I feed my kids GMO foods and not organics–That doesn’t make me a ‘bad mom’

|

I could certainly afford to pay up to 50 percent more for organic food for my children to eat, but I refuse to. I decline to pay the premium for organic food because I cannot justify it when comparable conventional foods (including those with GMOs) are just as healthy and nutritious, and arguably more environmentally friendly.

According to many of my colleagues in this business of motherhood, not feeding my children organic food makes me ill-suited to be a mom. I’ve actually been called a bad mother, an irresponsible mother, and downright lazy for wanting to feed my children an apple that won’t brown when you cut it—the new GM Arctic Apple that’s been approved for sale. I didn’t realize that what I choose to feed my kids affected so many other people, in turn giving them the right to label me a “Bad Mom”. I wish these moms would recognize that we’re lucky to have the choice in what food we feed our families when so many in the world don’t have a choice.Bad mom

We have all been eating these alleged “poisonous” GMOs for almost 20 years, yet within the last few years it seems a lot of people (mostly women/moms) are suddenly panicked about them. There have been a few petitions circulating that have increased the paranoia regarding GMOs and conventional agriculture. One petition calls for the removal of GMOs from baby formula and another is to stop pesticide use in conventional dairy products— a campaign started by Stonyfield, an organic yogurt company.

To me the later petition is particularly absurd as its goal is to sell Stonyfield’s organic products by throwing their conventional competitors under the bus, even though it doesn’t take much Google searching to find out that organic farming uses pesticides too. This campaign strikes an unnecessary wave of fear among unknowing parents who think they are harming their children by feeding them perfectly safe conventional food.

It never sat well with me that so many parents are being needlessly scared so I started engaging on Twitter with some of these parents. Almost instantly I was asked if I was employed  by anyone tied to the GMO issue; in other words, was I an industry “shill” for GMOs. It seemed that none of these moms could understand my reasoning for feeding my family healthy foods that just happened to contain GMOs, although I’ve explained time and time again that science tells me they are safe.

I’ve found that mothers opposed to GMOs tend to be strident and even threatening. One anti-GMO activist blogger recently accused me on her Facebook page of being a stalker because I reacted on Twitter to some her anti-GMO tweets. She posted about it on her Facebook page, asking her “friends” whether “you think I need to involve the police….I’m not messing around with my kids.”

Apparently not only does the fact that I do not feed my kids organic food make me a bad mother, it makes me a threat to someone’s children 1500 miles away from me and grants me stalker status. Why? Because I posted some tweets challenging some of her misstatements about GMOs? This is how emotional and paranoid some activists—who are usually woman and often moms—can be .

I’m also frustrated by the way the media misrepresents organic foods. Last year, I came across an article in Parenting Magazine that supposedly summarized a meta-study by Stanford University scientists and published by the American Academy of Pediatrics on the health and environmental advantages and disadvantages of organic food. The magazine headlined its article “AAP: Organic Food Good For Kids,” writing among other things that there is “convincing evidence that eating organic foods reduces exposure to pesticides.”

But that’s not what the researchers found. They concluded: “In the long term, there is currently no direct evidence that consuming an organic diet leads to improved health or lower risk of disease.” While the study found that there is no significant pesticide residue in conventional foods, the parenting article massaged this to say that eating organic food  may limit exposure to pesticides and that parents should buy organic if you can afford it to “cover your bases”. Well, that advice seems to be quite baffling as it’s not what the researchers concluded; no wonder parents can be so confused. Why can’t a supposedly objective and respected magazine just tell it like it is!

I don’t feel guilt-ridden for not buying organic food for my kids and neither should you. Here’s some food for thought: the World Health Organization (WHO), which I hold up at high standards as a Registered Nurse, states this about genetically modified foods:

…no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

WHO also tells me that breastfeeding exclusively for the first 6 months of a baby’s life is the optimal way for feeding infants. I was able to successfully do that with my second child when only 10% of mothers in Canada reach that goal. Yet I’m an awful mom now because I do not feed my children only organic food, right?

Many organic food proponents abide by the “better safe than sorry” rule (the precautionary principle of motherhood), when it comes to food. I agree with that in my kids’ lives, I really do, but not when it comes to how their solid food is produced. It’s why I breastfed my babies for as long as I could and why I pay top dollar for car seats, rear-face my toddlers, and won’t let them wear bulky winter jackets in their car seats when it’s minus 30 degrees outside. I care about my children’s health and safety immensely, but no food is ever 100 percent safe, including organic food.

I know that I am a good mom. Some days I even call myself a great mom, and I don’t deserve to be called a bad mom for not feeding my kids organic food. Don’t let the anti-GMO activist moms bully you into thinking that organic is the only or best way when it comes to feeding your kids. I assure you it is not. For me, it’s more important to feed my children a well-balanced diet of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, milk products and meat than to pay outrageous prices for organic foods because of unwarranted fears of a slightly increased risk of pesticide exposure at levels the world’s best scientists say is harmless. As long as the food is safe and healthy—and that’s what the best science says about conventional foods including GMOS—then buy what you want, that’s what I say.

Sarah Schultz is a nurse, farm wife, mom of two young boys, and blogger. She’s passionate about educating readers about agriculture and life on her family’s grain farm near Calgary. You can follow her on Twitter @NurseLovesFarmr and on Facebook.

  • Jodi

    Nicely stated Sarah!

  • mem_somerville

    You know what I think is bad parenting? Telling kids stuff like this:
    To Eat or Not to Eat-GMO? “My mom says my stomach will explode!”

    This poor kid could be afraid of food forever. Decades of therapy, maybe an eating disorder. I think the fearmongering has much more insidious consequences.

  • Dee Mc

    I echo your thoughts! Thank you for penning them and allowing me to share with my friends!

  • Stephanie

    Thank you Sarah, mom shaming needs to end. It doesn’t matter how YOU choose to feed your children in the end if they are healthy and happy and growing, who is someone else to judge your choices. I experienced mom shaming when I was unable to breastfeed my sons, a health nurse actually likened it to committing cold abuse. Thankyou for standing up to the GMO BULLIES, with such an articulate, educated point of view.

    • Mom shaming does need to end and I hope that organic-only moms don’t feel shamed by this as that is not my intent. That’s awful that a nurse treated you that way—you get it on both ends: nurses pushing moms too hard for not breastfeeding and nurses not encouraging enough and pushing formula. Awful situations, both of them!

    • Jeanine

      I’m so sorry you went through this. I was a breast-feeding mom and am a therapist, and I encourage my younger acquaintances to do what is best for them and their family. I’d much rather they were not stressed-out and able to enjoy and bond with their babies than worrying about how their breasts hurt, or how much and what they fed them. Bottle babies do just fine (well, I was one!) , and I challenge anyone to take a group of children and determine which were fed what as infants.

  • Lisa

    Sarah, I loved this article. My friend is a vegetarian and only feeds her kids organic foods — from Whole Foods nonetheless, which breaks her pocketbook every time she checks out. Imagine my surprise when she came to visit and she dumped a boatload of cinnamon sugar on her 3-year-olds organic cinnamon-raisen bagel. Sooooo healthy! No, my children’s bagels were not organic and neither was the cream cheese, but who ate the healthier breakfast? Oh, she also squirted organic chocolate flavoring into their milk. Mine had non-organic OJ. Again, which kid ate a healthier meal? I loved this article. Thank you!
    Lisafinn.net

    • That is a really great look at a scenario where a mom *thinks* she’s doing such a nutritional service feeding only (as it sounds) organic food. Sugar is sugar is sugar! :) I don’t wanna spend my dollars that way, but to each their own! Thanks, Lisa.

  • RobertWager

    Well said Sarah

  • UGADawg09

    This is an amazing article. I can’t remember a day in the last few years when I wasn’t sickened by an instance of some uneducated tool spewing pseudoscience about fad diets or some imaginary dietary bogeyman or vague “toxins” and their associated “detox” diets. And you’re right – more often than not, it’s some bored middle-aged housewife who spends way too much time forwarding chain e-mails and posting Dr. Oz quackery on Facebook – too much free time, not enough education.

    • Thanks. That’s what I struggle with as a “pro-science” mom on social media dealing with anti-science/anti-GMO/anti-vax moms at every corner. But they seem to have the loudest voices and biggest followings, it’s very frustrating!

      • ???????

        Pro science ???? What ? Holy crap people really are morons ! When you die from cancer from a GMO food I guess you asked for it ! That’s why so many other countries and even states are banning it !!! I love how moms like this will say oh my god don’t smoke near my child yet all those same chemicals plus many for are in your child’s food !!!! Ha ha

        • Genetic modification is a process, not a product, so GMOs as a class cannot cause cancer. There is not one peer reviewed study in the scientific literature that links GMOs to cancer. No states have banned GMOs. Genetically modified foods are legally consumed in every country in the world. Trillions of millions of meals containing GM foods have been consumed since the introduction of GM crops in 1996, and not so much as a sniffle has been linked to the process. Cancer rates have trended down steadily in the US since the introduction of GM foods in 1996. In contrast, during the same period of time, tens of thousands of people–perhaps hundreds of thousands–have died or taken ill from food borne illnesses linked to organic foods (which does not make me anti-organic foods). Your concern for children is shared by most everyone. But fear is a poor substitute for reasoned analysis and sound policy making When it comes to GM crops and foods, it’s best to rely on science rather than fear, hysteria and propaganda.

          • Caroline Yunker

            You’re kidding me? GMO is a process? Biotechnology is the process by which a GMO seed or GMO crop is produced. You can’t hold a process but you can hold a product. I can hold a GMO seed or GMO corn but I can’t hold “biotechnology.”

          • Caroline: You don’t eat the GE seed. You eat what grows from it, which is nutritionally identical to its organic or conventional counterpart, except in cases in which the GE seed has been tweaked to increase its nutritional value (such as rice with vitamin A built in) or a nut in which the protein that causes the allergen has been removed, therefore making it a superior end product.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Of course you can eat seeds like pumpkin seeds. But yes, I won’t eat a GMO Bt corn seed that is intended for growing crop. But you’re saying GMOs are not products but a process which is wrong. There are plenty of studies out there that link Glyphosate in Roundup to cancer. Google it.

          • Caroline, glyphosate is a chemical that existed decades before GMOs were introduced. It’s widely used in home gardens and is not carcinogenic. The EPA has studied this widely…their reports are available online. There are no MAINSTREAM studies that suggest that glyphosate poses serious health issues as used. There have been two recent studies in what are caused “pay for play” journals–that raise issues, but those studies have been evaluated and dismissed as shoddy.

            Moreover, Bt seeds are not used in conjunction with glyphosate.

          • Caroline Yunker

            When glyphosate was developed is irrelavant to this discussion. GMO seeds were developed to sell more Roundup. AND the use of chemicals including Roundup have increased in the past decades. And what about the Superweed and Superbugs? Things are not better but worse. Look around – our children are sick from eating GMO foods. And to promote GMO food as “safe” is unconscionable.

          • Caroline, I don’t believe you have correct information on a number of fronts. Glyphosate resistant GMOs are one of dozens of GMOs. Some GMOs, such as golden rice, increase the nutritional value of crops, saving lives and resulting in no additional use of chemicals. Others such as GMO papaya or chestnut trees are rescuing species and resulting in the reduction in the use of fungicides. Bt GMOs have resulted in historic reduction in the use of pesticides–documented dramatically in latest USDA report released 2 weeks ago. As for glyphosate resistant GMOs, they’ve led to the substitution of glyphosate for much more toxic and carcinogenic old line chemicals–glyphosate’s health profile and Environmental Impact rating is very low–a dramatic sustainability boost.

            So: GMOs have been overall a sustainability plus. As for GMOs safety: every major independent science organization in the world bar NONE has endorsed the safety of GMOs.. There is not one documented health problem or incident shown to have been caused by GMOs–not so much as a sniffle. Cancer rates are sliding, particularly for stomach cancer. If evidence means anything, I suggest you rethink your views.

          • Caroline Yunker

            What BS you spout. Furthermore, I don’t give a hoot about those “independent” science organizations that say GMOs are safe. You and I both know money talks.

          • Yes, Caroline, good point: the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization and 90 other top global health and oversight agencies are all on ‘the take’. Let’s all rely on a ‘reputable’ sources, like NaturalNews.com. That’s a step forward for science!!

          • Caroline Yunker

            I don’t get my info from NaturalNews so that’s a moot point. Just who fills the top positions in these organizations? Oh yes, people from Big Gov’t and Big Businesses.

          • Caroline, you are just flat out wrong. By your reasoning, all the world’s top scientists are part of a grand conspiracy theory. The fact is, the science on GMOs is very robust. There have been approximately 2500 studies on food safety and sustainability issues. Many hundreds of them have been executed with zero input from industry. The industry and non-industry/independent studies show the same thing: there are no unique dangers from GMO crops that are not also presented by organic or other conventional crops. There are a literal handful of studies that suggest some POSSIBLE concerns, but not one is in a major journal and none has been replicated. That’s the gold standard for science: replication. So we have about 2400 studies showing no serious issues, and those studies have been replicated many times; industry and independent and government studies concur. And we have a dozen or so one-off studies in third tier journals or retracted papers that raise questions that have not been replicated. You can play the ‘big govt’ or ‘big business’ card, but the facts don’t match your cynicism and contempt for science. You ignore the facts on cancer, and pesticide use and GMO studies and perpetuate one myth after another. You have an agenda. You don’t care about evidence. So there is no reason to pretend that you are willing to engage in any real discussion.

          • Caroline Yunker

            The FDA does NOT test GMOs. They “evaluate” studies provided by the industry. It would be great if the FDA replicated the studies. Of course, there’s that little problem of “independence” since the FDA Food Safety Czar is ex- Monsanto VP, Michael Taylor.

          • Caroline: You changed the subject. As I wrote, more than 100 independent agencies including the World Health Organization and every major European science organization has endorsed the safety of GMOs. I explicitly did not mention the FDA, as that’s an issue of regulation not an issue of basic research. The basic research issue is clear and overwhelming: GMOs are as safe or safer than organics or conventional foods. On the issue of regulations–a different issue than safety–the FDA reviews a range of studies including industry studies and those from independent agencies. Your paranoid riddled comments about the FDA are in line with your other comments. As one of many independent sources, I suggest you read the story written by the uber-left magazine Grist, whose food reporter Nathanael Johnson addressed the conspiracy theory that you are now so blithely peddling. Here is his refreshingly balanced take on that claim in a report titled: “The GM safety dance: What’s rule and what’s real” (http://grist.org/food/the-gm-safety-dance-whats-rule-and-whats-real/) He specifically addressed the issue you raise: “Critics of genetic engineering say the industry is not required to do any safety testing.”

            Key conclusion: “Here’s the deal: The process is technically voluntary, but in practice, absolutely everyone does “volunteer.” That’s because the FDA can stop any food (GM or otherwise) from going to market. It would be incredibly foolish for a company to spend a lot of money on a new breed of plant while thumbing its nose at the agency, Giddings said.

            In other words, it’s voluntary — but if you don’t volunteer, the FDA is standing there to whack you with a very big stick. Moreover, regulatory review from the USDA and the EPA is mandatory in every sense — there’s nothing even legalistically voluntary about that. … After doing this reporting, I won’t be saying that there’s no required safety testing: saying so implies that GE food is unregulated and untested, and that simply isn’t the case. The FDA does a thorough job; it just focuses tightly on a few potential dangers, looking for allergens, amplification of toxins that naturally exist in the plant, and changes in nutritional composition.”

            Recommendations: Please stop spreading paranoid misinformation. Rely on science and empirical research. Don’t believe there is a evil corporate witch behind every bush.

          • Jess

            This is a Canadian writer. We have Health Canada NOT FDA. It has different regulations and is quite a bit more cautious then the FDA(as a generalization)

          • Christopher North

            You forget that GMO have been around for a while, and while the current head of the FDA worked for Monsanto, what about the other 6 or 7 heads before him?

          • Executives have been bouncing back and forth from the FDA to Monsanto AND back for decades.

          • Eric

            Even if they did test themselves, you wouldn’t believe them anyway

          • Christopher North

            Almost 30 years, and I just counted 2000 studies (even a few paid for by ANTI GMO groups) and zero proof.. When you truly understand the science (just like vaccines, evolution and the Big Bang) it all makes logical sense.

          • Carrie Channing

            Proof (of safety) should be the starting point, not “oh, let’s feed it to animals and people for a few generations and see what happens”. Yet some want to see science as anything from the lab. Either science is proven, consistent or it isn’t science. So, GMO, you can’t be scientifically proven yet. So what are you doing being fed to us and livestock? The onus isn’t on us proving it ain’t safe, its on white coats proving it is. Which they cant , so it ain’t scientifically proven to be safe. Professors of great learning, with medical training, sad for your brainwashed state of mind, but you choose your way, we uneducated, middle aged women whom you love to discredit, will choose ours. I read what I read I think what I think. I say no to poisons in my food, air, water, home. Time will tell.

          • Jeff Clothier

            After twenty years and over 600 studies, yeah, the burden of proof has pretty wel shifted.

          • Christopher North

            Its going on 30 years, and I just counted 2000 studies (even a few paid for by ANTI GMO groups) and zero proof..

          • Carrie Channing

            WHO and the gov. are big pharma’s bitches, and you’d have to be blind not to see that.
            http://www.ceh.org/news-events/podcasts/content/the-buzz-about-bees/

            You might wish to avoid watching this, you might have to alter your thinking.

          • Morons must die

            Utter moron! When confronted by irrefutable facts backed up by peer-reviewed science you spout “utter BS” what you have done right there is the same as a petulant little child flipping the table upside down because you lost the game! Grow up!

          • Christopher North

            Where is your degree in chemistry or bio-engineering?

          • Kyle Alford

            You can ask Jon the same thing. He doesn’t have one. He runs a non profit organization that spreads information, that puts these companies who create these monstrosities, in a positive light. This guys Jon started as a political campaign director. His occupation is listed as a business and sustainability consultant, which is laughable, considering how unsustainable GMOs and factory farming are.

          • Kyle—you raise an important point, that a person’s education, training and experience will influence how credible their opinions are. However, even for complex topics such as pesticides or GMO, an intelligent, motivated, person can develop substantial expertise—especially if they are skilled at critical thinking. A good example is the journalist, Nathanael Johnson, who writes for Grist. Often, it takes a journalist to distill the complexities of science into a form that is intelligible to the general public.

            In the biological sciences, it is very common for people to become experts in fields that they were not initially trained for; in fact, many important ideas come from people who are not burdened by the current accepted “facts”.

            I have followed Jon’s writing for a number of years, and in the areas that I consider myself knowledgeable, I have found it very rare for him to make a statement that is not also supported by the weight of scientific evidence. Unlike many visible media commentators, he clearly does his homework. In a desert of slick Internet pseudoscience and misinformation, GLP is a rare oasis. Unfortunately, the discussion threads, which appear to include minimal censorship, often attract commenters who are unable—or unwilling— to discuss the main scientific topic, but instead resort to distractions and ad hominem attacks.

            Perhaps I’m wrong, Kyle: feel free to offer examples where you believe Jon’s comments are not supported by the current science.

          • Adrian Meraz

            Sounds like you don’t “give a hoot” about the scientific method. Please, put away the laptop, desktop, or mobile device that you used to post your comment. Those are based on ol’ unreliable science.

          • TruthSeeker

            Golden rice isn’t as cool as you say. It actually doesn’t contain the proper amount of vitamin a to ever help with the deficiency. For example, Scientists were going to do a study on Golden rice. They examined the rice before the experiment, and there was less than 1% of the expected vitamin a. Then after they cooked it, it lost another 10%. Why, then does everyone promote it?
            Concerning your statement about pesticides. GM plants have actually increased to amount of pesticides due the the mutation of the insects and weeds they are designed to kill. Farmers end up using more pesticides. I mean, come on! Organic farmers do more harm spraying chemicals than others, who spray pesticides on top of the pesticides that the plant already has inside it? These pesticides they’re using used to be used as bio-weapons. They sprayed them into areas and the chemical killed many people. I don’t want that.

          • Your statement on Golden Rice is absolutely incorrect. The original iteration of GR was deficient…more than 10 years ago…but that was tweaked. in 2000, a first proof-of-concept study on the feasibility of rice biofortification with beta-carotene was published, and in subsequent work the beta-carotene content in the rice was increased substantially: By 2005 a “second generation” of Golden Rice had been developed that di provide enough beta-carotene (even in in absolute terms) to prevent VAD in rice-eating populations. By 2009 a feeding study had been conducted that showed a high bioavailability of the beta-carotene in Golden Rice, and in 2012 the results of another, larger feeding study showed that the beta-carotene in Golden Rice is as effective as pure beta-carotene and better than spinach at providing vitamin A to children. As IRRI – while itself not involved – pointed out, a statement in this latter study confirmed that the processes and protocol of the study were approved in China and the United States and the study was conducted with the consent of those involved.

            Meanwhile not least the strict regulatory frameworks for the approval of GMOs slowed down the development process of Golden Rice, which was moreover met with scepticism by a public that was unsettled because of contradicting but unsubstantiated disinformation campaigns of interested third parties and activist groups that benefit from keeping the public in the dark – and frightened – about GM crops. (One reason why it is important to bring light into the discussion about GMOs.)

            Continuing its previous funding, in April 2011 the Gates Foundation announced a US$ 10 million grant to IRRI to fund the development and evaluation of Golden Rice varieties for the Philippines and Bangladesh. The grant is also meant to help generating the data needed for Golden Rice to comply with food safety and environmental regulations. Thus the grant will also be used to compile the regulatory dossier to confirm that Golden Rice is indeed safe to eat; as the coordinator of the Golden Rice Network stresses: “These crops will not be used by farmers or consumers until they pass tests for biosafety in each country.” In addition, this new initiative includes a collaboration of IRRI with Hellen Keller International (HKI) to evaluate to what extent the consumption of Golden Rice improves vitamin A status. Then, if Golden Rice is deployed, HKI will help ensure that it reaches those most in need.

            As for your claims that the use of GMOs has led to an increase in pesticides, that’s just not accurate, and that’s reinforced in the latest USDA study on this issue released just last month. The use of Bt crops has led to a dramatic–80%–decrease in the use of chemicals. As for glyphosate resistant crops, while that chemical is being used more, it’s replaced far more toxic chemicals, so while volume of some chemicals are up toxicity levels are down–a net sustainability plus.

            I hope this clears up the confusion on both issues.

          • Eric

            It’s pro vitamin A, not vitamin A but
            carotenoids. Vitmain A comes from meat.

          • Eric

            It doesn’t contain vitamin A at all ( That’s in meat) . Its beta carotene which we do not convert very well at all.

          • Carrie Channing

            Hello, you tell him! Have you seen this?

          • Eric

            You know In April the EU released the first Continent-wide epidemiological
            study of bee health in Europe, covering 2012-13 (before the EU’s neonic
            ban went into effect). Seventy-five percent of the EU’s bee population
            (located in 11 of the countries surveyed) experienced overwinter losses
            of 15% a year or less—levels considered normal in the U.S. Only 5% of
            the EU’s bee population (located in six northern countries) experienced
            losses over 20%, after a long, severe winter.

            A ban on neonics
            would not benefit bees, because they are not the chief source of bee
            health problems today. Varroa mites are, along with the lethal viruses
            they vector into bee colonies. If neonics were dangerous, how to explain
            that in Canada, Saskatchewan’s $19 billion canola industry depends on
            neonics to prevent predation by the ravenous flea beetle—and those
            neonic-treated canola fields support such thriving honeybee populations
            that they’ve been dubbed the “pastures for pollinators.”

          • Carrie Channing

            Thank you, learned more, but still think nature knows best. Probably silly, but I’ll keep saying NO to messing with the balance of nature.

          • Eric

            no, less actually. Historically less has been used. So, it’s doing the job it was intended to.

            Maybe we should just ask the nice hungry bugs to stop eating gigantic crops so we can stop spraying.

          • Carrie Channing

            Open your mind.

          • JoeFarmer

            Spamming a link to an activist site promoting junk science doesn’t make you look very bright, dear.

          • Carrie Channing

            Men who use ‘dear’ are insecure and often impotent in one way or another. I hope you have sufficient satisfaction from your sexist ‘humour’ to compensate your weakness, poor old you!

          • Carrie Channing

            Joe Farmer…impotence may be improved with an organic diet.

          • JoeFarmer

            Anyone dumb enough to post this: “WHO and the gov. are big pharma’s bitches, and you’d have to be blind not to see that.” is not worth listening to.

          • Carrie Channing

            Indeed, as the place where truth matters has long since been sold off.

          • JoeFarmer

            Yeah, right.

            But you’re spamming a link to an activist site promoting junk science just the same!

          • Carrie Channing

            You clearly can’t think outside the guidelines enforced by big brother, you are in the majority. You (and your type} are ideal cannon fodder for the corporations… Me, I’d rather be chastised than brainwashed. Free to think for myself, that is freedom to me.

            Good news is, I, we, you are free to choose to feed our offspring on GM and glyphosate or not, let’s be grateful for that privilege of choice. Each to our own. I do genuinly feel sorry for the dumbed down masses, the impoverished peoples of this mercenary world and the children of lazy, apathetic or just dumbed down parents… but I alone cannot grow and can’t cook enough to feed the world. Wish that I could.

            Hope you find something nice to say to someone today, for your sake.

          • Eric

            yes, by all means choose to not eat ANY GM food that has been around in one form or another for nearly a thousand years. Good job! Or, do you mean your some how going to selectively omit transgenic foods?

          • Carrie Channing
          • JoeFarmer

            Please don’t insult my intelligence by quoting Russia Today.

          • Carrie Channing

            Numscum is what numscum eats. Those who use their own brains will be the longterm winners. People who care more about business and money than ‘what is right’ can eat themselves stupid on toxic factory/Franken’ food until their kind is weakened to death and extinction. My offspring will be springing about while fools are fat and foul. Just look around you. Even fish have manmade tumours a mile deep! Good luck, mother Earth. Sorry to the children of lazy dumb parents but… Will stand strong for my family, humanity, and all life on earth. So u can shove packet cake in your mouth and eat it with impunity.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re not very bright.

