mutagenesis. You think known quack Jeffrey Smith tells the truth about genetic engineering. You believe that anyone else, who does support genetic engineering, is somehow paid off or manipulated by a corrupted industry.You only eat food that you somehow believe has been produced only using pre-1940 cropping techniques.

          T hat’s just about everything about you that I need to know. Your anti-science views are now quite clear. And you stubbornly refuse to learn anything about genetically engineered crops, because of your rigid support of your pseudoscience way of thinking. ‘Nuff said. You would get far better response by posting this garbage on Food Babe site.

          • Volksbefreier

            No, I did not. That’s a logical fallacy. I have never called out everyone who posts scientific information as a “shill”, but you do it a lot and so do other pro – GMers.

            Just because Organic seeds are mutated by humans all the time doesn’t mean they actually get allowed for consumption.

            How is Jeffrey a known quack? Tell me. It seems like many people who actually stands up to industry are called “quacks” or shills even though they provide evidence that what they say is the truth, while industry doesn’t.

            “You believe that anyone else, who does support genetic engineering, is somehow paid off or manipulated by a corrupted industry.”

            No, that’s a logical fallacy. I never said that nor are you a mind reader.

            “Somehow believe”? Oh so it’s impossible to tell which crops were bred using only pre – 1940 methods?

            “T hat’s just about everything about you that I need to know. Your
            anti-science views are now quite clear. And you stubbornly refuse to
            learn anything about genetically engineered crops, because of your
            rigid support of your pseudoscience way of thinking. ‘Nuff said. You
            would get far better response by posting this garbage on Food Babe site.”

            I don’t “stubbornly refuse to learn anything about GE crops.”

            That is just a simple lie.

        • Dominick Dickerson

          Are you in Maharishi cult?

          • Volksbefreier

            YES. I IS IN MAHARISHI CULT. I IS COMING TO SPREAD SUPER DUPER PROPAGANDA TO SAVINGS OF YOU. I IS SAVIOR.

            No. I am not in any cults – but why are you trusting me? The shills / spies are in every corner.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Well the empassioned defense of the huckster, ballroom dance instructor and yogic flyer extraordinaire Jeffrey Smith, is typically something seen from people who also subscribe to the same cult he belongs to.

            None of Jeffrey Smiths claims are representative of actual academic thought on genetic engineering. But he certainly has made a killing off duping the scientifically illiterate through book sales and speaking engagements.

          • Volksbefreier

            That’s because most academic thought on genetic engineering is biased, just as with most academic thought on other biotech products.

            Just like with Agent Orange during the ’70s.

            Scientificially illiterate? Well, if this “Genetic Literacy Project” is scientifically literate, surely I am illiterate in the topic.

            You can twist it and spin it any way you want, but this GLP is funded near – totally by…. Monsanto. And it is a PR scheme to promote GMO sales. It is not based on science.

            It is based on the flawed academic “consensus” which is founded on fear of biotech’s power.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Cool story bro

        • agscienceliterate

          Jeffrey Smith has zero experience with growing crops, biology, seed development, pesticide analysis, crop science, or anything else related to the cultivation, growing, and eating of GE crops. He sells books. Let me repeat that. He sells books.
          While you are perfectly free to waste your money on the woo that he sells, you fool yourself righteously if you believe that what he says has anything credible to offer to the world of biotech crops. I will keep my cow feces over that fraud any day.

          • Volksbefreier

            “Jeffrey Smith has zero experience with growing crops, biology, seed
            development, pesticide analysis, crop science, or anything else related
            to the cultivation, growing, and eating of GE crops. He sells books.
            Let me repeat that. He sells books.”

            But what he says is actually true when it pertains to those subjects. Something isn’t quite right with the claim that he has “zero experience” with those subjects.

            Yes, he sells books but a lot of people who want to spread information and sell books don’t just do it for profit. After all, books haven’t ever poisoned anyone, so it’s not as big of a “conflict of interest” issue because the risk of mass poisoning and actual harm to the public’s health is nowhere near as large as conflicts of interest when they occur in regulatory agencies and regulatory science.

            “While you are perfectly free to waste your money on the woo that he
            sells, you fool yourself righteously if you believe that what he says
            has anything credible to offer to the world of biotech crops.”

            Too bad what he says about GMOs is mostly true, regardless of his background (I am not saying he is omniscient or knows everything about even one topic, or speaks always truthfully because nobody can – in fact, some of what he says are blatant lies, especially when it comes to things regarding the “spirit”) true.

          • agscienceliterate

            It is true to you because you fervently believe it to be true. Sorry to bust your bubble, but your fervent wish for it to be so does not make it so.
            Ah, the “spirit” argument. Sigh.

          • Volksbefreier

            “It is true to you because you fervently believe it to be true. Sorry to
            bust your bubble, but your fervent wish for it to be so does not make
            it so.
            Ah, the “spirit” argument. Sigh.”

            What is wrong with me saying that what he says about “spirit” is mostly false? Are you advocating for his, ermmm… “spiritual beliefs?”

            “It is true to you because you fervently believe it to be true. Sorry to
            bust your bubble, but your fervent wish for it to be so does not make
            it so.”

            This is bullshit. I don’t believe truth to be relative, but many of the PR spinmeister agencies which promote GMOs do.