          • hyperzombie
          • JoeFarmer

            Do you really think that would affect Carrie’s life in any meaningful way?

            I can see her giving a handy with a pair of rubber gloves and a tub of GoJo…

            But I might be prejudiced. Not every woman can pull off wearing a hat. I don’t think she’s one of them.

          • JoeFarmer

            I suppose the Fox News version of that picture would be, “Sticking a foot-long banana in your mouth might affect your social life!”

            Then Hannity can take it from there.

            “Is Obama a banana-licker? We don’t really know, but we don’t know that he’s not!
            Are the Iranians providing him with bananas?

          • Eric

            Ohh yes, those mercola ads:

            http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/15/dr-don-huber-interview-part-2.aspx

            I love the “lingering in your gut” bit. What a joke

          • Studies show GMO foods are lower in vitamins and minerals. This is likely due to the destruction of the soil.

          • Provide a reference for both those statements, please… I don’t know of any robust studies that have reached such conclusions. Could be true, but without references it’s just an assertion without basis.

          • Eric

            What studies? Funny, I can use a BRIX meter and get different nutrient densities from ALL my home grown organic food.

          • Dooby Loufie

            Jon, Christopher and Andy, Why won’t the birds eat the seed I pit out for them anymore? I have a yard full of clover but yet Zero bees visited – why? Vaccines caused severe reactions in my children with encepholopathy and gut destruction – they now have lifelong issues. Why should I trust your “science” when the science I read shows harm?

          • Christopher Furlong

            Russia banned them, and they are restricted in about 5-6 other countries.

          • perry caravello

            Yes cite Russia, the country with a long history of taking safe care and feeling empathy for there citizens.

          • Guest

            Better than Nazis doing an experiment on their own population.

          • Christopher Furlong

            Better than Nazis doing experiments on their own population.

          • Christopher Furlong

            Considering your stance I would say “go back to Russia!” you dirty anti-science hypocrite.

          • biggj

            How much you get paid to be a spokesmen for GM foods?

          • Eric

            It’s public knowledge, how much do you get paid to ask your questions?

          • Graham King

            Russia, China and the EU have all banned GM foods.
            There has never been a multi generational study down the food chain. The majority of studies on animals were only done to slaughter weight. The science at best is imprecise.

          • Russia? Seriously? The guys who built the power plant that is the worst man-made disaster in history- Chernobyl – is who you’re looking to for food safety?

            And China? The ones who think it’s okay to use lead paint to color children’s toys? Never mind the fact they’re stealing seeds from US biotech firms so they can make their own GM crops.

            As for the EU, that’s a myth: http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm

          • Eric

            Funny since they developed a lot of them. I’ll bet yo wont read these though.

            Here is one for barley that was approved in 1955..

            Variety Name
            Jutta
            ID
            2952
            Latin Name
            Hordeum vulgare L.
            Common Name
            barley
            Country
            Germany
            Registration Year
            1955
            Short Description
            The
            mutant variety Jutta was officially approved in 1955. It was developed
            by irradiation of seeds with x-rays (100 Gy). Main improved attributes
            of mutant variety are increased resistance to low temperatures,
            resistance to lodging and grain quality.

            Crop Type and Improved Traits

            Propagation Primary Seed propagated crops Propagation Secondary Self pollination Usage Primary Food Usage Secondary Cereals Characteristic Primary Tolerance to abiotic stresses Characteristic Primary Sub-Type Low temperature Characteristic Secondary Agronomic and botanic traits Characteristic Secondary Sub-Type Plant structure

            Breeding Method Section

            Mutagen Treatment Type Physical Physical Mutagen x-rays Physical Treatment Dose 100 Physical Dose Units Gy Treated Material Type Seed Phenotype Increased resistance to low temperatures, resistance to lodging and grain quality

            Historical Breeding Method

            Breeding Method Direct use of an induced mutant Mutagen Treatment Type Physical Physical Mutagen x-rays Physical Treatment Dose 100 Gy Treated Material Type Seed Parent Variety Paragis Mittelfruhe II Parent Variety Paragis Mittelfruhe I

            Here is a meadow foxtail that was develope din Germany in 83:

            Variety Name
            Alko
            ID
            207
            Latin Name
            Alopecurus pratensis L.
            Common Name
            meadow foxtail
            Country
            Germany
            Registration Year
            1983
            Short Description
            The
            mutant variety Alko was officialy approved in 1983. It was developed by
            irradiation of seeds with gamma rays. Main improved attribute of mutant
            variety is improved seed retention.

          • Graham King

            Being registered and being commercial are 2 different things. I’ve certainly never grown them in Australia, and a story is doing the rounds that the EU is going to ban seed collection!! Are companies like Bayer, Sygenta, NuFarm and Monsanto going to be the only source of seed? Heaven help us if this eventuates. I grow heritage varieties of tomatoes, melons, corn and several other types of produce and have a ready market for everything. They often don’t look as pretty as supermarket product but superb flavor. GM product could eventually be all that’s available due to weak and corrupt politicians. My customers and I just want the right to choose what we eat.

          • Michael Kitching

            Wrong, the EU has not banned GMO foods.

            Here’s the register for GMOs licensed for commerical use in the EU.

            http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm

            And as for Russia and China, I’d take very little heed of what the Chinese and Russian authorities take as safe.

          • Graham King

            There still hasn’t been a full and independent study right down the food chain till then it’s not on the agenda to be introduced into our family partnership properties. We farm with minimal chemicals don’t use chemical fertilisers. Our inputs are low our returns are actually higher per hectare than our neighbours. Our animals are healthy and regularly top the sales. Our crop yields are amongst districts highest.
            We see no advantage in changing to a system that is showing in the US to require higher and higher levels of chemical inputs and increased weed and grass resistance to said chemicals

          • Graham, You have misinformation about what’s happening in the US. According to USDA statistics, “chemical inputs” as you put it are down since the introduction of GM crops. Insecticide use is down 10 fold on GM crops as compared to non GM ones. The use of herbicides per acre and per yield are down and when you factor in toxicity, which is really what matters, toxic herbicide use is down significantly. Plus there are huge sustainability benefits, such as much lower release of carbon producing methane gas as a result of no till farming. Plus, yields on GM fields area bout 20-40% higher than those on organic fields. It’s great that you are doing so well–congratulations! But on a macro scale, the yield and sustainability advantages of GM crops is sizable. And with new generation GM crops in the pipeline that are focused more clearly on consumer benefits, such as vitamin enhanced crops, the argument tilts even further towards embracing all of the tools available to modern farming

          • Graham King

            We are not organic per se, before last xmas we hosted a young man from Idaho and what he relayed to us is in direct contrast to what you state. His father and 3 brothers farm a substantial area and because of the costs are going back to convential farming as all the promises have not turned into increased profits but increased costs and he was one really bright kid that knew his stuff.

          • Graham, I can’t speak to any individual farmer’s experience. But the overall numbers and trends are very clear: GM farmers use 95-97% less insecticides versus what they did before they introduced GM crops, and farmers have been able to phase in less toxic herbicides. We have had many articles on the GLP linked to the latest USDA data and to global studies on the same subject. Anti-GMO sites might like to claim otherwise, pointing to one non peer review “study” by a guy named Doug Gurian-Sherman who was booted from his position at the Union of Concerned Scientists and now works for an anti-GMO activist group, but that stands against unbiased government statistics and dozens of independent peer reviewed studies. Feel free to contact me directly if you’d like some specific references.

          • Michael Kitching

            Since you’ve changed topic, you admit what you said was wrong? Because I’m not going to start on a new topic, untill this one has been address apropriately

          • Graham King

            do as you please i’m entitled to hold my own views and I was quoting from the media

          • Michael Kitching

            Never said you weren’t. As are others to challenge your ideas when you post on a public forum

          • Glyphosate has been linked to various forms of cancer. So you’re right in a sense that it’s not the food itself but the glyphosate that is applied to the food.

          • Have you a reference for that? This factsheet based on a range of official data has a whole section on carcinogenicity which concludes that in all studies there was no evidence of a glyphosate cancer connection: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf

          • Thanks Holt. It’s a bit hard to take that first link seriously due to the anti-GMO hyperbole of the article… but at least there is a paper linked from it. So thanks :-)

            And at first, because searching for any online information on this paper just returns a slew of organic/anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto crowing about it, I didn’t find any rebuttals. So far so good. But looking in more detail there are some serious signs of problems.

            First, it’s just a correlation study. Much like those by Seneff et al (https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/05/bogus-claim-glyphosate-used-with-gmos-causes-autism-races-through-cyberspace/), it doesn’t include new research, it just takes a bucketful of different disease statistics and computes time-correlation coefficients for them. Proper statisticians don’t do that, or if they do (they don’t) they specifically weight down the discoveries by a factor to account for the increased probability of finding correlations when you make many trials. Of course many things have increased in tandem over the last few decades, including GMO cultivation, glyphosate (especially since it’s out of patent), and medical screening. That doesn’t mean that any one of those caused the others. So it’s already weak, like the Seneff paper: without any sign of causal proof, nor a plausible mechanism of action, it’s not something that a reputable journal would touch.

            And so to the journal. The “Journal of Organic Systems” doesn’t declare any impact factor (not usually a good start), only publishes twice a year, and has existing form on publishing junk science with an anti-GMO bias. For me just Googling “journal of organic systems” returns about 5 prominent articles which demolish a previous study that appeared there. In one of them, http://kfolta.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/unintended-collateral-damage.html, Kevin Folta comments succinctly “JOS is an almost non-existent, web-based journal that does not even have an impact factor. The JOS has sponsors, one that is the Organic Federation of Australia. They promote Seralini’s work on their homepage.” Other journals don’t link to it. The operation is clearly quite amateur. Enough said. Remiscent of the Seneff work published in Entropy and Interdiscipinary Toxicology (http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/08/anti-roundup-glyphosate-researchers-use-easy-oa-journals-to-spread-their-views/) — two more junk journals.

            And there’s a final similarity to the Seneff publications: no-one on the author list is a medical scientist (see http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/abstracts/Swanson-et-al.html). The closest we get is the corresponding author Andre Leu… who works for the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements. That’s a potential conflict of interest to be decried, just as much as it would be if Big Ag had sponsored a dodgy-looking study claiming that RoundUp was a wonder-medicine. Of the other authors, two work for “Abacus Enterprises”… a small (I suspect VERY small) company in Washington State specialising in… er, lasers. Their circa 1995 animated GIF website http://www.abacus-ent.com claims that they also do Web design. Excuse me for not being blown away. The remaining author works in the geology department at University of Oklahoma. No medical experience there: more warning bells.

            And a final doozy: having mentioned Stephanie Seneff through this comment, I chuckled when I saw that the *one* citation that this “groundbreaking” paper has received in the last couple of months is…er, Seneff and Swanson (first author of this paper) https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?gws_rd=ssl&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=10082236167812460906

            So I have to say that this doesn’t look like remotely reputable work. I’m sure someone more competent will review it at some point, but for me there are more than enough warning signs. Finally, if this doesn’t convince, just think about the plausibility: 22 diseases!!! What on earth could have passed fairly stringent safety tests for 40+ years and is then suddenly discovered to “cause” more than twenty different diseases, with wildly different modes of operation, all at once? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc. etc.

          • On the breast cancer paper (I thought it better to start a new comment for that, given the length of the other), my reaction is “hmm, interesting, but it’s a cell culture study”. The predictivity of cell culture models for in vivo disease behaviour is not very reliable. Anastasia Bodnar, who knows a heck of a lot more about this than I do, said the same thing only better in the last three paragraphs of this:

            http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/

            So thanks again for the references, but the first looks _very_ ropey indeed, and the second may be methodologically fine (I’m not sufficiently expert) but the conclusions and the extent to which is was jumped upon by activists don’t seem justified by the in vitro nature of the study.

          • Carrie Channing
          • Which is not about a cancer link. But an article that I’d not encountered before — thanks.

          • Eric

            maybe, good thing it replaced DDT. You can use that if you want instead. I’ll stick with this.

          • Well if you eat fruits and vegetables over the winter and they’re not Oraganic you could still be eating DDT. It’s still legal in several countries.

          • nick

            GMO”s that contain pesticides fused with their DNA have been proven harmful and do have a serious harmful affect to our digestive trac.

          • “Pesticides fused with their DNA”?!? Do you mean GMOs engineered to synthesise pesticides… as all organisms already do? Provide a reference for the “proven harmful”, please: data rather than anecdote or opinion. Thanks.

          • Eric

            1996? Well before that my friend.

            HEr eis just one from 1955

            ariety Name
            Jutta
            ID
            2952
            Latin Name
            Hordeum vulgare L.
            Common Name
            barley
            Country
            Germany
            Registration Year
            1955
            Short Description
            The
            mutant variety Jutta was officially approved in 1955. It was developed
            by irradiation of seeds with x-rays (100 Gy). Main improved attributes
            of mutant variety are increased resistance to low temperatures,
            resistance to lodging and grain quality.

            Crop Type and Improved Traits

            Propagation Primary Seed propagated crops Propagation Secondary Self pollination Usage Primary Food Usage Secondary Cereals Characteristic Primary Tolerance to abiotic stresses Characteristic Primary Sub-Type Low temperature Characteristic Secondary Agronomic and botanic traits Characteristic Secondary Sub-Type Plant structure

            Breeding Method Section

            Mutagen Treatment Type Physical Physical Mutagen x-rays Physical Treatment Dose 100 Physical Dose Units Gy Treated Material Type Seed Phenotype Increased resistance to low temperatures, resistance to lodging and grain quality

            Historical Breeding Method

            Breeding Method Direct use of an induced mutant Mutagen Treatment Type Physical Physical Mutagen x-rays Physical Treatment Dose 100 Gy Treated Material Type Seed Parent Variety Paragis Mittelfruhe II Parent Variety Paragis Mittelfruhe II

          • gefreekamloops

            Did you actually mean Trillions of millions of meals? I can’t even think that high.

          • Joe

            Can you show me some studies that actually demonstrate GMO’s do not cause cancer? Yes, I understand that proving a negative is a fool’s errand, but we do know that most cancers have been on the rise in the last 20 years, particularly among children.
            And yes, I’m aware of the causation/correlation issue but until there are more definitive INDEPENDENT studies done, should humanity continue in conducting a planetary science experiment?

          • You can’t prove a negative. There is not one case of even a sniffle linked to GMOs. There have been 100 billion animals fed GMOs over past 20 years and no bump (let alone sharp rise) in any food related illnesses. There are more than 1200 INDEPENDENT studies showing no harm from eating GMOs. All of the independent studies in major peer review journals that have been replicated–every single one–show no harm while not one study in a major peer review study that shows even the hint of harm has been replicated. In contrast to what you are claiming, “most cancers” have been in decline for the past 20 years, with one of the largest declines coming from stomach cancer and colon and rectal cancers, which would have increased if GMOs were a factor in food related heath. Your stats on cancer are just flat out wrong. In fact, the story is the mirror image of what you are saying—US cancer rates have steadily dropped over 20 years. In Cancer Statistics 2014, the annual report from the American Cancer Society (ACS), researchers reported that cancer death rates have steadily declined for the past two decades – equating to a 20 percent decrease in the overall risk of dying from cancer. “Between 1991 and 2010, overall cancer death rates have decreased by about 20 percent; this translates to 1.3 million deaths in this time period,” said lead author Ahmedin Jemal, vice president for surveillance and health services research at the ACS. “But the most interesting finding is that the decrease in death rates was [substantial], specifically for middle-aged black men. Between 1991 and 2010, death rates decreased by 55 percent in middle-aged black men.” By group, blacks are the single largest cohort that eats genetically modified foods because of the use of GM soybean in processed foods. In short, your thesis is 100% in error, based misinformation and scare stories.

          • TRAV

            “There have been 100 billion animals fed GMOs over past 20 years and no
            bump (let alone sharp rise) in any food related illnesses.”

            Liar, there are a number of disorders on the rise.

          • Who, EXACTLY, do you work for ???

          • agscienceliterate

            Why don’t you read the information above, about the organization and what he does?

        • Farmgirl

          I grew up on a farm where we raised our own pigs, chickens and cows. We had a vegetable garden with so many varieties that was so huge it would make you cry. We raised our own wheat, barley and oats. We went duck and geese hunting. We had our own berry trees and bushes. We did not use pesticides. Yet both of my parents died of extremely aggressive cancer (1-3 months from diagnosis till death) at young ages. I agree you have to be vigilant about what you put in your body but both of my parents never ate a GMO produced food in their lives and yet!

          • Christopher Furlong

            pesticides

        • If you’re going to call me a moron, can I at least call you by your first name?

        • biggj

          This web site is bullshit, why even bother?

        • Jeff Clothier

          Unclench your sphincter, sweetie. The kids’ ll be just fine.

      • UGADawg09

        That’s been my observation. Any theories as to why the primary demographic that promotes these unscientific conspiracy theories tends to be bored middle-aged moms? Pretty much the only males you see in the anti-GMO lunacy are the ones who believe that the Reptilian Elite put fluoride into drinking water to soften our minds, but the dietary pseudoscience groups on Facebook are just packed with middle-aged housewives.

        • Warren Lauzon

          Males and females tend to embrace different types of really stupid theories, not that one is any better or worse than the other.

          • Susan Solomon

            Lol – amen. Women tend to eat with no thought at all, and actually I really believe have much lower standards than men for both mental and physical health – take a look around, talk to people etc. You will see right away men will drop out of stupid eating plans designed by wives all the time, and are often the right weight, strength level and happiness level while their wives are slowly dying.

        • Carrie Channing
          • Carrie, this “study” is in a zero impact “pay for pay” journal, and it’s authors include well know discredited ideologues, including by Fagan who is a top official in the Maharishi cult. Come back to us when you can find a real study in a real journal by real scientists. Do you know how to distinguish between pay for pay ideology and real science?

          • Eric

            I’m not a huge glysophate fan either and I agree. It says right in there:

            A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that glyphosate
            and Roundup cause teratogenic effects and other toxic effects on
            reproduction, as well as genotoxic effects. From an objective scientific
            standpoint, attempts by industry and government regulatory bodies to
            dismiss this research are unconvincing and work against the principle
            that it is the responsibility of industry to prove that its products are
            safe and not the responsibility of the public to prove that they are
            unsafe. The precautionary principle would suggest that glyphosate and
            its commercial formulations should undergo a new risk assessment,
            taking full account of the entirety of the peer-reviewed scientific
            literature as well as the industry-sponsored studies. Experience to date
            suggests that the new risk assessment should be conducted with full
            public transparency by scientists who are independent of industry.

          • RobertWager

            Try this real science from world expert organization in Germany

            “The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate more than 150 new toxicological studies were evaluated for the first time

            In addition, all available toxicological studies (nearly 300) were re-assessed about 900 publications from scientific journals have been considered in the draft report and more than 200 publications were
            reviewed in detail the available
            data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic
            properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals. ”

            http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html

      • Richids Coulter

        Pro science? Can you provide a single long-term study comparing overall health outcomes between fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated children? The CDC acknowledges it hasn’t been done. Loudest voices and biggest followings? You must be joking, articles on transgenic crops and vaccines are flooded with known vaccine apologists like Sullivan, Liz Ditz, Dorito Reiss, etc.

        • Adjel

          And it begins…. The anti-vaxers conspirators had to weigh in. They go hand-in-hand with the GMO panickers.

          • Richids Coulter

            So that’s a no then, thanks for playing.

      • Christopher Furlong

        Equating science with the unproven is the height of anti-science moronity.

      • Sienna Rosachi

        You can be proscience and eat organic. There are good reasons to eat organic based on research, Why are you so oblivious to the research that is out there? See here:
        http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=FF1A408B1F6947EEA3568AB58E7EFC92.journals?aid=9325471&fileId=S0007114514001366

      • Carrie Channing
    • Carrie Channing

      Science must be proven, it is not science while it remains questionable. Innocent until proven guilty only works in law, not science. Test your money spinning science on yourselves by all means, I’d rather believe in natural science, which seems to know best, yet nature never went to school to learn anything. So scientific/educational snobberyseems to be, at best, arrogance, not learning.

      • Cara

        “I’d rather believe in natural science.”. There’s no such thing. There’s science, and then there isn’t. You have shown that you have absolutely no concept of science altogether. But you do seem to haves a great grasp on pseudoscience. Unfortunately my university genetics and biochemistry textbooks didn’t have a pseudoscience section…

      • This is a complete mischaracterisation of scientific method. Note that you can phrase your complaint the other way around, that proof of danger is needed. Neither position is an absolute rule, but after 30 years of GMO use in animal and human food the position must now be to prove significant danger in existing GMO products, in addition to the extensive tests which _are_ done when bringing a new GMO product to market. There’s no such thing as “natural science”, but I note that organic agriculture (which would certainly like to be thought of as natural) has been responsible for serious disease outbreaks where no such situation has yet occurred for GMOs…

        • Carrie Channing

          Hawaiian’s might disagree. Bees too. There is plenty of evidence which sadly contradicts your argument. Have you turned a blind eye to non ‘science lab produced’ evidence? What makes man think he knows better than nature? Pride before a fall…

          • @Carrie—Rather than just claiming there’s “plenty of evidence”, since this is an educational forum, why not spell it out in detail so that we can all get the benefit of it, and discuss?

            BTW Of course, there is no way to PROVE that something is safe—just as it is impossible for anyone to PROVE that the thousands of foods we already eat are safe. The best we can hope to do is to test when we think there is plausible reason why there may be a problem.

          • Carrie Channing

            Quite right! Evidence. It’s tricky when the big pharma are infinitely rich and powerful and suppress anything which doesn’t improve their bottom line. Luckily, much ground breaking research is being done by brave brains who are imaginative enough to look in more detail at officially ‘safe GM and safe glyphosate’ as they are motivated by scientific discovery more than safeguarding their career, for instance.

            for a start…

            http://omicsonline.org/teratogenic-effects-of-glyphosate-based-herbicides-divergence-of-regulatory-decisions-from-scientific-evidence-2161-0525.S4-006.php?aid=7453

          • @Carrie—The article is not directly about GM technology, but about how the regulatory agencies set safe exposure levels for pesticides—a legitimate topic that we could discuss elsewhere.

            You perhaps didn’t notice that the two lead authors work for activist organizations, and are not academic scientists. This does not disqualify them from having valid ideas, but should encourage greater scrutiny (especially if you have any of their other writings). It’s debatable whether publishing one’s ideas in a marginal “journal” such as omicsonline is a measure of courage, desperation, or foolhardiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group
            http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/02/19/omics-group-aims-to-trick-researchers-with-copycat-journal-titles/

          • Carrie Channing

            Thank you. Will pay more attention to details.

          • hyperzombie

            OT Peter, as a gluten expert. Is there any difference in gluten sensitivity among populations? What I am really asking is any evidence that there is less gluten sensitivity among cultural groups that have been exposed to wheat for longer, for example people in the middle east.

          • Yes, H.Z, a bit off-topic. Feel free to contact me on my website http://goo.gl/Sx2px6

          • gefreekamloops

            There certainly is a way to test if something is safe or not. Just keep ingesting it and see what happens. It takes time for disease to become an epidemic. So whats happened in the last 20 years. Obesity and autism epidemics. It’s just a strong correlation and can easily be dismissed for a while but the point is that time is the true revealer of proof. Consider what we didn’t know or were not told before about Lead, DDT, Atrazine, Cigarettes. Don’t worry time will reveal more data about Glyphosate and whoops we were wrong again.

          • What are you talking about? Quantitative science is about assessment of behaviours/properties/whatever (plus innovation) within statistical bounds of confidence or belief. There is no absolutism. Nor, in fact, are there absolute rules on what those bounds should be — there are conventions, and these conventions are sometimes translated into policy-making.

            On the policy side there needs to be a balance between protecting the public/environment/etc. from potential harms, and stifling beneficial innovation. This is a balancing act, but on the whole has worked out rather well for humanity — we are only having this conversation because it did. We are also getting better at it as time goes by: see the responses by regulators and scientists to expressed concerns over GMOs, bee CCD, and low-dose endocrine disruption. They are not being ignored, but rather considered proportionately.

            But none of these things have solid evidence (despite your assertion), there is plenty of motivation from population studies (non-lab evidence!) and the understanding of biochemical mechanisms that at worst “it’s not that simple”, and a “ban” response would be both disproportionate and damaging in other ways.

            Nature has evolved some magnificently complex and powerful features, but it would be foolish to declare that therefore it is magical and that humans cannot aspire to understand and apply these mechanisms to our own ends. This is reality, not some hubristic morality tale. In fact, we have done that in increasing levels of detail and understanding for hundreds if not thousands of years… again, we wouldn’t be having this conversation without agricultural innovations which for their time were just as outrageous as GMOs and synthetic pesticides.

            No for the first time, I’m reminded of the adage “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.” ;-)

    • Christopher Furlong

      And you and those housewives are in the same boat. You both think something is safe without scientific proof.

  • First Officer

    Not to mention the collatoral costs the high cost of organic foods will have for the children of poorer families. Given the approx 2X or so differential, over the 18 years of childhood, that money could have been going into a college fund and would have been significant. Education is the single most important factor determinating who will rise economically and who won’t. Being born into a poorer family exacerbates that and, “wasting”, money on organics, considering food is one of the highest expenditures of a family, may make the difference between going to college or not, for the children involved.

    • GMOfoodISpoison

      I actually save money now that I do not buy gmo food. You learn to not waste, freeze more so it lasts longer. Also, the body doesn’t lie. When I went off of gmo food, my gut healed. Warning to parents with babies on formula and baby food. Need I say more?

      • Couldn’t one argue that eating healthier and staying away from processed foods is what made you feel better?

      • First Officer

        I learn not to waste and freeze more regardless.

  • Pammy

    You are not a bad mom… But please watch Food Inc, it’s a documentary about our food industry.

    • The thing with “crockumentaries” is that they can twist and spin their footage and “facts” into painting a very bad picture.

    • stephanie

      Yes, please don’t believe what you see in Food, Inc. I have first hand experience, as do many friends and co-workers, that says it is not fact.

  • MP

    Education is the key. doesn’t help with people like Dr. Oz scare those who do not understand…..

  • ???????

    Moron ! GMO food is banned in other countries , fertility rate is down 30% in America , ovarian cysts in girls ages 12 -19 is up 60% , severe deformity is being found in piglets who ate GMO food after 2 generations , heirloom seeds are going extinct and farmers trying to keep Monsanto seed out of their farms are being sued , we are on the verge of a revolution to save organic food and this mom is like yeah it’s great , what a moron , hopefully not all people out there are this stupid to think you can eat frakenfood without consequences the sad part is the part about cutting open an apple that does not turn brown and not finding something wrong with that , foods that cause cancer , unnecessary dyes in out food , wake up people as 10 years from now your kids could be diagnosed with something horrible and you will say you didn’t know , oh no people were screaming it and you chose not to listen !

    • ingrid

      You do realise it’s the soy that causes infertility in girls, no?

    • RobertWager

      Nice collection of myths. try this from Europe:

      “There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.” European National Academies of Science Advisory Council 2013

      Oh and the EU High Court of Justice struck down the ban on GE crops for lack of evidence of harm to humans or the environment.

    • Pam Ryan

      Why don’t you use your name? Anonymous comments aren’t worth anything.

      • First Officer

        Well, i wouldn’t go that far. Not defending, “the riddler” (?…?), here, but i’m posting anonymous too. There have been a case or too of vandalism against pro-gmo people. Even death threats.

    • First Officer

      So is homosexuality and religious freedom. The real question is what do the countries that DO grow GMO’s know that the others don’t ?

    • First Officer

      Anti-gmoers waiting for all the bad stuff to start happening are like a fly against a window on a sunny day…

      This time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, …

    • If you’re gong to call me names, at least do it without anonymity hiding behind a computer screen. The Carman piglet study has been debunked, Monsanto only sues farmers that breach a contract (like anyone who breaches a contract!). Anyway, if you have something more to say, please say it with an identity.

    • julie

      Fertility rates and ovarian cysts? Look to birth control pills for that one, along with blood clots and cancer. I raise pigs … no GMO deformities here! You’re believing someone’s lies. And what’s with using “moron” in every post?

  • Pinecone

    Thank you for writing what I have felt and tried to put into words myself!

    • Thanks for the kind words!

      • Jeff

        I try to eat as many non GMO food as I can. I’m maybe 50%. But it seems you’re railing against people who do fall on the Non GMO side. I don’t think you’re a bad mom or misinformed. You’re just doing what you think is right, based on facts you have. Others are making choices on facts they have. I happen to believe in a eating habits outlined in “Great Taste Less Pain”. It’s just too bad that this is the way that North America deals with differences. People are beating each other up on here. Sarah, you’re playing the innocent bystander, but I don’t think you are one. Jeff

  • MKT

    Two thoughts: With those who fall squarely in the organic camp, it amuses me to no end how many of them never grew up in agriculture. If these organic moms were so concerned about what they put in their children’s bodies, why aren’t they growing it themselves? On my urban 6×9 foot balcony I produced enough produce to keep my husband and I going. Yes I freely admit I did not grow every single vegetable that we’ve eaten, but what I have grown represents a substantial portion of our diets, and what are traditionally “dirty” veggies and fruits like lettuce and tomatoes. It is really not that hard, technical, or time consuming to really know how much pestiIcide, fungicide, herbicide, whatever “cide” is in it because you did/did not use it. Preservatives are scarier than GMOs.

    Secondly the one person who has criticized you here did so anonymously. Can spew it and resort to labeling but can’t do so and own up to it. Isn’t that rather telling?

    • I agree with everything you’ve said here. We live in Canada and cannot sustain ourselves on home-grown food in the winter months but we have a big garden in the summer.

      Often threats and name-calling are done anonymously, this is nothing new!

    • JBaileyz

      Yes. The anti-GMOers I know are concentrated in the inner city and rely on food magically appearing at the co-op or in their CSA boxes. They really don’t know, don’t want to know.

  • Organic mamma

    You should feel ashamed. You will regret this decision when your children have a lifetime of health issues.

    • RobertWager

      May I ask you how you feel about the 18 recalls for pathogenic bacterial contamination of organic food since 2011? A very real health issue the organic industry is not addressing.

      Compared to over 25 years of research that has failed to fine a single unique risk of food from GE crops nor a single documented case of harm from people after three trillion meals containing ingredients derived from GE crops.

      • That’s always my argument too, Robert. Perhaps I’m saving my kids by not exposing them to the potential risk of bacterial contamination that is there with organic foods?

        • Rob Wallbridge

          Robert, Sarah, Jon: please post your evidence that organic food poses a higher risk of bacterial contamination than non-organic food. I’ve challenged you all (as well as others) to do so on a number of occasions, and so far no one has risen to the challenge. Because such evidence doesn’t exist.
          Yet you continue to repeat this misinformation, presumably in the hopes that repetition (and/or blocking me from interacting with you) will eventually make it true.
          In my mind, this makes you no better than the radicals posting anti-GMO myths here.

          • I said “potential risk of bacterial contamination”, you’re right I have no evidence, just the recalls that I see posted on the CFIA website and they are not always organic. I’m just using the logic that is so often thrown at me from the dozens and dozens of anti-GMO readers I have. I get very flustered and frustrated with the organic foodie people, not a fault of any organic farmer, for how they treat me, demonize me, and vilify how my family farms and raises food; I am guilty for not always handling it with tact. If you think I’m no better than an anti-GMO radical, that’s fine.

  • Kat

    I had someone tell me once that if I let my kids eat pepperoni pizza that they would get worms in their stomach!!!! Although I agree with you, i do try to buy the meat without the added hormones, etc.

    • RobertWager

      A small point. All meat that reaches the marketplace has the same levels of hormones. the added hormones happen early on in the rearing process so by the time the meat is sent to market there is no difference in the levels.

  • Steph

    GMOs allow us to feed everyone despite our socio-economic statuses. Organic only farming and ranching would lead to world-wide starvation and way more usage of precious water. I am grateful that I can choose and afford organic foods, but I’m not exclusive. I enjoy the lifestyle that comes with the organic food communities, but I see the benefit of GMO foods, too. As a grad-student mom of two, I mix and match depending on my budget. Either way, my family is fed and for that I am truly grateful. And it doesn’t involve any finger pointing.

    • Exactly—it’s all about choices.

    • Jenine

      a good book to read: Organic Manifesto. USDA says that Americans throw away 133 billion pounds of food every year, or 31 percent of the total amount of available food. That’s over 4,200 pounds of food a second.

      • JBaileyz

        That doesn’t mean that the wasted food in first-world countries can necessarily be fed to the hungry people around the globe who need it. When your mom told you to eat your dinner because of the starving people in Africa, she wasn’t really thinking about how we’d get it there. Optimally, food should be grown near where people live so it stays fresh longer, and that’s where GMOs come in. They allow crops to withstand climate differences and water shortages, AKA conservation of resources.

        • Good4U

          Right on target, JBaileyz. Ask these touchy-feely “organic” potheads if they would volunteer to be missionaries in underdeveloped countries for the purpose of counseling starving people to accept food that comes from the table scraps & waste of Americans who had waaay too much to eat. My experience says that such missionaries would be welcomed… as dinner.

  • Hailey Babcock-Miller

    i always say well my ma fed it to me or my ma did it this way and drs and scientist still say its say so therefore im going to do it this way

  • OFFgmo3MonthsNoMeds

    Stupid is as stupid does if that is what you prefer. Fortunately, there are millions of smarter people out there who will do all the work to fix the food system for your kids. I feel bad that in the meantime, you will continue to poison them.

    • First Officer

      Yes, we can tell you’ve had no meds for 3 months.

    • So who is going to fix our food. Who will grow it and harvest it for you? FARMERS. We need to work together not go calling people names. You don’t have to feel bad about my parenting choices, they don’t affect you.

  • jane

    As a mom of 3 older kids : You are so sad… you force your “opinions” NOT based on scientific fact on your poor children.. who will suffer the consequences.. I honestly feel terrible for your children. When they are banned here as they are in China, Russia NOrthern Europe and else where YOU and your children will have to live with your decisions.. you truly ARE a bad mother. I will not get into the scientific facts as I could post endlessly because clearly you are intentionally choosing to be stupid, not ignorant, which I always cut people slack on… SHAME on you

    • Jane: GMOs are not banned in China. China is one of the world’s largest consumers of GMOs and each year spends more on research on genetically engineered crops than any country in the world, including the US. GM crops are not banned in Northern Europe or in Europe in general. Most every country consumes them and every country feeds them to their animals, which are consumes safely by humans. Every major independent European science organization bar none has endorsed the safety of GMOs. Your can hurl personal insults all you want, and cite anti-GMO sites, but the science supporting the health and safety of GMOs is overwhelming. Here’s the latest analysis from the northern European based European National Academies of Science Advisory Council 2013 (equivalent to our very prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which also declared GMOs safe): “There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”

    • First Officer

      So, if your kids want to eat pop tarts for dinner, do you let them are do you just force your opinion on them ?

    • Actually my “opinions” that GMO’s are safe are solely based on science! Show me your endless science that tells me I’m a bad mom.

  • Sheryl McCumsey

    Are you going to ban me from the page Sarah if I publish something too scientific for you?

  • Scott Bowers

    You are 600% more likely to get sick from organic…e-coli, listeria, salmonella…..

    there is only 2 ways to get get corn to grow and not be infested with ear worms….

    1.) spray it DAILY with TWO very toxic pesticides (Chlorpyrifos, Tefluthrin)

    2.) use seed that has been modified with the DNA of the Bt bacteria.(Bt- modified) The bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis) are everywhere in the soil and safe for everything except insects.

    broccoli is the same way……you either want worms in your food or you like pesticides……option 3 good ol’ Bt-mod.

    Use of the bacteria DNA actually makes the food SAFER because its not bathed in pesticides. It is safer for the environment (soil, water) for the same reason…..it also reduces the cost of the food, because those pesticides are expensive. You wonder why “organic” is more expensive? Aside from an extremely expensive certification process, Organic farms DO use pesticides, herbicides, fungicides…….but only those “approved” by the government. Many are natural chemicals yet still very toxic to mammals, birds, fish.

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Absolutely nothing to back up such a ridiculous comment like people get sick from bacteria 600% more from organic. I worked in the field of isolating these organisms. I know where they came from.

      • Scott Bowers

        yep its true….you are 6 times more likely to get sick from organic…this was found in a 2004 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA STUDY…..google it…..i spent a lifetime growing plants of all kinds i know a bit more than you.

      • Scott Bowers

        yep it is true….the University of Minnesota did a study in 2004. Nearly 10% of organic food tested positive for E-coli contamination vs 1.5% of conventional……google it.

        • Loren Eaton

          I guess the Precautionary Principle is on permanent holiday for the Organiks!!!

    • Scott Bowers

      yep it is true….the University of Minnesota did a study in 2004. Nearly 10% of organic food tested positive for E-coli contamination vs 1.5% of conventional……google it.:)

  • Jenine

    What I think is the saddest part of this is the way we treat each other! Sarah you are not a “bad mother” or a “moron”. We expect our children to treat others with kindness and be mindful of the way we make others feel.. This is why they don’t and are not because we teach them by our actions.
    I will tell you that I am very educated on this topic. In addition to a Masters degree and losing close loved ones to devastating diseases, I have read 100s of books, and countless peer reviewed literature and I have also made sure when reading that I eliminate the studies that were paid for by the companies looking for the result ;-)… Like anything, if you want to find it, you can… especially on the web. There will always be support for your argument if you look hard enough. Does that make it true? no….
    The biggest problem in our society is that children are not eating real food anymore, they are eating “food products”. That is the scariest part. They don’t want to eat vegetables and fruits because they are fed so much processed foods and “treats”. Treats are definitely not “treats” anymore, they are part of the lunch box, part of the reward for doing what they should do etc….
    However, avoiding chemicals in our foods is just another form of prevention. GMO’s, pesticides, artificial “stuff” and other chemicals pour into our food system annually and have not been in our food system for very long or as much as they are today. Cancer rates have grown, infertility rates have grown, neurological disorders, obesity, diabetes, etc. etc… Saying something has been around for 20 years and “we are fine” is not true… “we are not fine”! Tobacco was around for many more years than 20 before we figured out that it was killing people.
    I do believe that people take things to the extremes in both directions… there is a spectrum… do what you can to prevent health issues and improve the quality of your life and your families life. Try to avoid chemicals as much as possible and try to eat more real food with nutrients! AND please stop bashing each other, it doesn’t help anything. ever.

    • Yes, let’s keep the discussion civil but also based on empirical evidence.

      Genetic modification is no more artificial then say, an organic Ruby Red grapefruit or 2000+ other grains, nuts, fruits and vegetables that were created by shooting up plants with gamma rays or dousing them in chemicals to create random mutations, but which can then be sold as organics. Genetic engineering is a process and leads to nothing “artificial.” Soy oil made from GE soy is indistinguishable nutritionally or otherwise from conventional or organic soy oil.

      GE crops also result in the use of fewer pesticides, as the result of the use Bt—a natural pesticide used by organic growers incorporated into many GE crops.

      As for your statement that cancer is on the increase, that’s just not accurate. Cancer rates have actually trended down steadily since 1991, and has kept on a downward trajectory since the introduction of GM foods in 1996. Here is the latest report from the American Cancer Society:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23335087

      “Overall, cancer death rates have declined 20% from their peak in 1991.” Among the most dramatic declines are cancer of the stomach, which would be the opposite of the situation if GMOs were causing food related problems. The reduction in overall cancer death rates since 1990 in men and 1991 in women translates to the avoidance of approximately 1.18 million deaths from cancer, with 152,900 of these deaths averted in 2009 alone.

      • Jenine

        Jon, there are many reasons for the type of stats that you posted…. mis information is what causes problems… American Cancer Society has a lot of sponsors– look into who they are. The western diet is causing disease (its a fact). People need to eat better.. also a fact. Have a great day :-)

        • Jenine, Please, the CDC has the same information. You are now promoting bizarre conspiracy theories. You do not trust the CDC, EPA, World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, European Food Safety Authority, etc. but trust anti-GMO propaganda sites?

          • Jenine

            Jon we should agree to disagree :-). Propaganda? Read the statistics about our health on the cdc. Who etc. it is sad. And if we don’t demand change in this good system you will see the same if not worse results that the tobacco industry caused. Gmos are doing nothing good for us. Whether or not you believe that why would you want something that’s created in a lab in your kitchen. I don’t have time to keep going with this debate and his hard to respond from my phone. So thank you for your info. Good luck. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152091024759177&id=93865123205

          • Jenine, Actually, despite many problems and challenges (such as obesity, which is just as bad in Germany, Switzerland and other countries that do not readily consume GMOs, but do have high rates of organic food consumption), Americans are generally healthier and live longer than ever before. The sadness comes in the developing world, where GMOs could play a significant role (but is NOT a silver bullet) in addressing malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies. I still can’t quite grasp how activists who express concern for “health” are deathly opposed to Crop Biotech 2.0–consumer/nutrition focused crops that could really make a difference in people’s lives. Pure hypocrisy, in my mind. Thanks for the dialogue.

          • First Officer

            And, in Canada, with it’s nearly identical diet and consumption of GMO’s, lifespans are even longer !

          • free2bgr8ful

            This statistic of lifespans being longer in Canada is due to access to healthcare. Canada is having the same health problems with the increase Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders.

          • Richids Coulter

            No rBGH milk in Canada

          • First Officer

            The resultant milk is identical. The cow isn’t a GMO and nor is the rBGH itself.

          • Richids Coulter

            Yeah, that’s why Monsanto tried to bribe Healh Canada’s scientists including Dr. Haydon and Dr. Chopra between 1 million to 2 million dollars to approve it, because the milk was identical.

            The FDA approved rBGH milk based on a summary of Monsanto’s studies on it provided by Monsanto.

          • First Officer

            Do you have links to documents showing these bribe attempts? Do you have links to studies showing the milks are statistically different?

          • Richids Coulter

            Are you suggesting the entire affair was fabricated by respected Health Canada scientists for no reason at all other than to eventually, for three of them, lose their jobs? That SIX Canadian government scientists purjered themselves in front of a Canadian senate committee where they also noted that they routinely feel their careers are threatened by Health Canada executives if they stand in the way of approving a drug they don’t think is safe? They also testified that “managers without scientific experience regularly overrule their decisions”. Of course in 2010 the FDA authenticad a letter from its scientific body to POTUS Obama saying the same things happen in the US. They wrote a similar letter in 1994 to Congress.

            How do six scientists all misunderstand an offer for research money? (that’s what Monsanto said happened, the company that was found guilty in 2005 and fined $1.5 million for attempting to bribe Indonesian officials over GE cotton)

          • Warren Lauzon

            Cite needed.

          • Tead

            Most apple varities are GMO…

          • Ammyth

            If GMOs are doing nothing good, then why do farmers keep planting them? Farmers have a lot of options when it comes to who they buy seeds from and what crops they plant. They aren’t under any obligation to buy GM. But they do. There must be a reason

          • Carrie Channing

            Exactly. They all mislead on behalf of the hugely powerful corporations who fund them and their ‘independent research’.

          • Tead

            You dont give your child tetnus or dip?

          • Tead

            ….

          • Richids Coulter

            Nope

          • Tead

            Most apple varities are gmo… Wheat, corn, tomatos, potatos, various lettuces, brocolli was made by man, i can keep going.. So define organic

          • Tead

            Define.. Show me a food thats not gmo.. Please find me one so you can stop lying to your kids

          • Richids Coulter

            Don’t be intentionally deceptive, GMO in today’s debate = transgenic crop.

          • JBaileyz

            I used to believe that too, and felt so enlightened. Then I cured myself of the conspiracy theories by reading some science, and realized the truth: What I thought was enlightenment had been irrational fear. Life is much more pleasant now that I’m not suspicious of every new idea or invention.

        • Loren Eaton

          Jenine, your premise is that cancer rates are going up and you blame all sorts of things for it. Jon has pointed out (from a reputable source) that your premise is incorrect. Period. You have no PROOF that western diet causes any disease. He did not claim that GMO caused the decrease in cancer rates, just that it cannot be blamed for an imaginary phenomenon.

          • Jenine

            no proof that the western diet causes disease?? I could give you lists of “proof” Do you know know that over 70% of cancers are environmentally caused? I really do not have the time to argue about this… The bottom line is we all can make choices from the knowledge we obtain, knowledge empowers us to make right choices for ourselves.. Being defensive and argumentative do not get us anywhere. Really even if there is just a little chance that the current state of a food industry could cause harm to our health we should be defensive about that…

          • Loren Eaton

            ‘I really do not have the time to argue about this.’ Oh, so you make a statement like that but don’t have time to back it up. Why are you here then? The idea that because food is part of the environment and YOU SAY that 70% of cancers are caused by the environment, then food MUST be a cause as well. That’s a circular argument of the worst kind. Not to mention a complete distortion of correlation and causation.

          • sara

            Typical response. She doesn’t need proof to back up her statements. If she believes it then it must just be true. This kind of response is most of the problem. She will just spread misinformation on any forum possible,

          • Jeanine

            Please provide citations to research that you use to support your stand.

          • Tead

            Its not gmo foods… Its increase consumption of one food. People here eat more fats and carbs.. And add that to seditary lifestyle, of course youll get cancer..

          • Tead

            Well i cant say its not gmo.. Because i dont know.. But i fo know what i stated.. And that lifestyle will possible give you cancer. Try…. Moderation?

        • Prism

          ACS does have a lot of sponsors.. true. Because they are foundation. Their funding does not in any way affect federally funded cancer research projects which are the overwhelming research grants out there. So your faulting one organization does not jibe.

      • Sarah J. Ritchie

        While the rates of new cancer cases are declining for most cancer sites,
        they are increasing among both men and women for melanoma of the skin,
        and cancers of the liver and thyroid.. Over the past decade, pancreatic cancer death rates in the US have
        been slowly increasing.

        After increasing for more than 2 decades, female breast cancer incidence
        rates began decreasing in 2000, then dropped by about 7% from 2002 to
        2003. This large decrease was thought to be due to the decline in use of
        hormone therapy after menopause that occurred after the results of the
        Women’s Health Initiative were published in 2002. . Incidence rates have been stable in recent years. Obviously the rise in breast cancer lasted into the early 2000’s. It seems to me that while you can make it appear that cancer rates have gone down considering all the people who have quit smoking, the public education and early screenings people are still dying of cancer at an alarming rate.

        • Sarah, You can try to twist the statistics any way you want but the fact is we are healthier now in the US than we’ve every been. Our cancer rates are heading in almost every category while other countries that do not use GMOs are not showing the same drop-off (check out Europe’s stats, for example). One key stat is stomach cancer, which by the reasoning of anti-GMO activists would logically be soaring–down of course. Every major science organization in the world–including the American Medical Association in the US and comparable organizations across GMO-skeptical Europe–find GMOs as safe or safer than conventional or organic. You seem totally resistant to independent empirical evidence so an exchange on a blog is not going to change your mind. You are welcome to your feelings and beliefs–just don’t deceiver yourself that that or anything more than that–feelings and beliefs. FYI, I wrote a book on cancer and genes, have had 5 family members die or be cancer survivors, I’m a melanoma survivor, and my daughter carries a breast cancer mutation. Cancer is serious stuff; linking something perfectly harmless–everyday nutritious food–to cancer is, to me, offensive.

          • Poisoncontrol

            If you believe Americans are healthier than ever before you are sadly misinformed. I don’t understand why this is a debate about GMOs and health. It’s quite obvious health issues are directly related to the consumption of processed foods. Go on a processed food diet only and see how you feel. Next go on a whole food diet and note the changes you feel. Although I try eat primarily organic, to scold a parent for feeding their children non-organic whole foods is ridiculous. To educate a parent whom feed their child “food” that only comes from boxes and why they could be harming their child and themselves is leading us on a more productive path.

          • agliterate

            Take a look at food recall sites to find out what’s been recalled for lack of safety. You’ll start thinking twice about the automatic “safety” of organic. Look up fecal contamination of organic; 22% of organic lettuce has high incidence of e. coli,.
            Whole Foods is the latest; raw organic almonds recalled.

          • Christopher Furlong

            Maybe we should continue consuming pesticide laced corn for the duration of our lives without regulation and just pray it does not cause high levels of cancer. Boy, the Europeans are looking really smarter for being cautious.

      • free2bgr8ful

        Jon, to comment on your statement: “Genetic modification is no more artificial then say, an organic Ruby Red grapefruit or …” Are you saying it is natural for a tomato DNA to be gene spliced with a fish? The “fish tomato” was created so that tomatoes could survive a spring frost. I’m being mindful that grafting is very different than gene splicing.

        • Milo

          What about the difference between GMOs and insecticides

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            One is a gene; one is a chemical. That is the difference.

        • Larkin Curtis Hannah

          Actually there are some genes that are so conserved that it is difficult to distinguish members of the gene family that come from organisms as diverse as fish and tomato. There is what is called “central metabolism” that is common to all eukaryotes (fish and tomato fall into this category). The enzymes of central metabolism are the same in fish and in tomato. So, there are genes already there that are virtually identical in fish and tomato. So, I don’t really get hung up about moving genes back and forth between such diverse organisms. It is also good to remember that eukaryotes have approximately 40,000 genes already.

        • Nathan Otter

          There are no GM tomatoes available commercially. And grafting/cross pollination is virtually indistinguishable from GM. In fact the argument can be made that it is in fact safer as the scientists are modifying organisms with very specific genes targeting typically a single characteristic. When haphazard hybridization is utilized, there is no way of knowing what the end result genetically will be. Also, animal to plant genetic sharing has been avoided for years now.

        • free2bgr8ful

          I am not opposed to well regulated, unbiased scientific research and production of GMO/GE products.

          What I am opposed to are:
          – the biotech firms owning our government regulators and “spinning” research to their fiscal gain;

          – the pollution of our nutrient soil and water system with pesticides & herbicides,

          – the monopoly of the farm to table system;

          – blocking the labeling of GMO/GE foods with political payoffs and law suits;

          – also please research Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) where the biotech are allowed to SUE countries that label or ban GMO/GE foods for loss of profit. citizen.org/TPP

          – If you’re still interested do a web-search on Monsanto Bribing Canadian officials for approval of rBGH (and rBST)

      • Prism

        True. Cancer rates are down. It is the allergies that are up.

        • Warren Lauzon

          Or more specifically – CLAIMED allergies. I wonder how many of those, if any, are actually diagnosed.

      • Richids Coulter

        There are definitely quite a few mistruths in your article including fewer pesticides and the no more artificial comment but given in one of your articles you state “I am not a scientist” it’s clear why you make those mistakes.

    • Loren Eaton

      ‘I will tell you that I am very educated on this topic.’ And then…’I have read 100s of books, and countless peer reviewed literature and I have also made sure when reading that I eliminate the studies that were paid for by the companies looking for the result.’ Where’s the science that says company science isn’t the most relevant and accurate? Arbitrarily ignoring studies because you are biased against the authors is what we call ‘truncating your range’ and that’s a big no-no when you live in the lab and not in cyberspace. I personally don’t believe anything I read from Rodale or Seralini or Carman…but I READ it anyway.

      • Richids Coulter

        Then you would be against the retraction of Seralini’s study.

        • Loren Eaton

          I personally didn’t care one way or the other if the story was retracted. The point is that it never should have been published in the first place and was done so to give the appearance equality…even though the work is rubbish. The fact that it is out here in a pay for play journal sort of ends the discussion…

          • Richids Coulter

            Only if you have your hands over your eyes and your ears.

          • Good4U

            Richids: It seems that you are the one who rejects science in favor of superstition. At one time in human history you probably thought that dragons lived off the edge of the flat earth.

    • Lee Kouyoumdjian

      Always inspiring me Jenine! Xo Thank u!!

    • Tead

      95% of fruits and veggies are gmo from the super market

      • Actually there are no GMO fruits sold in the US except for a tiny number of Hawaiian papayas and only one vegetable, soybeans.

        • Tead

          Most apples where genetically modified in some way.. Most tomatos are also

          • Tead

            If you think tomatos a fruit..

          • Apples have been conventionally modified if that’s what you mean by genetically modified–but there are no approved genetically engineered apples. There are no GE tomatoes being marketed anywhere in the world. The Flavr-Savor tomato was discontinued in the 1990s.

          • Tead

            Gmo means genetically modified.. Gene splicing.. Your changing the genes that dont occur normally in nature..Theres three different kinds of gmo

          • Richids Coulter

            GMO in today’s debate means transgenic, one only need their finger mildly on the pulse of the issue to understand that.

          • Good4U

            Richids: GMO means genetically modified organism, plain & simple. However one does the modification, the genes change. In some cases a gene is added. In some cases a gene is deleted. In some cases a gene is silenced, i.e. not expressed in terms of its metabolomics (the products of gene expression). Are you anti-GMO folks opposed to either genetic deletion or gene silencing so as to decrease the toxicity or environmental impact of a particular food? If so, have you considered the perverseness of your argument?

          • top

            If you mean transgenic, say it. Stop weasel-wording your responses.

          • Richids Coulter

            Again, GMO in today’s debate almost 100% of the time means transgenic, this is something even Jon Entine will agree on based on his response to the OP, Tead.

            Try typing GMO and transgenic 100 times and see which one you end up using? Only a fool would not understand that GMO = transgenic, so typing it each time isn’t needed.

          • Tead

            There was only one or two original apples

        • Tead

          Granny smith was invented by man to name one

      • Christopher Furlong

        I wonder how many of those produce their own insecticide.

    • Cheese

      Masters degree in what?

  • Sheryl McCumsey

    With the markers of the desired DNA being an antibiotic resistant bacterial gene this should be by itself be a great concern to many. This does not include the fact that approx. 90% of them are designed to be sprayed with herbicide. Hundreds of studies published worldwide on the serious consequences to human health due to glyphosate alone. There are many other concerns as well but these are obvious and simple ones that are casually ignored.

    • First Officer

      Are you saying you are afraid that those antibiotic resistance genes that came from bacteria may end up in bacteria? Well, genes moving from the food we eat to our intestinal bacteria might explain why every time i eat beef, my behind moos !

    • Loren Eaton

      First, most of the major labs don’t use antibiotic markers anymore, I haven’t used NPTII for many years now. Second, that marker confers tolerance to two antibiotics that aren’t used internally, kanamycin and neomycin. Both are toxic and ALREADY have resistant populations.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        Kanamycin is still used. Brand new GMO uses this marker.

        • Loren Eaton

          Which crop? Which company?

    • Neil

      So which organizations are claiming that there are “serious consequences to human health due to glyphosate alone”?

      According to the World Health Organization, glyphosate is a class III pesticide (slightly hazardous, LD50 4230mg/kg). Does that sound dangerous? For context you might want to know that pesticides used in organic farming (yes, they are allowed to use “natural” pesticides) are in a higher class of toxicity. Pyrethins, rotenone and copper sulfate are all class II pesticides (moderately hazardous) according to the WHO (LD50s: 500-1000mg/kg, 132-1500mg/kg and 300mg/kg respectively).

  • Elliebean

    I don’t know which side is correct but I am sure no one reading this wants to hurt their children or themselves. I think anyone who feeds their kids lunchables, MacDonalds, potato chips, hot dogs, soda, chocolate bars etc… has the right to put down anyone else. AND I’m sure everyone on this site has given these foods to their children and consumed them themselves.

    One thing I do think needs to be done is label GMO foods. Then the people who don’t want to consume them, don’t have to. This would go a long way to quiet those people who argue against them.

    I do think something in our environment is causing a huge increase in diseases such as diabetes, and autism.

    I do wonder about all these food allergies that now are more and more common such as nut and egg allergies. These weren’t common when I was a child and I could take peanutbutter to school for lunch.

    I also wonder about the staggering death of bees and the drastic decline of the monarch butterfly. Our farming practices are not safe for our environment.

    I also wonder about a documentary I saw where farmers have said they are now using more pesticides on their crops because the weeds that are growing in their gmo crops are hardier.

    I guess time will tell and in 20 years, the health of today’s children will either prove or disprove this argument. I do agree with others on here who make the case that processed and packaged foods with artificial preservatives are probably more harmful to our health.

    And I know healthy eaters, people who exercise regularly and don’t smoke also die. Several factors contribute to the development of cancer. We can point to pollution, stress, overconsumption of sugar, use of makeup and fragrances, exposure to radiation etc… Our chemically infested environment is a challenge to our physical health,

    Putting others down is not the way forward.

    • Elliebean

      Ooops, meant to say, “I think anyone who feeds their kids lunchables, MacDonalds, potato chips, hot dogs, soda, chocolate bars etc… does not have the right to put down anyone else.

    • First Officer

      I know the laws may be different in Canada but, at least in the US, it is already case law that the right to know is not limitless. The consumer does not have a right to know simply for curiosity or perceived concern. Some reasonable cause must be shown to put the burden of disclosure of the facts desired on the manufacturers. Otherwise, there would be no limit to the demands that consumers could make for disclosure. It wasn’t too long ago people seriously wanted to know if Blacks,Jews, etc.worked at such and such location they had business with.

      http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1210635.html

  • KatieKTay

    Great article! I have gotten in many debates — some escalating quickly — all because I was stating facts from primary research. Citing someone’s interpretation of primary research is not doing your own! There are many things that go into someone’s diet, and to attribute problems solely to GMOs is like finding an association between two things and just assuming it’s a causative relationship. No no no, lol! Gluten is a culprit for Celiac Disease, but many people are putting GMOs to blame. Every individual is different, and I’m not saying it can’t happen, but it’s not the same as smoking and lung cancer. The proof is not there, and I am perfectly healthy eating “conventional” foods. That was my testimony, anyway. Please educate yourselves and find the original studies. It takes a while to take the material in, but those are where the facts are. Thanks and God Bless.

  • Sleuth 4 Health

    You go girl! My daughter, who is college age, wants to do a comparison between the tactics of these bully mom anti-GMO activists and the women behind prohibition in the US. I hope she goes through with it because there are many parallels and we all know how that ended up. I think these people are using their children to further their agenda. The children are a wall they can hide behind while screaming “foul”! I know that sounds harsh, but I have experienced the exact same thing, the shill accusations, being sworn at and called names, being accused of not really caring about health. The nnti GMO position seems more a religion these days than a movement.

    I’d also like to say that there are a fair amount of men in on this madness as well. I can’t blame it all on do-gooder moms.

    • First Officer

      And more than a few non-parents of both genders. Good luck to your daughter Julee.

    • JBaileyz

      I’ve found that discussions about motherhood and food are the most judgmental and emotional of all. Doesn’t take much to set people off about it, especially in our eating-disordered country.

  • Ben N Teresa Hobbs

    You have GOT TO BE KIDDING if you think you can genetically alter God given natural foods, put them in your body and expect everything to be ok in the long run ! You have NO IDEA what they may be doing to you and your family… http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/lethality-roundup-weedkiller-may-extend-beyond-plants-humans-study-shows

    • Ben, almost no food that you eat is “god given natural food.” God given wheat is inedible; same for corn and most greens. Almost no vegetables or fruits exist in their natural state. All were altered from the ‘natural’ state by man, usually in a laboratory. I would bet that 95% of the foods you eat, including organic foods, have been genetically manipulated. Do you like organic Ruby Red grapefruit? Sweet and tasty yes? Created by gamma rays after six years of random radiation bombardment. I think you need to educate yourself about farming and food before playing the ‘it’s not natural’ card.

    • Good4U

      Ben & Teresa: Perhaps this is information that is new to you, but splicing of genes from one species to another has been done since the beginning of life, approximately 2 billion years ago. Viruses splice genes from one organism to another as they enter cells and begin their replicative processes. Some viruses are themselves mutagenic, i.e. cause gene changes in their hosts (people, animals, plants). Bacteria also carry DNA from one organism to another as they spread from one host to another. Scientifically speaking, the processes of gene transfer from one species to another, and even between plants and animals, is taking place every minute of every day, and none of those processes are in the least bit controlled by humans. I trust that God makes all of that happen. I do not fear those completely natural, interspecific gene transfers that are made by microorganisms. Neither do I fear the targeted gene transfers that educated, dedicated, and enlightened scientists and technicians are making with regard to food and feed crops, and hopefully will make in domesticated livestock in the future. Fear-mongering never has been beneficial at any time in the history of the human species. Education and forward thinking is the key to overcoming fear.

  • Sarah J. Ritchie

    I don’t understand why you find the price of organics so outrageous? I buy mostly organic and other then milk, eggs and bread I don’t see that big of a difference. I plan meals and buy things on sale, grow my own and buy meats from a local butcher. So my question is if organic cereal is on sale for the same price as the GMO stuff do you still buy the GMO stuff? Are you organic jaded because of the way these moms have treated you? Do you have this idea that organic is so unaffordable that you can’t buy it ever? It just seems to me you have taken a side and won’t budge. I still buy things that contain GMO but I try to buy what I can organic. I also see value in buying local, supporting organic farms and reducing the chemicals my children are exposed too. However I am very much alone so I couldn’t imagine judging every mother around me for not doing the same. Also I don’t trust the science. So many other countries have banned or demanded labeling. They have scientists too, and they found it to be harmful in one way or the other. I also feel that I have seen improvements in my families health since I changed our diet .

    • Sarah, I think if you researched this issue a bit–not by Googling websites but by reading what the world’s top science organizations conclude about GMOs, and if you have an open mind, you’re views would change significantly.

      For example, you write: “So many other countries have banned or demanded labeling. They have scientists too, and they found it to be harmful in one way or the other.” You confuse views of scientists from that of politicians. Germany’s politicians have banned many GMOs but they did so over the strong objections of the country’s most prestigious independent science organization, the German Academies, which found GM foods to be as or more safe that conventional/organic and more environmentally sustainable. France? Politician’s ignored the French Academies.

      Every major world health or safety organization of note, including the National Academy of Science and the American Assocation for the Advancement of Science in the US, and the World Health Organizations, has endorsed the safety of GMs: Take a look: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/#.UxZdfvTfzj0

      What politicians do reflects fears–like yours, that are not grounded in science.

  • T.W.

    Sarah,I think you must be a very good mother no one should be able to judge anyone and tell them what to feed their own children.I work in the Ag industry and feel GMO crop are safe and I know of no study proving GMO’s are bad for us.By the the appox. year 2050 the world population will double and it’s up to the farmer to feed the world are crop yields will have to double from are current yields.I feel a lot of the GMO bashing is people are uneducated about it.

  • I’m not sure what sort of affirmation you seek. Most GMO modifications exist so that farmers can treat crops with pesticides and herbicides (like Roundup). Most non-organic crops are treated with pesticides and herbicides. Are you asking us, your readers, to confirm your wishful thinking that your children won’t be harmed by the pesticides and herbicides in the foods you prepare for them? Because we can’t do that. We can’t assuage your guilt. Pesticides and herbicides are prevalent in GMO and non-organic foods. Pesticides and herbicides do real harm to the people who consume them, especially children. You can make courageous claims about eschewing organic foods, for your family. But you can’t ask us to support and encourage you. Because we don’t agree, you are taking major risks with your family’s health.

    • John, You are under some misapprehensions. All farmers use pesticides and herbicides. Organic farmers heavily use pesticides; they are ‘natural’ but are often far more toxic than sophisticated synthetic chemicals. On average organic farmers use more pesticides that farmers using GMOs with natural pesticide generating traits, such as Bt crops. The latest USDA report, just out last week, made that clear. In fact, GMOs has led to a dramatic reduction in pesticide use, as noted here in this article in Grist by Nathanael Johnson: http://grist.org/food/gmo-yeah-5-surprises-from-an-otherwise-boring-look-at-genetically-modified-crops/

      All farmers, including organic farmers, use herbicides. There is no evidence that the tiny amount of residue found on both organic and conventional foods poses any serious harm to humans. This has been studied time and again. Anti-GMO and anti-pesticide activists like to claim differently but the science is clear: the amount of chemicals on crops does not pose serious harm.

      With those SCIENCE issues settled, the argument that organics are somehow “better” for us than conventional crops, including GMOs, is not supportable. By and large, it’s a vanity purchase, supported by fear and inlfammed by the organic industry itself.

      There is zero scientific evidence that organic foods are “healthier” than organic/GMOs. Here is the gold standard meta study on that from Stanford University: http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

      • Jon, I am flattered to be attacked by such a well known apologist and lobbyist for agribusiness corporations. Of course, you are cherry picking data and reports. Organic produce has much lower concentrations of pesticides and herbicides than conventional and GMO produce. I do admire your poetic license, in your response. So creative with data and facts. The only reason that most GMO crops exist is to enable the liberal application of herbicides and pesticides. I am amused by your refutations of those facts. I hope that your corporate patrons reward you handsomely. More than 30 pieces of silver, surely. And I trust that you don’t feed your own family GMO foods, As I wish you and yours a long and healthy life…

      • Rob Wallbridge

        Jon, can you share a link to your claim that organic farmers are using more pesticides than those who plant GMOs? Considering that Bt corn is generating a pesticide in practically every cell of the plant throughout the growing season, and that the same farmers are almost certainly using seed treated with insecticides and/or fungicides, and that a large number are probably also applying fungicide and herbicides to the growing crop, I’m finding your statement difficult to believe. I’d love to see stats on the number of organic acres sprayed with herbicides, too!

        • Rob, I made a factual claim about pesticide spraying…in fact repeating what the USDA report released last week concluded. 99% of pesticides are in nature….they are in the plants themselves. Scientists and the USDA make a distinction between the pesticides within plants and pesticides sprayed on plants. The latest USDA report–just out last week–makes it quite clear that pesticide use in the US–spraying by farmers–has dropped dramatically over the past 15 almost certainly and specifically as the result of the introduction of GE Bt crops. The numbers are quite amazing. On those specific crops…cotton for example…farmers with the Bt pesticide built spray less than organic farmers. That’s a factual statement. Natural pesticides built into a plant has a lower EIS. That’s the assertion I was making. Herbicide use is different. Farmers using herbicide resistant GMOs are using more (although the overall toxicity and EIS levels are much lower).

          Summary: Broad statements like GMOs are better or organics use less chemicals are not nuanced. Some organic practices offer benefits in some situations and some GMO practices offer (different) advantages in other situations. The point I was making, which is accurate, is that the perception that organic farmers use less chemicals is wrong–it’s too crude a generalization.

          • Rob Wallbridge

            Jon, you said “On average organic farmers use more pesticides that farmers using GMOs with natural pesticide generating traits, such as Bt crops” and then “farmers with the Bt pesticide built spray less than organic farmers.” I’ve looked at a number of recent USDA reports and I cannot find any evidence for these claims: please provide a link.

  • Guest

    The reason we are just now raising a voice against GMOs after 20 years of eating them is that we are just now seeing the results of what can happen to our bodies, our immune systems and our health after 20 years of eating science projects!! No GMOs for me!!!

    • Please provide concrete evidence based on empirical research that we are “seeing the results” of eating nutritious foods made using GMOs. There have been a few thousand studies to date and not one backs up your contentions. In fact the major trend lines on health are improving, particularly in areas like cancer, and stomach cancer in particular, that circumstantially suggest there is no ‘there there’ to your fears/allegations. Let’s stick to empirical evidence. This is a free world. You can consumer what you like. But factually, there is no evidence that GMOs are anything but comparable to conventional and organic foods.

      • Guest

        Ok, you eat them then. As for me and mine, we’ll grow our own and outlive all of you GMO lovers. As far as concrete “empirical” evidence, look at all the new diseases cropping up everyday. People are sick, obese and dying at a young age. I have seen 3 people have cancer reversed to non existent by changing their diet to organic and alkaline rather than GMO and toxic. As you said, this is a free COUNTRY (not world) and you can consume what you like. I, on the other hand, want to live to see my grandchildren become grandparents.

        • I think you miss the point Mr/Ms anonymous. I know of none who is a “GMO lover”. That concept is absurd. As someone who embraces smart science, GMOs are a technological tool to increase global food security, improve nutrition and help address sustainability issues. It’s one tool of many for farmers, along with many conventional and organic tools. It’s not to be praised nor demonized. Your personal experience with caner aside, as I noted in previous comments here, cancer rates are plunging, particularly for stomach cancer, which would not be the case of GMOs caused food/digestion problems as some activists (but no scientists) claim. GMOs are no more toxic than any organic food. As you said, this is a free country, and you can believe or consume what you like.

  • Guest

    I love how my comments and subsequent discussion with the mod “Jon Entine” from this morning has been deleted. Way to go to prove your point! Cowards.

    • Excuse me? All of your posts and exchanges from today are quite visible. Just scrolled down and found them. No posts have been deleted today. Apology accepted.

  • Canadianfarmwife

    As a farmer of conventional food products and a mother, I applaude this article and support you 100 percent! As a conventional farmer, our family puts just as much sweat and tears into producing safe, healthy food for consumers as an organic farmer. I do not feed my children “certified organic” food on the basis that I know it is not any safer than the conventional product produced on my farm. Everyone is entitled to his or her own choice. We in North America are just thankful we have that choice!

  • Shredder

    I just want to say that although I am in the highly skeptical camp regarding GMOs, and believe them to be vastly overhyped, as Jon and others who have read my comments elsewhere know, I am appalled that anyone would be so arrogant as to call someone a bad parent for doing what they in good faith think is the best thing for their kids. That has got to be one of the worst kinds of ad hominems imaginable. Even if you disagree with feeding kids GMOs, the effort to justify it has been so Herculean that no one should be surprised, much less judgmental, if people feel that way.

    That said, my view, respectfully, is that GMOs really need to be labeled, not just voluntarily but every food item that contains GMOs in every store should be identified as containing GMOs. But that is unlikely to happen because mandatory labeling would enable causation to be established in lawsuits – something the lawyers for the biotech companies will never allow. The lack of mandatory labeling is a virtual guarantee that the biotech companies who developed these products will never be held liable, even if they should be. That is a big problem, and one that I think proponents have not adequately addressed, and if they don’t soon, they will wind up looking down the barrel of new laws mandating labeling for precisely the reason that justice requires that the companies that generated these products be held responsible for any harms from them. And so I repeat what I have said elsewhere over and over: if these food products are so good, if they REALLY ARE safe, there is no rational reason under the sun to oppose mandatory labeling. The opposition to this view is clearly lawyer-driven. The biotech companies and the distributors will never EVER admit that there is ANY evidence WHATSOEVER ANYWHERE (and there CAN NEVER BE) that there is any health risk from human consumption of GMOs. Otherwise, product liability law rears its ugly head and upsets the entire apple-cart. They will do everything they can to prevent the evidence from being established. Their lawyers demand no less. Just ask Big Tobacco.

    I would support GMOs if only there were adequate long term studies done on humans. (And the environment, but that is a different debate.) Since so many of you think that these GMOs are safe, there should be no problem finding willing human subjects. After all, in a de facto sense, we all are now anyway.

  • guest
  • Lacynda Mathes

    I am afraid I honestly don’t understand what the issue is. Isn’t GMO simply another way of saying hybrid crops? Haven’t we (the human race) been doing that for 10,000 years or so? The only thing that concerns me is the loss of bees, which I can see GMO’s contributing to, not because of pesticides (since they actually require less) but because of cross breeding out the pollination process…

    • Lacynda Mathes

      And I honestly wouldn’t stand up and argue that point since I am far from an expert!

    • susan

      Natural Breeding (hybridization) is vastly different than genetic manipulation.

      Hybrids are NOT anything like genetic engineering! What is GMO? In simple terms Genetically Modified Organisms are Genetically Engineered, or created through gene splicing, in a laboratory. It is nothing like hybridization. It merges DNA from different species, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacterial, viral and even HUMAN genes to produce species that cannot occur in nature… and they are exchanging their genetic information in the wild. I guess Monsanto and DelMonte never heard the phrase “Don’t Mess with Mother Nature”..

      In other words, a hispanic female might marry an asian man and you could call their children hybrid. If a man wished to marry a coconut tree and have an offspring, that would require genetic engineering.. believe it or not they are using human genes in plants now too :/

      “Biotechnology (& by implication GM technology) has NOT been with us since agriculture began”
      http://gmandchemicalindustry9.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/biotechnology-by-implication-gm-technology-has-not-been-with-us-since-agriculture-began/

      For a bit more information you might enjoy
      THE GMO EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
      http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/GMO-Emperor-Latest_Publications7.pdf

  • free2bgr8ful

    I don’t think you’re a “bad” mom …this is just ridiculous. This shouldn’t be a dividing issue.

    I thought I’d share with you my question and thoughts that I have about engineered food:

    1. Why hasn’t the FDA tested GE/GMO food? Genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been safety tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), thanks to a 20-year-old policy that says it’s up to the biotech companies to determine the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods. This to me is akin to the tobacco companies testing for health risk associated with smoking.

    2. Is it fair that Michael Taylor, the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner of Food since January 2013, who once worked for Monsanto, was the architect of the FDA’s substantial equivalence policy, used to justify no safety testing and no labeling of GMOs.

    3. I do not think it ethical that Biotech firms such as Monsanto have successfully sued family farmers out of business for “seed” rights, when Monsanto’s seeds have polluted the small farmers field. This would be akin to me spray painting my house, the wind takes some of the paint to your house, and I successfully sue you for stealing my paint.

    4. Mono-cropping is dangerous for food stability. Just like putting all of your money into one stock would be dangerous to your investment portfolio.

    5. Several countries have banned GE/GMO crops because they have not proven to be better than mother nature …in fact they require more pesticide treatment than conventional crops.

    6. GE/GMO crops are killing the soil along with birds, bees, butterflies, …etc.

    7. If GE/GMO is safe why are the biotech firms putting up a fight to stop labeling? Labels are changed all of the time on products, what’s the big deal, or what are they hiding?

    8. I don’t like the idea of eating a “fish tomato”, DNA Plant Technology’s transgenic tomato is genetically engineered with a gene from the winter flounder

    I could go on …but you’re probably fatigued

  • free2bgr8ful

    Jon, I find it interesting that you have removed my 8 (changed to 9 comments; I added my concern about how GMO/pesticides are effecting our cleaning drinking water …etc.) points of discussion on GMO’s? What say you about Monsanto being caught bribing gov’t officials? If their product is so safe why do they need to bribe, not label, and do name changes to the product line? http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=125

  • Harsh Reality

    I love when so many spazzes rant against GMOS and especially lunchables. Eating a lunchable has never and will never kill anyone. So many losers love to preach about alternatives, organics, blah blah blah. Fact is if these so-called alternatives were so viable and cost effective, we would’ve gone down that path. Whackjobs that freak out over GMOS are the same whackjobs that disregard anything and everything that doesn’t support their narrow worldview.

    • disqus_i04MJzfaW8

      Living with your head up your ars doesn’t mean you seen the entire universe.
      Semp sersum si vic pacem parabellum. Want to learn about reality go to http://www.infowars.com and listen to truth based on fact and researched fact checking journalism.

  • Monsantoisfullspectrumgenocide

    GMOs cause Gluten Disorders, Auto-immune and Neurological Diseases. Monsanto is generating new disease complexes.
    [url]http://www.fridayharborholistichealth.com/2011/03/gmos-cause-gluten-allergies-and-celiac-anxiety-auto-immune-and-neurological-diseases/[/url]

    Genetically Engineered Corn May Cause Allergies, Infertility, and Disease
    [url]http://www.againstthegrainnutrition.com/newsandnotes/2009/04/14/genetically-engineered-corn-may-cause-allergies-infertility-and-disease/[/url]

    Dr Swanson: GMOs Cause Increase in Chronic Diseases, Infertility and Birth Defects
    [url]http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/04/27/dr-swanson-gmos-and-roundup-increase-chronic-diseases-infertility-and-birth-defects/#.U2jMRH5P45g[/url]

    How GMO Food Causes Depression Anxiety
    [url]http://www.depressionanxietydiet.com/how-gmo-food-causes-depression-anxiety/[/url]

    GMO Linked to Celiac Disease?…
    [url]http://glutenfreerecipebox.com/gmo-causes-celiac-disease/[/url]

    Infectious Diabetes and Obesity – A New Genetically Engineered Plague?
    [url]http://ezinearticles.com/?Infectious-Diabetes-and-Obesity—A-New-Genetically-Engineered-Plague?&id=795100[/url]

    [url]http://suppressions.org/wordpress/food/gmo-foods/[/url]

    GMO CORN LINKED TO CANCER TUMORS
    [url]http://www.foodmatters.tv/articles-1/gm-corn-linked-to-cancer-tumors[/url]

    French GMO Research Finds Monsanto Corn Causes Cancer: America Should Pay Attention
    [url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/15889/french-gmo-research-finds-monsanto-corn-causes-cancer-america-should-pay-attention[/url]

    Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging Roundup-Cancer Link
    [url]http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/monsanto-funded-science-denies-emerging-roundup-cancer-link[/url]

    Monsanto goes on offensive over GM/cancer study
    [url]http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/health/monsanto-goes-on-offensive-over-gm/cancer-study/232744.article[/url]

  • forum(dot)prisonplanet(dotcom)

    GMOs cause Gluten Disorders, Auto-immune and Neurological Diseases. Monsanto is generating new disease complexes.
    [url]http://www.fridayharborholistichealth.com/2011/03/gmos-cause-gluten-allergies-and-celiac-anxiety-auto-immune-and-neurological-diseases/[/url]

    Genetically Engineered Corn May Cause Allergies, Infertility, and Disease
    [url]http://www.againstthegrainnutrition.com/newsandnotes/2009/04/14/genetically-engineered-corn-may-cause-allergies-infertility-and-disease/[/url]

    Dr Swanson: GMOs Cause Increase in Chronic Diseases, Infertility and Birth Defects
    [url]http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/04/27/dr-swanson-gmos-and-roundup-increase-chronic-diseases-infertility-and-birth-defects/#.U2jMRH5P45g[/url]

    How GMO Food Causes Depression Anxiety
    [url]http://www.depressionanxietydiet.com/how-gmo-food-causes-depression-anxiety/[/url]

    GMO Linked to Celiac Disease?…
    [url]http://glutenfreerecipebox.com/gmo-causes-celiac-disease/[/url]

    Infectious Diabetes and Obesity – A New Genetically Engineered Plague?
    [url]http://ezinearticles.com/?Infectious-Diabetes-and-Obesity—A-New-Genetically-Engineered-Plague?&id=795100[/url]

    [url]http://suppressions.org/wordpress/food/gmo-foods/[/url]

    GMO CORN LINKED TO CANCER TUMORS
    [url]http://www.foodmatters.tv/articles-1/gm-corn-linked-to-cancer-tumors[/url]

    French GMO Research Finds Monsanto Corn Causes Cancer: America Should Pay Attention
    [url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/15889/french-gmo-research-finds-monsanto-corn-causes-cancer-america-should-pay-attention[/url]

    Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging Roundup-Cancer Link
    [url]http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/monsanto-funded-science-denies-emerging-roundup-cancer-link[/url]

    Monsanto goes on offensive over GM/cancer study
    [url]http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/health/monsanto-goes-on-offensive-over-gm/cancer-study/232744.article[/url]

  • disqus_i04MJzfaW8

    Sarah how much are they paying you to push this propaganda on the trendies? How can you sell out to humanity like this? Have you ever read all the case law stacked up on mosanto? I have, that’s the problem no one here has done real research. 12 of my friends that vaccinated there children. How special needs autistic kids. I chose not to and never vaccinate my child and he is healthy and strong. Where as over 80percent of his class mates are alergic to something or autistic. I suppose you support floride in the drinking water as well? Please state reall scientific fact not corporate sponsored science. It’s like two wolve’s and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. May god be with you.

  • disqus_i04MJzfaW8

    Th guy that run this is a CIA Operative and a think tank engineer. Mind control at it’s best.

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

  • justaweecurious
    • Good4U

      Yes. It means that the people who live in those European countries are not hungry (yet). In many of those countries their populations are decreasing, so there is more & more food to go around. Also, many of those countries outsource a large portion of their dietary supplies from food producing and exporting regions such as North America. Examples of commodities that are imported into Europe are wheat, soybean meal (for livestock), chicken carcasses. There are many more. Explanation enough? If not, I can help you to understand the issues in more detail. Just let me know.

  • Amy Putnam

    To me the problem is the pesticides. GMO foods can survive pesticides while they kill everything else. Then when the foods are ready they send people out to harvest it. The people often get sick and people in te area have had high rates of cancer. It’s also harmful for the animals and other plants in the area.

    You have the option to stop this by just buying natural food or by going to the farmers market or even by starting a garden. But instead you are turning a blind eye like so many others.. It’s pretty sad. If you are trying to be a good parent, then that’s awesome, don’t let others put you down, but that’s not really the issue in the big sheme of things.

    • Amy, I think you have swallowed a few myths here. First, only some GMOs are what you refer to — herbicide resistant. Many are Bt crops, which require about 1/4 amount of insecticides used by conventional farmers and far less than organic farmers who spray insecticides regularly. As for herbicide resistant crops, this innovation has resulted in the phasing out of far more toxic chemicals for one chemical, glyphosate, that is not very toxic. It’s not carcinogenic, is biodebradable and is quite mild to animals, as comparison to ones that it has replaced, and even safer than many organic pesticides. You can buy natural foods and pay a premium but that’s an emotional/religious choice–your kids are no better off and your pocket is lighter.

  • DR. Colobas

    Im sorry but GMO’s AND NoN-Organic Food ARE BAD FOR YOU!!! IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO PAY BUT YOUR NOT SUPPORTING LOCAL ORGANIC FARMERS UR JUST A CHEAP ASS. Do you know what sort of chemicals are used? and what the GMO’s are doing to your children’s hormones AND DNA? BAD MOM BAD MOM BAD MOM, IM Sorry but Your just trying to be Cheap and make excuses at the expense of your children’s health. PERIOD, but go ahead, Trust the system. See what happens.

    ENVIORNMENTALLY FRIENDLY?!!! HAHA Are you KIDDING! LOOK AT ALL THE BEE’S DYING FROM THE GMO CROPS, LOOK AT ALL THE Unhappniess And Violence becauase people aren’t getting the Natural Organic Nutrients they are supposed to get. Half the population is litterally Crazy because of this.

    THERE IS NOTHING MORE NUTRITIOUS ABOUT NON-ORGANIC FOOD. SHOW ME ONE STUDY THAT SHOWS THIS PLEASE!!! I WILL GIVE YOU 100 DOLLARS!!! NO JOKE!!! YOU WONT BE ABLE TO BECAUSE NON-ORGANIC FOOD IS BAD AS FUCK FOR YOU ITS GROWN WITH ALL SORTS OF CHEMICALS AND MACHINES SO PEOPLE CAN BE CHEAP AND LARGE CORPS CAN MAKE HELLA MONEY AT THE EXPENCE OF YOUR CHILDRENS HEALTH!!!

    • Good4U

      Dr. Colobas, you are way off the mark with your statements regarding nutrition relative to GMOs. You are obviously not aware that improved nutrition is one of the main goals of biotechnology, such as to increase the complement of vitamin A in rice, thereby to alleviate malnutrition of this essential substance among a large portion of the world’s population. Unfortunately the anti-GMO folks have stood in the way of that happening. Also, your personal attack on Ms. Schultz is entirely unwarranted. Finally, your crude language (bad as fuck, as you stated) depicts you as someone who uses the title ‘Dr.’ speciously. No educated person would speak that way.

  • Ben K.

    I am a teen so to speak. 17 anyways. I refuse to put GMO’s in my body. If it’s GM you can garentee a crap load of pesticides were used on it. I just did a school project on GMO’s and the dangers and what it’s doing to are planet. If you want I can email you the whole report. My email is [email protected]

    I am not a science experiement. Organic food isn’t just about GMO’s it’s about the way they grow it also. They use not pesticides or herbicides. And foods that arn’t organic can contain artificial sweetners, food colorings. All crappy chemicals your body should never be eating. Sarah you don’t want to pay a premium then find an organic local farm and buy your fruits and vegetables from the famer himself. It supports the farmer who makes it directly. It feels so good to do that.

    I personalky would never fred my kidss krafts mac and cheese or jello pudding. Cheese puffs. GMO corn. Luckily people are waking up in record numbers. New England is jumping on the ball game. So far Vermont, Mains, and conneticut require GMO labeling. We have a right to know of the ingredients are gm . Right now their are no standards

    Also, the fda has done no safety tests on gmo’s. The company such as monsanto only has to say to the fda we found it to be safe and it approved in no time. This is what were trying to stop. Thats what the whole organic movement is about. Not anti-science but safe science.

    Their are so many independt studies I’ce found the links GMO’s to food allergies, ADD ect.

    I’m not calling you anything but a fact is a fact is a fact.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Ben,
      I commend you for taking such a keen interest in food production. However, there are several things that you’ve stated that are incorrect:
      1) Organic food production does use herbicides and pesticides, some of which have higher toxicity than synthetic compounds. See: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d42b3bc7c059656323c811f88febd225&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.3.354.7&rgn=div8
      For a great graphic outlining the concept of toxicity, please see: http://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/the-dose-makes-the-poison/
      2) Hundreds of studies, many of which have independent sources of funding, have examined the safety of GMOs. For a partial list (which can be sorted by the source of funding), please see: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/
      3) GMO labeling will not address the issue of pesticide use. Pesticides, such as glyphosate, are used in conventional farming even when the crop is not a GMO.

      • Ben K.

        That is exactly why I buy from a farmer where I can talk to and ask how he grows his crops. Anyways I certainly don’t want to be eating a crop thats been genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide. Ugh! Its a matter of right now I do not trust GMO’s, I don’t trust the science behind it, and I don’t trust the people running it such as Monsanto, DuPont ect. Monsanto really is trying to patent nature which is totally ethically wrong. I’m fine with GMO’s being grown but to put farmers put of business because Monsanto seeds blow onto your land. That is evil. I’ve talked to so many farmers who have jad this happen and it makes me sick. I am not against GMOs totally, we should all dwell into science and experiment but right now I believe it is moving too fast for us to keep under control. The reason I support labeling is people will know if not buying organic if their food really is GMO or not. I’m not asking for a skull, just asking for a small label in the ingredients section that says ingredients have been partially genetically modified. I believe we are making great process in labeling GMO’s. Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine have jumped on the band wagon and soon Massachusetts. All I’m saying is to have some control.

        • Ben: ALL plants contain natural pesticides…every organic or conventional crop has natural pesticides built in. These natural chemicals are totally harmless to humans but not to insects. Organic farmers use them all the time.

          • susan

            I don’t think they use Roundup, Glyphosate or 2,4-D etc. on Organic.

            IMPORTANT NEW STUDY WARNS OF REPRODUCTIVE HARM FROM ROUNDUP. Way back in 1996 the NY State Attorney General found Monsanto guilty of false advertising (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fraud.pdf) in their unfounded claims about the safety of herbicide ‘Roundup.’ Now this new study adds to mounting scientific evidence that Roundup is a major calamity and deserves to be completely banned. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/moms-to-epa-recall-monsantos-roundup_b_5417927.html) “The study’s findings should raise alarm in farm workers, as well as people who spray Roundup for municipal authorities and even home gardeners. People exposed to lower doses repeated over the long term, including consumers who eat food produced with Roundup and people who happen to be exposed to others’ spraying activities, should also be concerned. Those who want to conceive a child should take special measures to minimise their exposure, including eating organic food and lobbying for a ban on Roundup spraying in their neighbourhoods.”
            Roundup damages sperm – new study
            http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15494-roundup-damages-sperm-new-study

            We Are What We Eat – The poisoning of our food supply
            http://farmwars.info/?p=13098

            “Have you heard GMO supporters say that Bt toxins are used in organic farming and they are safe? Organic farming use of Baccillus thuringiensis (Bt), a soil dwelling bacteria, bears no relationship to how Bt is used in genetic engineering in GMO crops. Even Monsanto’s own data show that it’s not safe. A re-analysis of Monsanto data found kidney & liver toxicity in rats fed GMO corn. Other studies show that natural Bt toxin has ill effects on laboratory animals, producing a potent immune response and enhancing the immune response to other substances. Have you heard enough?
            http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13142

            While there are forms of Bt which are natural soil bacteria that are used in organic farming, we can assure you that this Bt toxic corn is quite different. First, the Bt toxins used in organic farming are applied topically and they wash off and break down in sunlight. The GMO Bt toxic corn that is used by Kellogg’s (we know this for sure because we sent a box of Froot Loops to a lab for genetic testing and the corn was 100% Roundup Ready Bt toxic corn) is registered with and regulated by the EPA – it has a pesticide registration number as does every other pesticide on the shelf at Home Depot. Here is the EPA pesticide fact sheet for this corn:
            http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/smartstax-factsheet.pdf

            To explain further, the Bt toxins used in GMO corn have been genetically engineered and have a very specific genetic footprint. These Bt toxins were found in the blood serum of 93% of pregnant women tested and 80% of the cord blood of their unborn babies in a study done at Sherbrooke Hospital in Canada – another country that has unlabeled GMO Bt toxic corn in the food supply. GMO Bt toxic corn has up to 6 genetically engineered varieties of Bt toxins stacked into the DNA. These Bt toxins are expressed by every cell of the plant and they don’t wash off or break down in sunlight. Hope this helps. The agrichemical companies that are producing these toxic foods do their best to mislead people into thinking that these Bt toxins are safe – when, in fact, they have no scientific data to back this up. Quite the contrary – there are studies that link them to many health problems.

            The Cry proteins expressed by Bt crops are not natural, they are synthetic versions of the natural Bt. Similar to how artificial flavors are often synthetic versions of natural flavors. In order to patent these, they must make them synthetic. There are also some huge differences between the synthetic Cry proteins expressed by Bt crops and the natural versions used in Bt spray, “According to toxin quantity determined in the entire plant, the toxin level produced on the plantation area was calculated to be 1500-2000 times higher than the toxin dosage corresponding to the registered application rate of the Bt-toxin-based biopesticide DIPEL. This means that the genetically modified corn plant represents a 1500-2000 times higher load on the environment than the registered non-biotechnological toxin application rates.
            http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/institucional/grupos-de-trabalho/gt-transgenicos/bibliografia/pgm-e-riscos-ambientais/Darvas,%202003,%20Acad%20Hongr.pdf

            Bt is also found in the seed of the corn and Cry proteins are often found even when testing processed corn. For example, “So he tested those yellow kernels for the Bt toxin and found it in high levels.”
            http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/agricultural_sciences/report-29055.html

            The Roundup Ready event does not come from a plant, it comes from a bacteria, but like with Bt it is now synthetic and not the same as from the original bacteria. It should also be noted that much of the GE corn is now stacked, and express multiple synthetic Cry proteins as well as having tolerance to herbicide(s) so you may actually be getting a quadruple or greater dose of pesticides and not just double.
            We would encourage you to do a little more research in the future before claiming we are spreading faulty and misleading information. Since, we take a great deal of time to present accurate information.
            http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/institucional/grupos-de-trabalho/gt-transgenicos/bibliografia/pgm-e-riscos-ambientais/Darvas,%202003,%20Acad%20Hongr.pdf

            READ: Genetically Engineered Crops in the Real World
            http://blog.ucsusa.org/genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-real-world-bt-corn-insecticide-use-and-honeybees-2/

            READ: Pesticides…Polluting Earth for Decades to Come
            http://www.naturalnews.com/038703_pesticides_phthalates_contaminants.html

            READ: Insecticide ‘Unacceptable’ Danger to Bees
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/insecticide-unacceptable-danger-bee

            May 19 2014 – GM Foods Neither Safe Nor Needed, Say Genetic Engineers
            The second edition of GMO Myths and Truths, co-authored by genetic engineers Dr John Fagan and Dr Michael Antoniou and researcher Claire Robinson.
            http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf

            One of the 20th Century’s ‘Most Influential People,’ Former Presidential Candidate Speaks Out: “GMOs Have Not Yet Been Proven Safe”
            ‘Time Magazine Man of the Year’ Ralph Nader recently came out in support of the growing movement for organic, healthy, and non-GMO food,
            http://althealthworks.com/2697/one-of-the-21st-centurys-most-influential-people-former-presidential-candidate-speaks-out-gmos-have-not-yet-been-proven-safe/

            Harvard Study Proves How Dangerous GMOs Are to Humans
            The crops measured in the study were:
            • Wheat
            • Barley
            • Soybeans
            • C3 plants
            In an open letter “from world scientists to all governments concerning genetically modified organisms” it was expressed that “GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world.”
            The letter states: “We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers all over the world. We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.” http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
            In 2012, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) discovered that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) dramatically effects the brain’s ability to cognitively function; i.e. it makes you stupid .
            http://www.occupycorporatism.com/home/harvard-study-proves-dangerous-gmos-humans/

          • Good4U

            Sadie: Sorry, but just about everything you posted is from non-scientific popular media “hit pieces” that are intentionally slanted to cast technology in a bad light. I don’t pay any attention to baloney that comes from “earthopensource” or “naturalnews” because they are just trying to sell an unsuspecting and poorly informed public on a bunch of “organic” food & get-well-quick pills. The one credible source that you did cite, the U.S. EPA fact sheet on Bt proteins, was their APPROVAL (i.e. registration) of deployment of those proteins for the mitigation of insects that destroy corn in the field. It means that the EPA reviewed all of the scientific data that had been submitted as part of the original petition, and concluded that it was supportive of the intended purpose. I’m not sure whether you meant to include that EPA reference in your post, but it seems to contradict your otherwise stated position.

          • SusanStop

            lol if you would look at the articles you will see they have good references. I have no problem with those sites, they publish the truth. A far cry what all of you AgriChemical Cartel talking heads do. Go ahead, throw up a nice monsanto funded link we can laugh at!

            btw the EPA is notorious for being quite lax in their work.. They pretty much just bend over for monsanto et al….

            “Evaggelos Vallianatos, who spent 25 years as an analyst for the Environmental Protection Agency, argues that the EPA has failed miserably in protecting the public from harmful chemicals. He says that the EPA is no longer a watchdog organization and has instead become the “polluters’ protection agency,”
            Evangellos Valliantos, EPA whistle blower on the history and corruption of the EPA. See his book “Poison Spring” for a double dose of reality.

            THE SHOCKING TRUTH: EPA/CDC WHISTLEBLOWER’S STORY
            “Dr. David Lewis worked with the EPA and CDC for 30 years plus. He explains in shocking detail why Americans have fallen from one of the healthiest to the sickest society on this planet in a few short generations, our health and that of our children literally sold out from under us for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver…”
            http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2014/06/24/the-shocking-truth-epacdc-whistleblowers-story-tlb-recorded-interview-included/

            “Retired EPA Senior Scientist Ramon J. Seidler
            http://blog.seattlepi.com/videoblogging/2014/09/17/dr-ray-seidler/
            http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pdfs/pesticide_use_on_genetically_engineered_crops.pdf
            ► WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsk9dc6pfaQ

            When will the FDA, USDA and EPA stop supporting an industry under fire by scientists everywhere and start doing their jobs? Public health must be put before corporate profit.
            http://wtfrly.com/2014/03/07/5-new-studies-rip-apart-monsantos-crop-of-lies/
            http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2014/03/5-new-studies-rip-apart-monsantos-crop-lies.html

          • Good4U

            Susan, all I can say is that you guessed wrong. No one pays me anything (zilch, nada) for anything that I post on these subjects.

            From my considerable experience in scientific disciplines and agricultural fields, and through observing the regulatory processes worldwide, I have developed a high regard for the scientists at the U.S. EPA and other key regulatory agencies around the world who protect human health and the integrity of the natural environment. They are generally well trained in science, and particularly in risk assessment, and are becoming more effective every day. Back in the 1970s when the EPA was first established, and continuing for several years thereafter, the EPA was indeed populated by many anti-technology zealots whose intent was to essentially throw modern technologies out the window. Some saw the EPA as a means to promote an agenda, whereby their heroic efforts would change the socioeconomic landscape into something quite mythical. Sort of like a “Lord of the Rings” mentality that was based more on Hollywood movies than on reality. As the agency has matured, however, those emotionally charged people have to a great extent been replaced by more level headed, rational people who are in fact well trained in the sciences that support technology (chemistry, biology. ecology) and that assess the risks of deploying such technology (toxicology, epidemiology). The result of more than 4 decades of diligent work on the part of the EPA has indeed been the transition of agricultural pesticides away from some of the older, more hazardous ones (mercurials and inorganic arsenicals for example) toward those which involve less and less risk, not only to humans but to the environment in which we live. (My family & I live here too !!!!) As a result of not only the EPA, but the FDA and their counterparts in highly developed countries, people do indeed live longer, healthier lives than ever before in the history of humankind. You might not know that from watching the alarmist shows on TV, Dr. Oz and the like, from the internet peddlers of “health” foods and pills such as Mother Jones, or from the glamour magazines at the grocery store checkout counters, but the actuarial statistics from the insurance companies and governmental agencies surely do show those facts.

            I never met either of the people that you mentioned, but perhaps they were some of the “old guard”. As for Mr. Valiianatos, who you referred to as a “whistle blower”, I can only admire his energetic manner of appealing to an emotionally excitable audience. My own experience, however, tells me that I should remain focused upon the scientific findings from authentic studies for making sound decisions about what I eat, and what I recommend others should do likewise, my own family included. That’s why I raise an eyebrow when someone refers me to internet blogs and “naturalcures” type websites. The stuff that I read on those sites is entertaining, but certainly not factual.

  • Jewels Baker

    If you do not have Organic food or non-GMO options then you have my sympathy because your civil rights are being violated. If you and your family cannot afford or find available food free of POISON, TOXIN AND PESTICIDES THEN YOU ARE FORCED TO INGEST POISON WHICH IS A STRICT VIOLATION OF ALL OF OUR CIVIL RIGHT TO “NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT”

    • Good4U

      Jewels: I WANT GMOs in my food, and so does my family. I take great pride in teaching others how beneficial biotech food crops are in terms of protecting human health and preventing unnecessary environmental damage. My civil rights are being violated by those who would rail & rant against a useful and beneficial technology just because of their own beliefs and fears. If you don’t want GMOs in your food, buy organic stuff, or better yet, go grow your own food crops and animals. Nobody is stopping you. But don’t try to mess with the food supply that the rest of the world wants, and many of whom need it just to be healthy.

  • Joy Ward

    Gotta love that round-up corn. You know you can always have an organic garden. You don’t have to buy the organic foods that are priced high, but you’re ignorant if you think it’s all 50% more than conventional. It’s not about just being organic it’s about WHOLE nutrition. generally the other crap is filled with fillers that aren’t even a food. just read the labels! By NOT buying organic you’re giving a reason for companies like P & G to grow bigger and monopolize the food market into pure junk. GMO’s are no laughing matter….

    Feeding your kids doesn’t make you a bad mom, but deliberately being an uneducated one does! i find plenty of organic food cheaper than conventional choices, and if it’s not cheaper it’s “slightly” higher. you get what you pay for.

    • Good4U

      Joy, not much of what you posted makes sense, but the part that’s really reprehensible is the personal carp that you threw at Ms. Schultz about her deliberately being uneducated. On the contrary, Ms. Schultz has done her homework, read the scientific literature, and taken a well considered position in support of biotech and GMOs. Would that all might do the same. Have you read any scientific literature lately? I don’t mean internet “research”, reading magazines, or listening to popular media such as Dr. Oz. I mean authentic scientific publications from peer-reviewed journals. Have you ever attended any scientific meetings? Have you authentically considered the benefits of biotechnology as it pertains to protection of human health and the integrity of the environment? Moreover, do you know anything about agriculture? I don’t mean just a backyard hobby garden. I mean subsistence agriculture, where you have to grow all your own food or else starve. I mean real gut-grinding agriculture, where you and you alone are responsible for the life & death of you & your children? I think not.

  • Joy Ward

    for wanting to feed my children an apple that won’t brown when you cut it.

    It takes a while for an apple to brown when you cut it…. I went to williams-sonoma and they told me to put a little citric acid on it and it won’t brown…. I’ve NEVER felt the need to feed my kids an apple that didn’t brown when I cut it. It’s NOT something that technology is supposed to fix. Apples are fine the way they are!

    • NoToGMOs

      Exactly! All it takes is a cut lemon or a little lemon juice rubbed on the cut surface of the apple to prevent browning. You’re even getting some extra Vitamin C in the process! No need at all for expensive technologies to prevent an apple from browning!

  • Joy Ward

    From personal experience, switching to more of a whole food, organic lifestyle has been a lot better. My digestive issues are better, I have ZERO fast food cravings to which a lot of it is just pure nastiness… with the exception of the occasional pizza. I do understand that GMO’s aren’t always avoidable, but it pays to shop around. MOST GMO laden food is processed. I can find plenty of natural/organic cereals that are cheaper than their conventional gmo counterparts.. The most expensive things I see organic are berries, watermelon & asparagus, some of the cheapest I see are oranges, green onions, and bananas. Sometimes I have to go to multiple stores and I do clip coupons and watch for sale ads just like anyone else does. Truth be told a lot of foods are NOT GMO so I wouldn’t advocate for them so much. Corn, wheat and soy are going to be your top gmos. I don’t eat corn much as it is, and when I do it’s organic.

  • Joy Ward

    “and why I pay top dollar for car seats,”

    yeah even though they ALL have same safety ratings…

  • Thomas

    Sarah, I cannot tell if you are a bad mom, good mom or great mom. What I can tell is that you are pre-disposed to conventionally grown (aka chemically grown) food. Your statement “unwarranted fears of a slightly increased risk of pesticide exposure at levels the world’s best scientists say is harmless” speaks volumes on your lack of logic.

  • Kongming Hy

    Wowwwww….May God bless you and your kids Ms. Schultz. Just do what you think is the best for you and your kids. Take care and have a nice day :D

  • cjh1

    By order of the Democratic Party you are hereby designated a RBM (really bad mom) because you feed your kids non-organic, non-GMO foods. How dare you!

  • Ronnie

    Obviously the author of this article is irrational and in need of psychiatric evaluation. Putting GMOs aside, how could any mom knowingly feed their kids food laced with pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides, the majority of which are known to be carcinogenic, toxic, lead to birth defects, and be proud of it? I suggest you examine the list of harmful chemicals that the USDA identified on our foods: http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/index.jsp

    Most GMO crops will not grow unless you treat them with toxic chemicals. That’s part of the patent from companies like Monsanto. You have to buy their seeds at a higher cost and then buy their chemicals or else your crop won’t grow! Talk about a monopoly! If GMOs are so safe then why are there strong restrictions in so many countries including the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil and 60 other countries?

    Finally, there is a misconception that organic food it’s so expensive. That is simply not the case, especially when you buy raw vegetables. For example: 1 pound organic baby carrots: 99 cents. 1 pound Organic celery: 98 cents. A bag of 9 organic apples (3 pounds) $4.00. So please stop making excuses and buy your kids some healthy untainted food which is what people have been eating for thousands of years until big corporations started to mess with our food.

    • julie

      Ronnie, do some research on the types of pesticides that ARE used on organic foods. Oh, yes, they are “natural”, but still just as harmful.

      • First Officer

        Some more so.

  • Tead

    We have been eating gmos for 10,000 years.. Most apple variries were invented by man

  • Tead

    Can some one name me an apple thats not genetically modified?.. Better yet, a food? Seriously… Who the fuck made up the idea that they are bad.. I know our country puts corn and soy in everything, thats bad.. Too much of one thing? Ever hear of that?..please is our society that dumb where we cant look things up and read

  • Bryan

    Whats funny and very contrary to this entire article is the fact that the scientists at Monsanto do not eat GMO’s and its made sure that every product in their cafeteria is non-GMO. If the scientists that create it dont want to eat it why should we?

    • JBaileyz

      Problem is, that’s not true. It’s just one of the many crazy myths surrounding GMOs and Monsanto.

  • Trevor

    Omg! Thank you for writing I this article I agree with you whole heartedly you can definately critised what I feed my children once not a single child in the world no longer goes to bed hungry!!

  • Prism

    You are a great mom. Dont let anyone change that. What you said about organic foods versus conventional food is completely true and scientifically supported by innumerous pulbications. At leastin the USA, conventional foods dont have that level of pesticides that justifies the craze about organic foods (which as you correctly said also use different kind of pesticides). Having done my PhD on GMO technology, I cannot agree with you more. I am also accused ofbeing in the pay of GMO companies ..ha..ha.. whenever I try to talk science to these morons on “health” websites. But I am glad that the majority of the people are sensible enough not to listen to these anti-GMO whackos.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      Hi Prism,
      I get accused of the same (being paid to comment in favour of GMOs). It seems actually having a background in molecular biology and not being a rabid anti-GMOer automatically makes one a “GMO shill”. Sad, isn’t it?

    • NoToGMOs

      “Having done my PhD on GMO technology”

      GMO crops? Or medical GMOs? I thought you were a Cancer biologist?

      Oh, and my invitation to you to explain to the readers a bit about epigenetic changes and how they can affect carcinogenesis…..still stands.

  • “I decline to pay the premium for organic food because I cannot justify it when comparable conventional foods (including those with GMOs) are just as healthy and nutritious, and arguably more environmentally friendly.”

    Right on, we’ve got to fight the powers that be.

  • Ana

    No, you are not a bad mom, you are just quite ignorant.

    • Mary M.

      Actually, she is the one that is living the reality and sharing the truth.

      • Pete Dro

        Be more worried about the food dyes and preservatives that are banned for good reason in other countries. Companies like Gatorade have two recipes, one for US and one for EU. Why? $$. Why can’t we get good products that are not a chemical experiment. BHT and BHA have conflicting data. Finishing turkeys with Ractopamine? What are we doing?

  • Zbig

    I refuse to buy anything organic. It’s a tax on the ignorant. Since it’s just a marketing term, all non-GMO foods should be labeled GMO free, so that I can avoid buying them. Let the ignorant waste their money.

    • agscienceliterate

      I’m kinda the same way, Zbig. Altho at the supermarket just now the organic kale is only 99 cents, and is fresher looking than the non-organic. I do wash it really well, tho; organic produce has been shown to be much higher in e.coli contamination from improperly composted manure. Otherwise, I avoid organic because I avoid hype.

  • Mary M.

    Great article, Sarah! I raised two healthy and happy children on a fourth generation farm here in Kansas. My home has been surrounded by genetically engineered fields for over twenty years. My 87 year old father in law, my 60 year old husband, and my twenty-something children have lived by, worked in fields of GMO crops for decades. Our cattle has been grass and gmo grain fed since the 1990s. Our beef is delicious, nutritious, safe and healthy! Too many people live in fear. I wish they would open their minds to the truth of agriculture. Thank you for trying to educated those that have been mislead by scary propaganda.

  • Daniel Ros

    No actually your a HORRIBLE mother! Nothing is more important to a REAL mother then the life potential they provide for their children. Just the fact that you think it’s going to cost you 50% more highlights your ignorance and lack of caring to do simple research that will help your kids to avoid the horrific neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors sprayed in masses on our beaten, over-farmed mineral and nutrient deficient soils. First off go to your local farmers market and pay a real farmer not a government subsidized cheap as possible crap mass food producer (Maybe that’s you lol, are you trying to justify your livelihood? That’s what this is really about isn’t it? At the expense of your children? All for $$$? SICKO!). You will find that with a CSA or other agreement you can purchase REAL food for the same or maybe slightly more then the CRAP you buy at Walmart. Secondly your supporting massive amounts of toxic chemicals sprayed all over our environment. Great place to leave for your kids, ‘mom’, if that is what you call yourself. You think ‘science’ has proven the validity of these chemicals? You think current ‘science’ can? You can’t isolate a chemical in a multifaceted multidimensional system like the human body and know its true results. Until science is advanced quite a bit further you’re going to have no idea what toxic pesticide created cancer in your child when they reach the age of 63. To imagine that current science has this capacity is completely UNSCIENTIFIC instead bordering on the earth is flat type of ignorance. Never mind the endless numbers of science failures such as helping America get healthy (Just a stroll on a crowded street @ Anywhere, USA will teach you that.) or any number of toxic understudied chemicals that were unleashed on unknowing populations. This is not an exhaustive list: lead, PCBs, Dioxin, Agent Orange, Asbestos (killed my grandfather at 63 hopefully your child doesn’t have the same fate with all the toxins that you are forcing on them under your ‘guidance’), I could go on and on and on. You ignorantly think that NPK can usurp the complex ecosystem found in living breathing soil? A thirty minute lecture on soil science would debunk that. HOW IGNORANT! The lives of your children will be reduced by your egoism. Socrates died pointing out the flaws in your ego 2500 years ago and your ignorance continues sadly. But your need to be right and your need to keep the bread coming it justify it. But you know in your heart that you are wrong. And that makes you a despicable ‘gene donor’, but definitely NOT a MOTHER!!!!!

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      “No actually your a HORRIBLE mother!”
      >>Person opinion.

      “Nothing is more important to a REAL mother”
      >>No true Scotsman fallacy.

      “the horrific neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors sprayed in masses on our beaten, over-farmed mineral and nutrient deficient soils”
      >>Not specific to GMOs.

      “SICKO!”

      >>Straight up just abusive.

      Thanks one angry rant. Lighten up on the sanctimonious attitude and try engaging in a polite conversation.

    • Good4U

      Daniel: Your personal attacks upon an intelligent person are reprehensible. Ms. Schultz has taken a strong, well-informed position. If you don’t like it, at least have the common decency to stay away from websites such as this. You have nothing to offer of any intellectual value.

    • JBaileyz

      Exhibit A: The hysteria of the anti-GMO movement.

  • Richids Coulter

    Peculiar that you omitted the part of the Stanford study where they noted at least a 30% reduction in exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria with organic food.

    The vast majority of the science you linked to has nothing to do with safety, risk assessment studies and nutritional equivalence studies =/= safety studies.

    Nice using the mother angle for sympathy.

  • Good4U

    Good for you, Sarah! You have made the right dietary choices for you & your family. My family & I have also made those same choices, and we will continue to screen out the chaff from the anti-technology blowhards who advocate regression into chaos. We will continue to advocate progression toward food sustainability & natural resource protection that will surely come via biotechnical innovations. Please keep up your excellent work toward pushing back the envelope of ignorance & misinformed suspicion.

  • Good4U

    John: Sorry to have entered this chat thread so late in the game, but if you’re still tuning in from time to time, I hope you catch this:

    My family and I WANT GMOs in our food supply. That’s because we care about the benefits they have provided to humans and the environment during the past 20 years that they have been deployed in North America. We anticipate that future deployments will be even more beneficial, not only for ourselves but for our fellow human beings in other parts of the world where they are desperately needed to combat famine and disease. So, we want more of them.

    As for pieces of silver, no one pays me anything, and never has, for anything I have stated or said in support of biotech crop & animal deployment. I don’t work for any of the big-name companies that have (undeservedly) borne the brunt of the anti-GMO “hit pieces” coming from Hollywood or the popular media. I just know something about science and agriculture, and have a brain that permits me to separate truth from BS.

  • Antonio Salvador

    saying someone is a bad mom by not feeding the kids “organics” is like saying a mom is bad because she brought her children to school. The term “organic/s” is so frequently said by people who did not actually took up “organic” chemistry.

  • Danny
  • Christopher Furlong

    Simple fact of the matter is that these food have not been tested over a long period of time. Moreover, crops that produce their own pesticides can’t be good for your body or the bees. Remember all those bees dying? They didn’t die in France. Why? Because their crops do not regularly emit pesticides.

    • Christopher. If you use words like “moron” again you will be banned from posting on this site. As for your claims, you are wrong. These foods have been tested for more than 20 years, including trillions of millions to humans and animals and not so much as a sniffle has been documented. You also need to brush up on your agricultural sciences. EVERY CROP –every plant ever grown–contains natural pesticides. 99% of the pesticides you consumer are natural…and many are killers. Broccoli for example contains more than 30 different pesticides. The pesticide engineered into Bt GMO crops are a staple in the organic industry and have been used safely for 100 years. LIke most natural plant pesticides, they are not active in humans because we don’t have the receptors for them, so there is no biological reaction.

      • thisisnotgrammar

        Cancer rates in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries are significantly higher than the pre-industrial era. That we have largely gotten rid of the cancer related to smoking is a great thing, but that came at the expense of doing targeted studies. These targeted studies have not been done. The pesticide in round up read corn is not supposed to be on corn and it is not supposed to be in my body, so proper studies need to be completed. Asserting that due to the fact we have no receptors we can be confident the cancer we die of today is not the result of GMO pesticides is something that must be proven.

        • Good4U

          To call someone that writes or speaks something you disagree with a moron is uncivil, and demonstrates a naive (uneducated) background. Behavior such as that leads to war. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to uncontrolled anger, which leads to name-calling, and eventually to wars centered upon ideology. You should seek help before you can harm others.

          • Christopher Furlong

            That’s not the reason for ideology, but you keep on spinning.

  • Miriam

    Clearly age doesn’t mean wisdom. Do you realize that you might as well be feeding your children disinfectant or soap? How could you believe what labels say, there’s a reason organic food is 50 cents more. It’s called research which you speak of knowing so much but if you compare the life span of a person who eats healthy and organic food rather than someone who eats constant GMOs. Please consider being a little less selfish by feeding your kids things that could advance high cholesterol, or diabetes. And all just because you wanted to prove a point, that’s a pretty foolish one if I might say.

    • Can you share some evidence to support your claims?

    • agscienceliterate

      “…research” by Dr. Oz, Dr. Bronner, Seralini the Rat Guy, and many spokespeople who are shills for the Big Organic industry, which is at least a $70 Billion / year industry.
      Or do you have credible “research”?

  • betelgeuse

    “Genetic modification” is a process which has been occurring naturally for… as long as life has existed. Genetic codes are not static, they change over time; evolve. That’s what life is! Life is not static. Conventional crop breeding is a form of genetic manipulation. Genetic changes are going to happen with or without the assistance of humans.

  • Casey

    You claim to be intelligent, and that is fine. But, you’re missing the big picture when it comes to GMOs. The problem with GMOs isn’t what they do to our bodies directly as a nutritional source, but the implications of what they are doing to our planet. Allowing for mass use of toxic pesticides, necessitating that small farmers but new seeds year after year, giving money and power to a handful of companies who control our governmental agencies…and much more.
    So go ahead, put GMOs in your children’s mouths. They will grow well and be well. And hopefully they will learn to clean up the mess that we are creating.

    • hyperzombie

      but the implications of what they are doing to our planet. Allowing for mass use of toxic pesticides, necessitating that small farmers but new seeds year after year, giving money and power to a handful of companies

      LOL, so I am guessing that you live in the city and have never seen or visited a farm ever, farmers have purchased seed since the beginning of agriculture.

    • agscienceliterate

      Absolutely false, Casey, on every point. I’ll address only one; farmers buying new seeds every year. MOST farmers buy new seeds every year. They found out decades and generations ago that reusing last year’s seed produces weaker, less-good harvests. And seed patenting has been around since 1930; that includes many organic and hybrid conventionall as well.
      “….control our governmental agencies….” Well, can’t help ya here. Paranoia and conspiracy theorists live in their own little magic world. Whatever.

      • hyperzombie

        Yep I don’t get the whole “Seed saving” meme from these people. Like think about it. Where did the second farmer ever get his seed from? Where do forage crop farmers get their seed from? Where does the managed pasture seed come from? If you want to start a new crop rotation, where does that seed come from? And then there is the whole cotton seed issue.

        • ForGMOEducation

          I’ve never understood this point either. Then, I usually have to hear about how genetic diversity will be lost because people don’t know that we have multiple seed banks located around the world already to preserve diversity.

  • Dan

    Naiveté , ignorance and stubbornness can be remedied over time. Trust in science these days may be duplicitous and as a scientist I personally would not bet my child’s future health on an untried experimental product born out of commercial persuit. Pointless turning into a justification debate, save that argument for your child when they grow up. Maybe they will be fine but if not, you may suffer guilt and shame and your child may ask the simple question ‘if people were questioning this at the time, what part of your egoic identity needed to be right at my expense?’ Good luck with your decisions, as a father and a biologist, I know what I would choose!

  • amc

    guys, its not that difficult. Just don’t eat processed foods. Whatever if you want to eat a conventional or organic apple. Just stop eating the Cheetos and pizza crap. people are fat for a reason and its because they eat foods that aren’t food. stop being stupid and just eat real food.

  • Marly Duran

    I still think that any corporation that owns just about every major food brand sold in America (Monsanto) is scary as hell! Why are they allowed to do that? NO one corporation should have that much control over our food supply. And they spend MILLIONS to fight labeling their GMO food, with no good explanation as to why. They oppose letting us know which things contain GMOs and deciding with that information what to buy for ourselves.What and Why are they hiding?

    • ForGMOEducation

      Monsanto sells seeds. They don’t sell food and cannot control what food companies do when they sell food. Genes are not ingredients, so that’s my guess as to why labeling is undesirable for some. We couldn’t possibly list all of the tens of thousands of genes on food labels.

      • Marly Duran

        Wait~ What? Monsanto doesn’t sell food?? They own Kraft, Ragu, Prego, Betty Crocker, Nestle’s, Hershey’s, Pillsbury, Campbell’s, and dozens more. Do those companies sell food? You bet they do!! You can’t look in a kitchen pantry anywhere and not see brands Monsanto owns. So, you’re full of sh*t and now I can’t believe anything you say.

        • ForGMOEducation

          I think you might be mistaken about what the “Monsanto owned companies” list that has been circling the Internet entails. These companies are not in fact owned by Monsanto. It’s more of a conspiracy type “owning” idea. It tried to find a source for this information that you would find trustworthy. Here is a blog from an organic store for children in San Francisco that explains the list. http://www.sproutsanfrancisco.com/get-educated/monsanto-boycott-list-explained/

          • Marly Duran

            I’ve started to check this out, but it’s going to take awhile. Just wanted to let you know I saw your response and I’m looking into the whole thing and trying to keep (well, have) an open mind.

        • Warren Lauzon

          Seriously? Do you really believe that Monsanto owns those companies, when most of them are bigger than Monsanto? Where did you come up with such totally false information – especially information that is just SO freaking easy to check out at places like Yahoo Finance or any other similar site.

          • Marly Duran

            I have several lists of companies Monsanto owns, and I thought it was like when K-Mart bought Sears- seemed like it should have been the other way around. However, I’m checking into it more deeply now.

        • agscienceliterate

          Um, say what? Corporate conspiracy, paranoia run amok. Scary, Marly. Meds are available for paranoia, tho. Probably produced by a pharmaceutical company owned by …. ha ha …. Monsanto! (no, they’re not, I’m just playing into your amazing paranoia)

    • agscienceliterate

      Monsanto is only one of many biotech companies. A small company in Canada wants to develop the non-browning gmo apple; will you support them as long as they’re “not Monsanto” ?

      • gefreekamloops

        Didn’t OSF just get bought up by a larger Biotech firm for what was it 10 million or something. I’m sure they knew that as soon as they got approval from Health Canada there would be offers on the table. Does this corporate takeover not illustrate the point that increasing consolidation of wealth and thus control is the concern being expressed.

  • Adjel

    The same women who perpetuate this GMO panic are the same ones who buy into the anti-vax crap.

  • wyckedcool

    Eating organic foods is not just about keeping ourselves healthy, but also the bigger picture of keeping our earth healthy. The organic farming practices are for the long term more sustainable for the planet and humans.

    • Actually, that’s a controversial point and I believe most experts in agriculture would disagree with you. Here’s one of many reasons: Organic farming–it’s impossible to do large scale for any number of reasons–yields 20-40% less food. Our food demand is expected to roughly double over the next 25 years. If we moved more towards organics, we’d be forced to clear cut forests to make way for agriculture, which would be an ecological disaster for any number of reasons, including the dramatic reduction in carbon sink trees. The Green Revolution replaced organic agriculture and has saved billions of lives over the past 30 years. Turning back the clock to support small scale farming because it’s trendy would be truly an unsustainable choice.

    • agscienceliterate

      Absolutely not, wyk. Organic uses a much larger footprint for the same yield, and often involves un-friendly environmental practices, like tilling the soil. Organic is not more sustainable or earth-friendly.

  • Mark

    Thankfully my kids are grown and I didn’t have to grapple with the question of weather or not to avoid genetically engineered food.What worries me today is the fact that over 90% of all corn, soy, and canola crops in North America is genetically engineered. Therefore our choice is limited. It is becoming harder to avoid genetically engineered food if you choose to do so.I am not a scientist, but I would rather eat food that have not been treated with pesticides or herbicides nor had them engineered into them.

    • Mark, it would be helpful if you educated yourself a bit about how farming works. Pesticides and herbicides are used on all crops. Organic farmers are one of the largest uses of pesticides and herbicides–there are 12 pages of approved chemicals that they can use. Many GMO crops, such as Bt corn and soybean, result in the use of far less insecticides– a 90% reduction over the past 15 years since their introduction. As for herbicide use, the toxic content of herbicides has gone down significantly, as GM crops used milder, safer herbicides. And oh yes…all plants have pesticides built into them. Broccoli for examples has more than 30 natural pesticides. The pesticide engineered into GMO crops so far — Bt — is the exact pesticide used safely by organic farmers for more than 100 years.

  • Loren Eaton

    First, you could’ve just called me a stooge…but you had to go and show your ignorance.
    From Arjo et al.,
    “Appropriate rat strains have been used
    previously in long-term toxicity studies (Kano et al. 2012; Otabe et al. 2011). The
    Seralini article therefore suffers from all the problems of an underpowered statistical fishing trip. To an unbiased observer, the
    inverse dose relationship or absence of any dose relationship as seen in the tumor incidence table (reproduced here in Table 2) is almost certainly random statistical noise.”
    I guess all these academics are stooges, too.
    Second, the problems with the study go far beyond his choice of rat. Folks like Seralini are very adept at setting up studies that are poorly designed and then claim that the scary intermediate results are an indication of the need for further research. Sometimes its just garbage.

  • Kay

    Thank you. Just, thank you. I often feel alone in my “Hell-no-I’m-not-falling-for-this-guilt-trip!” way of feeding my family. Glad to know I am not.

    • agscienceliterate

      Kay, you are not alone! You are supported by many people who put science before hysteria, when it comes to spending their food dollar on nutritious food.

  • Megan

    I stand by your side. Anyone who wants to have an opinion should have the facts.

  • amanda

    stonyfield is a part of Dannon/Donnone yogurts.

  • Elizabeth Van Horn

    Great write-up Sarah! I think you’re doing a fabulous job as a mom, and also as an advocate for science. : )

    (Over the years, I too have been called a ‘GMO shill”, and accused of working for “Monsanto”, etc. It seems to be the default attack mode for the scientifically illiterate. Always a hoot! *laughing*)

    • agscienceliterate

      I know, Elizabeth! Where’s our check in the mail? lol
      Ya gotta love people who, when they run out of anything else to say, will throw out the “shill” thing. Like it’s the only other word they know. Like NO person would support gmos unless they’re “shills.”

  • Steve

    I find it reassuring that there are intelligent adults not drawn in by the anti science rhetoric . Sanity, education , and critical thinking will prevail , I sincerely hope for our sake as a species .

  • Heath

    So much bullshit, so little time.

  • Warren Lauzon

    Yup, that is what I figured – you can just make stuff up and expect nobody to question it.

    • Christopher Furlong

      You writing “cite” does not make it false.

  • Scooter Motoretta

    Conversely, how much are you being paid to spread anti GMO rumours?

    • biggj

      Have you read what this guy is saying? I’m not saying he’s right or wrong but he defends GM foods without covering the bad. Like a car salesmen selling you a car and only telling you the good things about it to make the sale. Look and see if he even says one bad thing about it. Just seems suspicious to me.

  • Maryanne Hayward

    Yeah…. Dr.Oz is the quack…..certainly not the chemical companies producing the GMO’s, telling you all their science says they are perfectly safe for you to eat. They would NEVER lie about one of their products safety. You know…like they didn’t do with vioxx…that was so safe it killed 60,000 people,but you know, the FDA approved that as “perfectly safe” for you to take. Or you know, Celebrex. Interestingly enough, farmers in developing countries,who spend hours and hours in their field without big cab tractors to protect them, are dying in alarming rates from some mysterious kidney disease of “unknown etiology”, yet was unheard of before they started using glyphosates. But obviously, it can’t be from round up, because Monsanto (round up creator) said it’s not. Yeah…Dr.Oz is the quack here…smh.

    • hyperzombie

      Yeah…. Dr.Oz is the quack

      You should have just stopped there…..

      http://newhope360.com/news/doctor-and-comedian-john-oliver-savages-dr-oz-and-dshea-video

    • Good4U

      Maryanne, perhaps you are not aware that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, its counterpart in Canada, and likewise in Europe, are more authoritative on the science & technology surrounding Roundup-Ready crops than is Dr. Oz. These regulatory agencies are staffed by scientists who have reviewed all of the toxicology & environmental fate data on glyphosate itself, as well as the data on the transgenic crops that are resistant to glyphosate, and have concluded that it is safe to use in the manner described on the label. You may be interested to know that the volume of scientific data on glyphosate and its related technology far exceeds that on many pharmaceutical drugs that people willingly consume, including the one that you mentioned. The data include chronic and full lifetime studies, including cancer studies, on animals whose physiology is similar to that of humans. I trust the U.S. EPA and its counterparts in other developed regions of the world to make good decisions about which technologies should be deployed in order to assure a safe and plentiful food supply. Please keep in mind that Dr. Oz is an entertainer, whose sole responsibility is to boost TV ratings and thereby sell airtime for the commercials that appear intermittently between his daily rants. He just parrots what his scriptwriters feed him, then he passes it along to you.

      • agscienceliterate

        Dr. Oz is a self-serving idiot who panders to the $70 Billion/year Big Organic industry.

  • Ronald Taam

    Ha ha well if you life on a Farm. then its time to ready the Roundup label
    plants might be GMO (most of them are ) to handle that stuff but humans are not !

    So therefore its going to cost you more on the long run
    You know also that spraying roundup dose not always kill the weed the first time you have to spay it a couple of times and when it all look mis formed it close to dead

  • Christopher Furlong

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.76/full

    This has absolutely zero to do with feeding Round UP ready corn to mice. Watch out for the lies!

  • Christopher Furlong

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.76/full

    This has nothing to do with Round Up ready corn! Watch out for the lies!

  • Christopher Furlong

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.76/full

    This study has nothing to do with Round Up ready corn! Watch out for the lies!

    To lie to the public to advance a product is uncivil, and demonstrates a naive (uneducated) background.
    Behavior such as that leads to war. Perhaps there is a genetic
    predisposition to telling lies, which leads to cynicism, and
    eventually to wars centered upon ideology. You should seek help before
    you can harm others.

  • Christopher Furlong

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.76/full

    This study has nothing to do with Round Up ready corn! Watch out for the lies!

    To lie to the public to advance a product is uncivil, and demonstrates a naive (uneducated) background. Behavior such as that leads to war. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to telling lies, which leads to cynicism, and eventually to wars centered upon ideology. You should seek help before you can harm others.

  • Christopher Furlong

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.76/full

    This study has nothing to do with Round Up ready corn! Watch out for the lies!

    To lie to the public to advance a product is uncivil, and demonstrates a naive (uneducated) background. Behavior such as that leads to war. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to telling lies, which leads to cynicism, and eventually to wars centered upon ideology. You should seek help before you can harm others.

  • Christopher Furlong

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.76/full

    This study has nothing to do with Round Up ready corn! Watch out for the lies!

    To lie to the public to advance a product is uncivil, and demonstrates a naive (uneducated) background. Behavior such as that leads to war. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to telling lies, which leads to cynicism, and eventually to wars centered upon ideology. You should seek help before you can harm others.

    • Good4U

      Christopher, I see that you have effectively cut & pasted my own previous post which was focused upon your intransigence & ill informed position about biotechnical innovations that have favorably impacted human health and the integrity of the environment. You did that at least 3 times. It’s good to see that you have come around and taken my point well.

  • Christopher Furlong

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.76/full

    This study has nothing to do with Round Up ready corn! Watch out for the lies!

    To lie to the public to advance a product is uncivil, and demonstrates a naive (uneducated) background. Behavior such as that leads to war. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to telling lies, which leads to cynicism, and eventually to wars centered upon ideology. You should seek help before you can harm others.

  • Ronald Taam

    Haha well if you really life on the farm then its time to chec out the label of Round up !

    Most of the Gmo foot can handle that stuff , but Humans are not gmo !

    And you shut also know the it takes 2 to 3 time of spaying to kill weeds and wen it looks al mis form than it its dead

  • David

    Nothing is black of White 100% – PLEASE get your education about Food from source you can REALLY trust – maybe not from here.
    I don’t call anybody a bad mum or dad for buying GMO-Food, but it’s not true that it’s the same quality and that all about it is harmless.
    And PLEASE for all good reasen, don’t beliew that in any Kind GMO-production is environmentally friendly. Maybe not all is bad about the possibilities of GMO, partially we need it anyway.
    But e.g. planting extremely large fields of a crop, which was genetically modified to be able to resist against strong herbicides, that would normally kill everything. And then this pesticides are sprayed on he crops by airplaines, no matter about the people who are living in this Region? -> this is the way?
    Look at countries like Brasilia where your food or especially the feed for your food is coming from. Look well what is happening there. GMO is today used as a tool for large scale agricultural industry, it could be used in a less harmful way of course.
    In the comments every stereotype you can imagine about Food and People is mixed and used as Argument. This isn’t making much sense here.
    Just decide, do you want farms with overlookable sizes or large scale industries withouth faces? do you want cheap or good? do you want evidence that something is really harmful or evidence that something is really safe?? do you want some herbicides or as much as possible?
    If you don’t want organic, don’t buy it. If you think organic should be much better that it already is – help making it better.
    If you want to earn Money with GMO – help sharing half-wisdom and stereotypes…
    Have a nice day.

  • Jon

    Genetically modified foods that you put inside you WILL genetically modify you. It’s basic science. If insects and other animals won’t eat it why would you feed it to your children?

    • Good4U

      Sorry to say, you should study up on biology before making such statements. You should know that transgenics is happening all the time, all around you, and has been happening since the beginning of life on this planet, more than half a billion years ago. And, intentional genetic modification of food by humans has been happening since the beginnings of agriculture, more than 10 thousand years ago. Insects and other animals eat genetically modified food too, with no ill effects unless it is decayed or contains high levels of naturally occurring toxins (phytoalexins) that are mobilized in response to infestation. You don’t control any of these genetic modifications. If you consume any food, anywhere in the world, you are consuming genetically modified food.

    • agscienceliterate

      What other animals won’t eat it? You didn’t know that most field corn is gmo, and feeds millions of happy livestock?
      Insects don’t eat it? Jon, if insects didn’t eat it, then the corn borer wouldn’t eat Bt corn (gmo) and die.
      What the heck are you basing this science fiction on?

  • Bella Alger

    I feed my child organic because I grew up on organic fruits and veggies, all home grown. I notice a major difference in taste. I love the fact that my produce will go bad in a week. There’s something uneasy about food that can stay fresh for weeks on end. Even though this is the choice I make for my son and me, I don’t discredit GMOs. I grew up in Romania, a very poor country. Even though I was able to eat home grown food, it was very scarce because we were poor so I ended up being vitamin deficient anyway. GMOs can feed entire populations, ending hunger. Coming from a person who grew up in a poor country, GMOs are a blessing, because let me tell you this….. when you are hungry and your belly is rumbling, the last thing you give a shit about is whether or not your food is GMO. I believe organic is best, however let’s consider ourselves lucky to have a choice between the two. Many people don’t.

    • Could of misconceptions… There is zero taste difference between conventional and organic foods. Organic sis only a growing method. You are confusing the taste benefits of locally grown food and certain breeds versus shipped in food. Whether it’s organic is irrelevant. Also There are no current GMO foods that keep foods ‘safe for weeks’. There are other traits including enhanced nutrition and taste in some foods but not extended shelf life.

      • Bella Alger

        Sweetheart I am speaking from my own experience. I notice a difference in both taste and shelf life. This is my personal experience and you can’t really challenge it. I had apples from Walmart last over 4 weeks.
        Lol who challenges someone else’s experience? How are you going to tell me how food taste to me? Or how are you going to tell me how long my food last? I’ve never encountered anything like this before. Unless you’re in my house witnessing my apples last over four weeks long, or you have my taste buds, you cannot challenge my experiences. O_o

        • Well, sweatheart, you appear to not know what you are talking about. You made the observation that GMO foods do not taste as good as organic, and then you give an example of an apple. There are no marketed GMO apples. So clearly your argument from personal experience in this case is irrelevant. Again, the point is many locally produced crops/foods are tastier than one’s imported, which is kind of obvious. But that has zero to do with whether something is organic or GMO.

        • Good4U

          I notice a difference in taste and shelf life too. The “organic” stuff is usually half rotten by the time I take it off the grocery store shelf, and it tastes rotten too. Last time I bought organic apples from “trader aldi’s” they lasted a week. Most of them went down the garbage disposal. They were not worth the fuel and other resources that it took to grow, harvest, pack, and ship them to the store where I bought them. Worthless to me.

        • First Officer

          I noticed it too. The organic, oft times, do taste better. But, i noticed something recently too. The conventional strawberries went back to the smaller sized strain, comparable to the organic brand and, now, they taste about the same.

          In any case, the organic doesn’t taste 2X times better.

      • Should maybe clarify that the statement “whether it’s organic is irrelevant” is based on various blinded trials about nutritional and taste assessments between organic and conventionally grown food. That means controlling as far as possible differences which don’t result from the method of growing… which is hard to do.

        Since there is a _correlation_ between organic methods and local production, small producers & interesting varieties, it is hard to disentangle these factors in the real world — and indeed the veg from your local smallholding or personal plot may be tastier than what you can get in the supermarket. But there are a lot of variables there, and the message from those various studies is that the organic-or-otherwise nature of the production is not an important one. Logically, when you look at what organic certification actually involves, that is not really surprising.

        • agscienceliterate

          Um, actually not. Go to your supermarket and ask where all the organic veggies and fruits come from. Lots of it comes from Mexico and South America.

          • Indeed. I said correlation, not a guarantee, and in particular I had in mind that my family (in the UK) used to subscribe to an organic veg box, not because it was organic but because it was very locally produced. For commercial reasons there’s no such thing as local *non*-organic veg boxes. So I specifically wasn’t thinking about the “organic” that our supermarkets sell, which just like in the US is often imported from far away… also often from Africa and South America, and we’re even further away from them. Thanks for clarifying that: supermarket organic really does mean nothing.

            For what it’s worth, we stopped our organic veg box: the super-local nature of it meant that we were often bombarded with several kg of carrots and kale, and nothing else, for weeks on end through winter… and the organic proselytising and marketing nonsense around it (“did you know that organic food doesn’t contain saturated fats?”) drove me mad. Unashamedly back at the normal supermarket now, benefiting from the 21st century rather than performing a medieval role-play ;-)

  • Brandonhatesstupidity

    Enjoy feeding your kids a gallon of pesticides each year that is the average persons intake and make sure to include gmo corn in there diets as I’m sure bt toxin won’t put holes in the gi tract aka leeky gut and cause liver and kidney failure and tumors to grow.You need to properly educate yourself they did a study that found mice who ate gmo corn grew golf ball size tumors and of course the media will lie to you why do you think they forked over millions to stop gmo labeling they no it’s a threat just use your family as an example 10-20 years from now that’s when you’ll really see the effects.

    • agscienceliterate

      Mice? You refer to the laughable and thoroughly debunked Seralini rat study?
      Look up mycotoxins from corn borer, girl. You will NEVER eat organic sweet corn again.
      “Leeky” gut (I’m sure you mean “leaky,” darling, but we won’t let bad spelling influence us re the rest of your education) ? Not in humans. We have different guts than insects. Oh, and darling? Organic farmers use Bt. Did you know that?

  • Hillary

    the way I look at it, if there is a chance why take it? GMOs are sprayed with toxic chemicals, not regular pesticides. People in hazmat suits have to handle these chemicals and they get into the food supply. It is not natural. When it comes to my kids and their diet, I want it to be as natural as possible. Growing something to eat in a lab isn’t! I am NOT going to feed my child an apple that doesn’t brown. Don’t you see that there is something wrong with that? Hundreds of years ago there is no such thing as organic food. It was just food. It is sad that it cannot be this way now.it boils down to giving my kids nutritious food. But it goes beyond GMOs. It goes to all chemicals and all man-made substances. High fructose corn syrup, MSG, artificial sweeteners, flavors and colors of every kind, processed foods, and the list goes on and on. Moms are too busy these days and don’t have the time to prepare food. There is more damage potentially inside of a Stouffer’s frozen lasagna than you can imagine. Have you really done your research? And as far as GMOs not harming the environment? That is laughable! Have you not seen the scientific studies on the Bee and butterfly population declining? that is affecting the web of life. The environment. Its leaking into our water. Hahaha don’t even get me started on fluoride… But anyway monsanto is the leader in this GMO movement and the way they treat farmers isdisgusting! It is these hard working men in jeans in the fields that kick started our country. It is the men in suits with their big agra prerogatives that are destroying it. It all boils down to corporate greed. The system is corrupt and so is our food supply. We as consumers are conditioned to want to buy the bright beautiful artificially colored treats, as opposed to something healthy and sweet and natural. don’t you see it’s more than just growing crops? It’s a whole system and we have been conditioned to be playe So I don’t think you’re a bad mom. I don’t even know you. But I do think it is irresponsible of you to make assumptions when obviously you haven’t done your homework. And if you claim you have, you haven’t done a good enough job. I used to feel the same way as you until I really started researching all avenues of food in this country. I was disgusted. And better yet if you don’t want to buy organic food why don’t you plant some.

    • agscienceliterate

      Hillary, please enlighten us. Um, what is a “regular pesticide” ? Pyrethrins? Bacilllus thureingensis?
      Butterflies and gmos … that’s at least 15 years old and debunked since then.
      Anti-fluoride, too.
      I’ll betcha a double whip mocha that you don’t vaccinate your children.

  • Hillary

    also, dozens upon dozens of countries all around the world require labeling for products containing GMOs, or have banned them altogether. Also on that list or artificial colors among many other things. Hello! There are just as many credible studies, authorities, sciences and statistics to support organic and non GMO and natural foods.dyes that are used commonly in the United States are banned in many other countries. they are linked to behavioral issues, gastrointestinal problems and much more. Do you wonder why with the rise of modified ingredients, high fructose corn syrup, aspartame and processed foods, that the obesity population has more than tripled since the fifties? Think about that. The evidence speaks for itself. This is something that people will always argue about. Just like the vaxxers in the anti vaxxers and so on and so on. I could send you some very enlightening information that I can say with certainty that I am positive your eyes have never seen.

    • First Officer

      132 countries have no such requirements.

    • agscienceliterate

      Enlightened by … whom exactly? Vani Sari? Jeffrey Smith? The Food Babe?

  • Dooby Loufie

    Yeh – I believe you nurse Sarah, vaccines are safe too, nothing wrong with chemicals or gmo products either. Please explain why my kids had a severe reaction to vaccines and received encephalopathy with life long debilitating issues. Why won’t the birds and the squirrels eat the birds seed or corn I feed them? I have a yard FULL of clover yet I didn’t see a single bee anywhere? Sorry, but Nurses no longer have any credibility as they are only doing what they are told to do or get fired. People wonder if you are a bad Mom?

  • wake

    Seriously?

  • wake

    For the life of me I don’t understand why anyone with a brain could believe gmo or processed foods are safe. Talk about brainwashed!

    • Jackson

      Why do you think GMOs are unsafe? Does it matter which genes are added, or do you think all GMOs are dangerous no matter what?

    • Good4U

      Some GMOs are more safe than their “organic” counterparts. Take the Innate(TM) potato for example. The genetic modification involves silencing of genes which condition the production of phenolic oxidase enzymes, meaning that the potatoes don’t turn brown or black during storage. That means fewer wasted acres of land, less water, less pesticides, less fertilizers, less fuel, less waste in general that it takes to produce potatoes to feed us. That means the Innate technology is safer for the environment. Plus, there’s less production of asparagine in the potato, meaning much lower levels of acrylamide when they are cooked at high temperatures. That means they are safer for human consumption. There are many, many other potential applications of biotechnology that could be brought to practice if only the anti-GMO wackos would stop their rhetoric and look into the science long enough to understand it.

    • agscienceliterate

      Okay wake …. what about organic foods produced through mutagenesis? With NO safety oversight? You ok with that?

  • Sienna Rosachi

    This woman needs to get her eyebrows redone. She looks like a cartoon character. I can’t even look at her or hear what she says. All I see are really fake bad eyebrows.

    • First Officer

      Someone jealous?

    • Loren Eaton

      Meowwww!

    • agscienceliterate

      OOOOOO, and do you like Food Babe’s eyebrows? Extra credibility for good eyebrows?
      You flunk my science class, Sienna.

  • Sienna Rosachi
    • First Officer

      1) you can only have cadmium if the cadium is there to absorb

      2) Significant difference term only applies to the measurements. The differences here don’t make a wit of practical difference to us eaters.

    • Sienna, I’m not a toxicologist, but I did scan this paper. Two studies found more cadmium in conventional foods, one found more in organic: but in 15 studies NO SIGNIFICANT differences were seen. It’s important to distinguish between statistical significance and health impact.

      Interestingly, on average, vegetarians consume twice the recommended level of cadmium in their food—unlike omnivores.

      As far as overall levels of “antioxidants”, the differences looked modest to me, and would almost certainly be outweighed by the greater cost of organic foods. In addition, for antioxidants, there is increasing evidence that the idea of more=better is an over-simplication.

      (Personally, I’m much more concerned about levels of mycotoxins).

  • Jessica Ann

    LOL-ummmm, sure…so the nonGMO project was created because GMO’s are tooootally safe and the other countries that banned them and have lower cancer rates are just totally crazy. Perhaps you should do some actual research before posting this nonsense, or get off Monsanto’s payroll :) Yeesh!

    • Holla

      I’m not even sure how to respond to this comment, but I feel like I need to.

      1. You claim that the US has higher cancer rates than countries that ban GM foods. First, no country has truly “banned” most GM food, they just haven’t approved them through their countries particular approval system. Also: “The European Union does not allow for cultivation by EU farmers of biotechnology. However, they have not banned the consumption of GMOs. That means that they allow imports to contain genetically modified crops.” Hence, people in these countries are still eating products with Gm crops. http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/04/but-rest-of-world-bans-gmos-right.html
      As to the second part of this claim (which is debunked by the first, since these “bans” you speak of do not exist), I submit this handy site that lists a comparison of cancer rates worldwide: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops
      Yes, the US is higher on the list, but does that have to do with our consumption of GM crops? Not really. More likely two things, first is that, as a first world nation, we diagnose cancer a lot easier than some of the other countries on that list, and secondly: “WCRF state that the highest rates have been noted in ‘high-income countries’ and put this down to a variety of reasons; “This is likely to be partly because high-income countries are better at diagnosing and recording new cases of cancer. But a large part of the reason is also that high-income countries tend to have higher levels of obesity and alcohol consumption, and lower levels of physical activity.”
      2. In all of that, including Sarah’s bio, how did you get “industry shill”? She is listed as a Mom, Nurse and wife of a Farmer. Perhaps he grows GM crops, but do you have proof he even uses Monsanto seeds? Monsanto isn’t the only company that sells GM products.
      It seems, to me, that it is you who should be doing the research. Sarah provided links to reputable studies and resources in her article to support her argument. You have provided nothing but your misguided opinion on a subject you have obviously not taken the time to research yourself.

  • Jen Hobby

    Excellent work Sarah! I am a master’s level social worker and farmer. I too, have an ethical obligation to ensure that my advocacy is informed by science, and the science stands solidly with the safety of GMO technology. Not only to prevent the browning of apples, but also to offset the horrific reality of hunger experienced by millions of poor and vulnerable people around the world.

    It is their plight which concerns me. Not the preferential elitism, individual greed, and mean girl group think which drives this propaganda.

    To enable this rhetoric with either activity or apathy is an absolute tragedy. Already, fear mongering with an eye on gains in finance or attention have had tragic, global consequences (see: Golden rice)

    So let them come, let us allow them to squirm under the scrutiny of those who would question not only their beliefs, but their motives.

    The future does not belong solely to this militant minority. It does not belong to mistrust. It belongs to all of us, and all of us have duty to ensure a better future through information and discourse.

    For those with more questions about how their food is grown please come ask our volunteers at askthefarmers.com.

  • Perry

    When in doubt about a food, like bread, just look at the history of people eating it.
    I don’t see people dropping like flies, do you?
    And look at all the nations that eat supposed bad foods, like flour (pastas), but they are as healthy as we are.
    Another thing that gets my goat is that in order to be healthy, we need to include fish oil in our diet.
    Um, most of us don’t eat fish, and yet we are able to live well into our 80’s and 90’s just fine.

  • I agree with most of the comments below; I think the media may be a substantial part of the problem in that they want to print and spread ‘bad news’ stories; things like ‘Frankenstein Foods’ and ‘Uncontrollable Weeds’. Then the largely non-scientifically educated public seem to lap up these stories and they become magnified out of all proportion!
    Ask any Californian about how Sonoma County banned the pasteurisation of milk because it was described as ‘Un-natural’! That was until they realised their population was suffering disproportionately from TB and other diseases! Would the unscientific commentators please get out of the way and allow the rest of us to make some progress with this great technology?

  • Eric

    That’s awesome!

    As far as the length of time we have been eating GM foods. It has been a lot longer then 20 years. Some approved mutagenic foods were from the 60’s, nevermind veggie cloing like our modern banana before than and previous methods before that even. Pretty amazing stuff actually.

    Here is a pretty decent database mutagen GM food:

    http://mvgs.iaea.org/Search.aspx

    • hyperzombie

      At one time mutagenic seed was a selling feature.

    • Random mutagenesis is “natural” because it is totally unpredictable and doesn’t involved any intelligent design by humans.

      It’s fortunate that we didn’t have to wait for random cosmic events for the iPhone to spontaneously emerge.

  • Eric

    Great article!

    Good read on some mutigenic food and when it was developed. Small database of 3000’ish

    http://mvgs.iaea.org/Search.aspx

    • An amazing database of crops engineered using late 20th century random mutagenesis technology—totally natural, of course. Thanks, E.

  • pkv

    I think the MOM is great, No need to fear of people who cal you as stalker. You are the right decision maker for your kinds and off-course its a good lesson for others. Great MOM.

  • JoGal

    BE extremely careful when assessing research. Make sure you know how it was funded and who did it. GMO’s absolutely are detrimental to our health. We all have the right to choose what is best for us and our families, but we have a right to transparency and accurate research. Watch BoughtTheMovie and join the conversation.

  • Hel Ca

    This is a terrible article. She sounds like a ”merchant of doubt”. Does she believe in gravity?

  • Mike

    Hi Sarah,

    It’s a shame to see you being attacked by people against GMO’s in such a negative way. While I may be anti-gmo myself (which doesn’t mean I’m anti-science) I have a question to challenge you with and I hope a nice discussion can follow.

    Do we really need GMO’s to begin with? The GMO industry reminds me a lot of the pharmaceutical industry. If I have a sickness or disease my doctor will say “here take this drug,” in an effort to use chemistry to control my symptoms and keep me going. He doesn’t even consider what may be wrong with my bodies biology that triggered this response in the first place. Same with farming. I see farmers who may be having problems with their crop and immediately turn to chemistry (pesticides, chemical fertilizer) to keep it performing and don’t even think “hey! what’s wrong with my lands biology?” Perhaps if this questions was asked, GMO’s and synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

    Why do so many farmers neglect animal systems? They eat bugs, fertilize the land, and produce food. You don’t see many farmers using swales to retain water, nor do you see any diversity in their crop. Just as our bodies need a diverse range of nutrients to function properly, soil needs diverse plants to create natural nitrogen events in the soil to function properly. All these have a direct impact on soil fertility and it seems all conventional farmers and GMO farmers don’t utilize these methods. So I’m curious, do you practice any of these methods on your farm? Why do you use GMO’s?

    • Mike

      sorry I guess that was more than 1 question haha

    • Mike

      sorry I guess that was more than 1 question haha

  • Living Breathing Man

    yes it does…

  • Nancy

    You’re pretty much an awful Mom.

    • Loren Eaton

      And you pretty much couldn’t hit the ocean if you fell out of a boat. Got credentials?

  • Farmer Sue

    Awful how, Nancy? What do you feed your children? How do you know that what you feed them are safe and nutritious? Food Babe? hahahahahaha You do feed them cheese, right? 90% of cheese is genetically modified. Are you an “awful mom”? Do you feed your kids any of the many thousands of foods, including organic, produced by mutagenesis (look it up)? You okay with that?
    Any person who calls a person they don’t know an “awful mom” has some serious issues. But that’s your deal; your kids have to live with your attitudes. Meanwhile, I’ll go on feeding you and your kids. You’re welcome.

  • Karen Renee Crutcher

    You are way off base Mom! The USA’s supposed agency of determining what is “SAFE” just let the GMOs slip by without testing to find out if they are safe to eat, and just gave GMOs a label of GRAS Generally Recognized as Safe). They depended on the biotech corporations to determine if GMOs are safe! Yes, we should depend on a corporation to inform us that eating pesticides are safe, one of which manufactures Agent Orange. Remember? They said that was safe too. Get real!

    • Peter Olins

      Agent Orange was a pesticide used for warfare—one of the low-points in U.S. history. Specifically, who said it was safe?

      • Karen Renee Crutcher

        According to a new video report from the New York Times, when leaked internal memos confirmed Dow’s knowledge in 1984, a company representative named Charles Carey still claimed “Agent Orange was a safe product when it was used in the Vietnam War, and it’s a safe product today.”

        The Vietnam War Toxin Now Lurking in US Food

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-kucinich/agent-orange-herbicide_b_5453812.html

    • gmoeater

      Karen, what do you feed your children? How do you make your decisions? Who do YOU trust? And you will stop feeding them genetically modified cheese, I presume.

      • Karen Renee Crutcher

        I certainly DO NOT trust the FDA! Revolving door between FDA and GMO corporations! Even the US Supreme Court: look at Clarence Thomas! I only feed my children organic food, unprocessed. If any of you want to think of yourselves as good mothers, I would think you would research and know for sure what you are feeding your children. GMOs are NOT SAFE!

        • gmoeater

          I ask again, Karen. Do you feed your children cheese? 90% of it is genetically modified, you know.
          I ask again, Karen. Who DO you trust?
          I ask again, Karen. What credible documentation do you rely on regarding the safety of GE foods?
          Please answer those questions. Your opinions about Clarence Thomas are entirely irrelevant.

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            Obviously you don’t even know the conflict of interest Clarence Thomas has re: GMOs if you think it is entirely irrelevant for me to mention Thomas. see this: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/the-conflict-of-interest-between-justice-thomas-and-monsanto-should-concern-us-all/

          • gmoeater

            Oh, credible website. Ha! ha! ha! Try again. At least I know where you get your misinformation. No need to continue this conversation. You don’t have questions; you already have all the answers. Buh-bye.

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            Oh yeah. You show just ONE peer reviewed study that was not funded by the GMO corps that proves GMOs are safe!!!!! YOU CAN’T. Any mother that professes she feeds her children food that is sprayed with pesticides is NOT a good mother!

          • Peter Olins

            Try this, and then give us your assessment:

            “A decade of EU funded GMO research”
            http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Any mother that professes she feeds her children food that is sprayed with pesticides is NOT a good mother!”
            So, you don’t feed your children? Or are you just a self-righteous chunt?

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            What a sad statement. You don’t think there is any food that is not pesticide laden? Good Grief! I feed my children organic food that is not full of poison. Thank you very much.

          • gmoeater

            And as I posted to you yesterday, Karen, you certainly know, right, that organic foods are grown using toxic pesticides? You do know this, right? You know organic foods are not pesticide-free, right? Oh. OK. You don’t.
            Again, I will ask you to look it up. Type “USDA approved organic pesticides” in your brower. Read. Learn. You’re welcome.
            And get off your know-it-all high horse where you slam women who don’t raise their children According To The Infinite Wisdom Of Karen. Arrogance is not attractive, nor conducive to good parenthood.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Right, because organic doesn’t use pesticides. Glad you bought into the organic lie.

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            it’s a lie that GMOs are safe. that is what the huge lie is. why this? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/half-of-europe-opts-out-of-new-gm-crop-scheme

          • Michael McCarthy

            Changing the subject. Cute tactic. Does it usually work?

          • agscienceliterate

            (The Guardian as a credible source? Is she kidding??) Yes, Michael, changing the subject can work with little children who otherwise might want to run into traffic or beat up on little brother because they want little brother’s toy truck, or jump off the roof. But when her children get not very much older, they will think for themselves, and her slammed-shut goofy and entirely anti-science opinions will only get eyerolls from her kids.

            It is sad when anti-corporate paranoia spills over into logic, science, and common sense.

            Karen, illuminate us: Do you vaccinate your children? I am betting your answer is No, for much the same nonsense reasons. Again, sad.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Vaccines? Oh no, they evil. They cause the autism. And the kids that aren’t getting it from vaccines are getting it from GMO. And those poor kids getting vaccinated and GMO, they are probably dead. Oh the humanity!! (sarcasm, for the casual readers)

            “common sense.”

            What’s that? I thought it went extinct?

          • agscienceliterate

            Vaccines: The spawn of eee-ville corporations. Just like modern medicine. You know, stuff like prenatal care etc. for those GOOD moms. The BAD moms whose kids get sick, or worse, must obviously be giving their kids vaccines. Or GE foods. The horror.

            How antisocial, to have the insights that Karen does, the wisdom from on high, or from Food Babe, to be able to sit in such contemptuous judgment of others. Other moms likely shun her for her arrogance – I know I would. People who think they know everything just suck the air out of a room. But her kids will see right through it and will learn to think for themselves.

            Yeah, I grew up with common sense, but who knows about young’uns these days. Their faces are glued to their electronic devices as they read shallow blog advice about what to eat and how to raise their kids. And then lambast others for not living the way they do. Very sad.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “who knows about young’uns these days”
            I think the sheer number of girls that mucked up their lips doing the alleged Kylie Jenner lip plumping speaks volumes as to the state of children these days.
            As to Karen, I’m sure her little social circle loves her, but the PTA has probably banned her. She strikes me as the kind of person that would show up at school and complain that the meals aren’t properly labeled. Or the one that gets vending machines turned off during lunch (or, worse, removed). And what does that accomplish? Nothing. If kids want junk, they’ll get junk.

          • hyperzombie

            Speaking of Half…Almost half of Organics test positive for banned pesticides.

            http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pesticide-residue-found-on-nearly-half-of-organic-produce-1.2487712

          • gmoeater

            Are you joking, by quoting The Guardian? You might as well quote The Onion. Hahahaha!

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            Why don’t you educate yourself? Not all pesticides are the same! You can’t tell me that the GMO pesticides are good for you…I lived at Ground zero for GMOs: Kauai Hawaii. Biotechs use more pesticides there than anywhere in USA. Birth defects sky high there, people getting sick …..

          • gmoeater

            Oh, poor Karen. So many misconceptions. OK, I’ll straighten you out. You’re welcome.

            1) Hawaii has GE papaya. But Hawaii is certainly not Ground Zero for GE crops! The midwest, where GE corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are grown, are much more closer to this scary “ground zero” you refer to.

            2) I never said any pesticides are “good” for you. Don’t make up your own dialogue just because you have no one else to talk to at home other than babies. oootchie kooootchie and all, but don’t make up stuff that I didn’t say. But you seem to be inferring that somehow GE crops are less healthy than crops that use organic and conventional pesticides. Is that what you really truly believe?? Do you really just blank out on organic pesticides? Please look up toxicity of organic pesticides.

            3) Please go back and talk to your high school science teacher. Just because Factor X (in your case, birth defects sky high and sick people ….. really??? document, please) might be true, you cannot jump to the conclusion that Y must have caused Factor X. Certainly you know better than that.

            Your presumptions are truly goofy and full of speculative errors. Frankly, my dear, your vapid posts are a bit embarrassing. I’d be a bit leery about continuing to post such poorly-thought out trash on a site that scientists and farmers and GE eaters like myself read.

            Your paranoia is your choice. Your anti-government conspiracy rants are your choice to believe. So go eat organic and fool yourself that it’s better for your kids. Keep calling other people bad moms because they don’t do what YOU do. (your unvaccinated kids are gonna bolt when they are teenagers, Karen – just telling you now.)

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            You, Sir, have no idea what you are talking about! The biotechs use more pesticides in Hawaii than anywhere else in the United States.
            “In Kauai, chemical companies Dow, BASF, Syngenta and DuPont spray 17 times more pesticide per acre (mostly herbicides, along with insecticides and fungicides) than on ordinary cornfields in the US mainland, according to the most detailed study of the sector, by the Center for Food Safety .’ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo

          • gmoeater

            Hahahaha! Your sources make me laugh! Don’t you know that Center for Food Safety is an organic-industry funded advocacy group? And do I have to say anythign about the Guardian as a joke, if you’re seriously trying to use it as a credible reference?
            Come on, Karen. You can do better. Try. You truly are embarrassing yourself here.

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            ANY REFERENCES YOU USE are funded by the biotechs….

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            You don’t know what you are talking about. Hawaii is Ground Zero for GMO pesticides. More pesticides are dumped on Hawaii than anywhere else in the USA. And we have skyrocketed birth defects and illnesses. http://www.stoppoisoningparadise.org/#!restricted-use-pesticide-kauai/c1rjc

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            RESTRICTED USE Pesticides* on Kaua’i

            *PRODUCT NAME and LABEL*

            LORSBAN ADVANCED *(Read the Label) *
            DUPONT ASANA XL *(Read the Label) *
            ATRAZINE 4L *(Read the Label) *
            BAYTHROID XL *(Read the Label) *
            BICEP II MAGNUM *(Read the Label) *
            DEGESCH PHOSTOXIN *(Read the Label* )
            DUPONT LANNATE LV *(Read the Label) *
            DUPONT CORAGEN *(Read the Label) *
            INTRRO PREEMERGENT/LASSO *(Read the Label) *
            MUSTANG *(Read the Label) *
            PERMETHRIN / BONINE *(Read the Label) *
            WARRIOR II WITH ZEON TECHNOLOGY *(Read the Label) *
            PROFUME *(Read the Label) *
            DUAL II MAGNUM *(Read the Label) *
            FORCE 3G *(Read the Label) *
            GRAMOXONE INTEON *(Read the Label) *
            MUSTANG MAX *(Read the Label) *
            AATREX NINE-O *(Read the Label) *
            GRAMOXONE SL *(Read the Label) *
            LUMAX SELECTIVE *(Read the Label) *
            VOLIAN XPRESS *(Read the Label)*

            GRAMOXONE SL 2.0 *(Read the Label) *

          • Karen Renee Crutcher
          • agscienceliterate

            Karen, please educate yourself. Organic is full of pesticides. Look it up for yourself. Take 4 minutes to look it up before posting such nonsense. See today’s GLP article on toxicity of organic pesticides on bees. You owe it to yourself and your children to look into your allegations a lot more thoughtfully. Your comments may get lots of “likes” on the Food Babe site, but here? Not so much.

          • gmoeater

            Karen, you obviously have no idea that organic foods are also sprayed with pesticides? Look it up. USDA approved organic pesticides. (you’re welcome) You also spit, “I think you are a paid lobbyist for the GMO corporations [sic]. Why else would you state the things you do?”
            Uh, because they are true.
            And really, that’s all you have, is hurling shill accusations when you run out of anything else to say?
            Your poor children have a very opinionated (and erroneous) mom. They’ll find that out at, oh, about age 9. Good luck, Karen.

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            You misunderstand….There is NO documentation regarding the SAFETY of GE foods….because they are NOT SAFE.

          • gmoeater

            Ah, you won’t answer. And you’re so wrong — there have been thousands of studies about the safety of GE foods. You want to answer my questions now? Or just continue bloviating without even having even the remotest interest in being accurate rather than just ignorantly opinionated? (this is not a good site for the latter).

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            Thousands of studies about the safety of GE foods? Yeah, funded by the GMO industry! ”
            A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are as safe in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk. The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102) http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/gmo-myths-and-truths-2nd-edition/

          • Peter Olins

            @Karen — Please would you pick a single study out of the “1700” that causes you the greatest concern, so that we can discuss it.

            More fundamentally, are you honestly open to changing your opinion about GM technology as a result of dialog?

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            I think you are a paid lobbyist for the GMO corporations. Why else would you state the things that you do? Being a nurse, I really think you would do the research for your children!

          • Karen Renee Crutcher

            You are the one that is not accurate!!!! GMOs never went through testing for safety prior to being introduced into our food system. Why is it that so many countries are banning GMOs? You answer that one!

        • agscienceliterate

          Why in the world would you think that organic food is not grown with pesticides? Or “safe” by some kind of standard you must be fantasizing? Organic foods have high recall rates for salmonella and e.coli contamination, largely from improperly composted manure. That’s easy to look up. Do it. Where do you get your skewed and erroneous information?

    • agscienceliterate

      Karen, GE foods are the most tested foods on the planet. And GE technology is rigorously tested before approval. You appear to want something that is not possible; some kind of magic test that proves GE foods are safe, using some standard only you know about. Well, in science, that kind of proof is not possible for any test. The fact that you are rabidly anti-corporate has nothing to do with the safety of GE crops. Please educate yourself. Either that, or your children will, in just a few years when they start thinking for themselves.

  • hawkcat

    Stamp “Organic” on something, double the price, and Americans will not only flock to buy it, they will make you feel like you are doing something wrong by not buying it. Please, people. You have more important things to worry about like getting struck by lightening or an asteroid impact.

  • When you go to Las Vegas and sit down at the poker table and ask “Who is playing for the house,” the pros are required by law to reveal they are being paid by the house to take your money. Too bad we cannot do the same with the pro-gmo responders here.

    • Peter Olins

      Are you making a confession or an accusation? Either way, please be more specific. Even better: offer some evidence. If not—as a self-declared expert in thinking skills—please be more rigorous and preface your comments with: “I have the following speculation, for which I have no direct evidence…”

      Or is it that you cannot conceive of people being willing to give up their free time to help inform the public about important scientific issues? You did notice that this website is ostensibly about “literacy”, right?

      • Good Morning Peter,
        Your point is valid. I should have pointed out the individuals who indeed sound like professional bloggers paid by monsanto.
        I should have offered evidence such as over 95% of the studies concluding gmos, glyphosate, pesticides, and sugar are not harmful are paid for by the giant food companies that either produce them or use them to produce products.
        I should have offered proof in the way of studies showing gmos change the actual internal working of the cells in the plant and they produce higher levels of formaldehyde, embalming fluid, than non gmos.
        I should have offered evidence that farmers using glyphosate, atrazine, and organophosphates have higher rates of cancer.
        I should have offered evidence that there is no economic benefit or quality benefit gained by producing gmo crops.
        I should have offered evidence that there are other techniques for rapid natural selective breeding of plants to produce higher yields and more pest resistant varieties.
        I should have done all those things but I didn’t.
        I could have discussed confirmation biases, but I didn’t.
        I could have even drawn the parallel between big sugar, big ag, and the tactics used by the tobacco industry to keep producing their poisons, but I didn’t.
        I have lots of family members who are farmers. When we have family gatherings, we do not discuss gmos or pesticides.
        That, however, does not change the science, the reality of the harmful nature of gmos, sugar, or pesticides, or even the literacy of the subject.

        • agscienceliterate

          Douglas: Please do indeed offer scientifically credible evidence on the claims you make above. I look forward to reading your “proofs and evidence.”
          And please do point out who are the professional bloggers, and that they are paid by Monsanto, and how you know this.
          This should be interesting reading.

        • Peter Olins

          That was a really long non-answer, Doug. But it doesn’t succeed in distracting us from the fact that you aren’t willing to support your accusations with evidence.

          My advice: pick one topic/argument, and then develop it with facts and logic.

        • gmoeater

          Doug, answer even one of your “I should have offered evidence…” claims above with credible references. Just one.

          And then also answer these two questions:

          1) Just why is it that you don’t discuss GE tech with your family farmer members? Could it be they don’t share your position? Have you even ever considered that NOT talking to them about what they do just keeps you in continued dark ignorance about modern farming? Talk to them.

          2) Are you a professional blogger for the anti-gmo activists? How much do you get paid?

          Looking forward to hearing from you on your interesting, amusing, and entirely undocumented suppositions.

      • Thank you Peter but I am done. The research is freely available to anyone seeking it. Best of luck with your gluten free business.

        • Peter Olins

          Apology accepted.

    • Marly Duran

      If only! It’s pretty easy to pick them out though. It’s just too time-consuming and a bit depressing to bother with them.

      • gmoeater

        Marly, you sure do comment on a lot of different topics. Lots of celebrity status folks get your comments. (yawn) This seems to be your first post on GE technology. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you know anything about GE crops? I think you think you are referring to “shills” and “trolls” who are paid by Monsanto to post. Right? And you say you know it’s easy to pick them out? Please clue us in. How do you pick out a paid shill? (for Monsanto, or for Big Organic) Inquiring minds would love to know. Certainly not just because a poster supports biotech ag, right? You wouldn’t do a witch hunt concluding in shill accusations based on just that position now, would you?

        • Marly Duran

          Sure I comment on lots of things, GMOEATER, because I’m interested in a variety of things. You, on the other hand, judging from your screen name, have very limited interests (clue?). That’s all the help you’ll get from me. Why would I want to clue in the opposition? To make it easier for you to put a new spin on things? Don’t they pay you enough to think of new material on your own?

          • gmoeater

            Marly, great. Interested in lots of things. But knowledgeable? Anyone can comment on anything. I have varied interests (you would be surprised) but I don’t choose to bloviate on things I know squat about.

            Just helping you, dearie, to understand that the shill and troll comments on this site are the marks of those who know nothing about biotech crops, and those comments are obvious and boring. You can do better, I am sure. Try.

            No, “they” (woo woo) don’t pay me enough to make the amazingly insightful observations I say about genetic engineering. Do I need money to do this, really? How about just basic knowledge about science and being interested enough to talk to people who are players, like biotech scientists, nutritionists, and farmers? Maybe your focusing on one thing (on lthis site, particularly) and being reasonably knowledgeable about it, without resorting to conspiracy theories in your first post, would help. Just sayin.

          • Marly Duran

            I would hardly consider my brief comments here to qualify as bloviation. Your use of the term, though, doesn’t lessen your lobbyist tone at all, but adds to it. I won’t list my qualifications to post here, but rest assured, I’ve researched Monsanto- and what a history! No wonder you don’t want to admit to being on their payroll.

          • gmoeater

            Oooooo. Would love to be on their payroll. Maybe you can get them to send me a nice fat check — I keep asking, and they keep ignoring my requests. My t-shirt says “Will shill for GE food,” but no one’s sent me a check yet.
            Thank you for honoring me by saying I have a lobbyist tone! Kool!

    • gmoeater

      Doug, and too bad we can’t FOIA the activist advocacy mouths of the multi-billion dollar huge organic industry. You do support transparency from the anti-GE activists, I presume.

  • Jessilovescheese

    There have been legit, scientific studies with aniamls showing that GMO’s have caused toxin buildup in the liver, birth defects, and stomach inflammation. The human body is very precise and particular; When you change the DNA of food and animals, it is not going to work the same way in your body, the natural way it knows how. It’s going to make you sick, even if you dont really ntoice it. But there has been an immense increase in liver, pancreas,stomach diseases, diabetes, cancer. There are always many factors to these, but GMO’s are a serious problem when you really think about NATURE.

  • Zahra

    Lol if you know everything about gmo and you have the money to get it and don’t just because you refuse to. .then yes, you are a bad mom …. but hey more organic for the awake ;)

  • Robyn Moody

    As a dad, i’m terribly pleased when I exit the supermarket without a single item labelled “organic”. I understand the science, and know that I am giving my son healthy food while saving enough money to sign him up for soccer and music programmes. What enrages me is seeing the guilt imposed on anxious and afraid parents by the anti-gmo / organic lobby, and how my simple efforts to point people in the direction of quality science are met with derision, anger, and lost friendships. Thank you for writing this.

    • Loren Eaton

      And you probably leave with a little more money in your pocket, too.

  • grumpy

    I always start my thoughts about safety with “what is most likely to kill me”. Even though I allow that I’d rather not eat GMO foods, there are 20 other food safety issues that are WAY more likely to kill me, and I can’t spend one minute worrying about GMO’s until I’ve taken care of avoiding the foods that cause:
    diabetes & heart disease.
    e-coli.
    the end of antibiotics due to overuse on CAFO’s.
    lead contamination
    mercury contamination.
    pesticide residue
    etc… there are at least 20 things ahead of GMO’s on the list, and crying wolf about that lesser threat distracts desperately needed attention to real threats.

  • Participant

    It would seem the need to defend yourself due to an innate guilt, admitted or otherwise is the source of your article. Science in no way has disproven the impact of GMOs on climate change and once it does, we all may be eating crow. Aaah the bliss of being totally oblivious and arguing it in a baseless article, other than your emotional need to defend yourself and feel more comfortable in your own skin by rallying others for your cause of insecurity, because of feeling safety in numbers.

  • JoJo

    The writer of this article is too beautiful to be believed by the “Moms” criticizing her. Haven’t you noticed that most of the anti-GMO and other anti’s are rarely good-looking young women? I sure have.

    • agscienceliterate

      Irrelevant and sexist. And erroneous. Kavin Senapathy, Julie Kelly, Sarah Schultz, and other female pro-science posters are attractive, yes, but how on earth is that relevant? Do you really want to make comments about the looks of anti-GE activists Margaret Mellon, Jane Goodall, and Vandana Shiva?
      Do you really judge scientific relevance by looks, Jojo? Are you truly that shallow? You are as sexist and as shallow as Donald Trump.

    • Friedrich

      she looks crazy… or stunned. Those eybrows tho! lol!

  • David Darby

    Oh, the Stanford University ‘study’? They didn’t do their own research. The just cherry-picked other research papers to prove their flawed hypothesis. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/that-flawed-stanford-study/

    It’s flawed and flat out WRONG.

    And a better mom WOULD feed their kids organic, given all of the health hazards and increase in chronic illnesses that have popped the advent of the GMO garbage, In fact, you would be a better citizen as well. After all… GMOs contaminate―forever.

    GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to
    fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO
    pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.
    The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future
    generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for
    organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.
    http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/

    So while you may not be a “bad” mom, you definitely have room to improve.

    • agscienceliterate

      David, you would do well to research and cite responsible and credible sites, not pro-organic anti-GE Google-university sites. You obviously haven’t a clue how genetic engineering works, and your regurgitating organic hype and fabrications about “contamination” reflect that. Organic farmers in many areas live right next to GE farmers (with entirely different crops) with no problems. If anything, organic farmers have found a “halo effect” whereby weed and insect prevention in a GE field carries over to protect their own organic fields.
      You definitely have room to improve. Quit going to anti-GE sites for your pseudo-information and start learning about GE sustainability.

      • David Darby

        Spoken like a true shill (funny, no real name) The sites I cited are anti GMO because most GMOs are toxic, causing diabetes, allergies and other maladies. GMOs have no place in our food, or our environment. And obviously you are NOT Ag Science literate, otherwise you would understand and agree and that the pollen from GM crops can and WILL corrupt existing crops. That is not a fabrication, That is pure unadultrated science. It’s why most other countries in the world have either banned, or required labeling in GMO products. I will waste no further time arguing with you, as you are not a credible source of oh… pretty much anything. BTW, it’s “you’re” not “your”. As in your argument is baseless, because you’re a shill.

        • Guest

          No, it’s “your”, not “you’re”.

          • David Darby

            You’re incorrect. Apparently you are reading the wrong line of our shill’s reply; I was referring to line 3 where he claimed I was “regurgitating organic hype”. Don’t get me wrong, I totally belive in science. But not junk “tobacco” science for profit. But I guess I can expect nothing less from a Pro GMO shill web-site. I also find it amusing that I have gotten replies within 10 minutes both times. Didn’t know you guys worked 3 shift. Monsanto et al must be getting desperate!

          • agscienceliterate

            Actually, I get paid by all the seed companies. They have a combined fund, since I never mention any particular seed company by name now, do I? And you know, of course, that I also get handsomely paid by the well-endowed $70 billion organic industry, for constantly telling you and others to eat organic and non- GMO certified food. I guess I get paid by both sides! Thank you, however, for your belief in my worthiness for being paid for my wise words. In truth, however, neither Monsanto nor any other GE seed company needs shills. They are doing quite well on their own, but I’m sure they thank you for your consideration for their financial benefit. Your concerns are much appreciated.

          • agscienceliterate

            Yup. You and I know that, because I followed that clause with the verb “reflect,” so the word “your” in that context is used as an attributive adjective. Why try to explain the finer points of grammar to an uneducated and venomous anti-science activist, however? I would just as soon try to teach my pet porcupine to sing Carmen.

          • David Darby

            Venomous? LOL. Wow, you sure do spend an awful lot of time here. Why would that be? Oh, yes, because you are a SHILL for the pro GMO industry. You would argue your scientifically flawed case into infinity with me if I let you. Just know that just because I am going to let you have the last word doesn’t mean I am conceding or agreeing with you. This entire site is a propaganda site for GMOs. It’s not worth arguing with you, because it is pointless. Monsanto et al spends millions of dollars funding universities, and will get the results they pay for. Such studies are worthless. Cheers.

        • Jason

          How does GMO pollen “corrupt” existing crops? Freshly produced commercial seed is bought and planted each season. The harvested crop that may have had a fraction of a percent of GMO content in it is processed and turned into oil or something

          So, where does the “corruption” step in?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yeah, Davie shrieks: “GMO pollan corrupts forever, GMO food is toxic”…oh huff, puff, blah, blah, blah, scream and cry…

            Then, inevitably our panicked mental basket case hurls the “shill” epithet — that’s always the equivalent of conceding the point(s) of any argument, just a cry of ‘uncle’.

            How do these fanatic anti-science, anti-technology asshats live with themselves, with their brazen hypocrisy? I mean, they use electricity, they use motorized transportation, they use indoor plumbing — all things confederate assclowns of their ilk no doubt freaked out over when those technologies were first introduced. No doubt there was a David Darby cowering in the shadows, wailing, lying and cursing when fire was brought into the cave for the first time! Ha, surely the first cooks were “fire shills”, ha, ha!

          • Jason

            They also advocate against technology that is environmentally beneficial all under the guise of being “eco champions”.

            You’re right… it’s hypocrisy.

          • David Darby

            First sign of losing an argument. Name calling and insults. And speaking of cowering. You post with a fictitious name, I do not. Have a great day.

          • David Darby
          • Jason

            No.. this is an example of crossing with weeds… wild species or close relatives of the crop. It has nothing to do with crops being “corrupted”.

            Want to take another swing?

          • David Darby

            Jason, I don’t have all day for this, like you apparently do. So just one more.

            https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.00/gmo_issues-000307.html

          • Jason

            A bit closer, but again… these are Purdue University recommendations for minimizing drift in grain that is intended to be Non-GMO. Still nothing about corrupting seed.

        • agscienceliterate

          Would love to get me some shill bucks, David. But from whom? Numerous GE seed companies, not just Monsanto. But what about Big Organic, an $60 billion industry? Do they pay me for saying over and over that people like you who prefer to peruse pseudoscience sites should just stick to to organic and non-GMO certified? But thanks for presuming my brilliant and insightful points are worthy of shill payment.
          And your “pure unadulterated science” is garbage.
          Stick to organic and non-GMO certified. So much easier than having to think.

    • Farmer with a Dell

      Hey Davie boy, your critique is weak and flawed, so while you may not be a “bad” analyst of science and technology, you definitely have room to improve. No, wait, really you suck as a constructive critic of science — if your parenting skills are equally as bad your searing incompetence would long ago have your kids taken away from you. Imagine how cruel it would be growing up in a household where irrational fear rules the day.

  • ettk45

    Child abuse is a felony. They most likely will never forgive you. The information is too widely available.

  • ginamero

    Sadly, I think it’s fine for you to feed your kids what you choose to feed them…you state you feel blessed you have a CHOICE. Well, Sweetie, I don’t have that same choice. Our government has chosen NOT to allow me to choose by refusing to label foods with GMOs – also, I’m not allowed to know where my chicken is processed ect. Obama did a number on this country and it sickens me. If you feel grateful you have a choice you should feel sad I don’t. My choice is just as important as yours. by not giving me true information, you cut my choice short. Shame on you and the USA

  • Cheryl

    Autoimmune disorders anyone? You often don’t have to look past your own family to encounter thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritid, celiac disease, autism, fibromyalgia to name few. Children and adults with gluten sensitivities are on the rise. Is it the chemicals in processed food? Or the pesticides in gmo foods? Or maybe it’s one of the 25 ingredients in the coventional breads sold in grocery stores? We don’t know. So yes I prefer to feed my family food with minimal pesticides and bread with only 4 or 5 ingredients on the label. If eating chemicals and pesticides is one day proven 100% safe for humans (as dumb as that sounds to me), so be it. No harm done, except I allocated some extra money to the food budget to buy organic, clean foods. If it turns out that these chemicals and pesticides are causing these illnesses, still no harm done to my family, but what about yours? That’s not a chance I’m wiling to take.

    • agscienceliterate

      Errors in your assumptions, Cheryl:
      1) There aren’t pesticides “in” foods made with GE ingredients.
      2) Minimal pesticides? How would you know? Look up “organic USDA approved pesticides.” Some of them pretty nasty.
      3) Everything you eat has “chemicals.”
      4) There is no way to prove anything “100% safe.”
      5) “Organic, clean foods…” Organic is no more “clean” than conventional or GE foods. And many organic food recalls from contamination by e.coli, salmonella, and listeria. Organic has higher contamination rates because of fecal slurry used as fertilizer.
      6) Drawing the erroneous conclusion that illnesses are caused by GE foods, based on specious reasoning, does not protect either your family’s health, or your wallet.

      Based on all of the above, my advice to you is to stick to organic and non-GMO certified food. So much easier than having to think for yourself.

  • Kristin

    I was in your shoes about 3-4 years ago and thought organic was a waste of money. After watching multiple people in their 30’s close to me get cancer (an my mom died of cancer at 42 years old), I wanted to know what we are ALL doing that is causing the cancer numbers to rise so much. I did not know what a GMO was. After a year of following a Facebook page (which I accidentally stumbled upon) called 100 Days of Real Food I would read things about “real food” and I thought it was ridiculous because we all eat real food. I slowly read different things and decided to “experiment” with a 30 day “real food” meal plan for my family. We ate 100% organic and unprocessed food made from scratch from her recipes online. I read every label of the food I purchased. I did not expect to notice much change, but after just a week I felt like a brand new person. I was a 35 year old mom of 3 that is relatively healthy, no major health concerns and was maybe 20lbs over weight, but I am tall and it is not that noticeable. I am super active and work 60+ hours a week. The difference I noticed was undeniable. I was absolutely shocked at the difference in my body and my mind. I thought my foggy, forgetful brain was because I had 3 young kids. I was all of a sudden remembering everything I had to do and had energy to do it all. I never thought of myself as low energy. I do not take naps (who has time for that) and I am a very active person. I had energy I did not know was possible. My husband and I both lost 10lbs and we were eating amazing food – yes, veggies, but also a lot of pasta, ice cream (homemade), waffles, etc. The food was amazing, easy to make and we felt better than we ever have. I am not a typical person to buy into this “organic” food ideal, but after 30 days of the change I realized that everything I thought about our food and that it was safe was wrong. I NEVER would have believed this if I did not experience it for myself.

    So, I say you are not a bad mom at all. I would encourage you to try a real food, organic, plan for a short period to experience it first had. Maybe your findings are different. But at least you would confirm what you believe to be true, or understand why people are so passionate about organic foods. To clarify, too, the 100 Days of Real Food has very little sugar and all the sugar is real maple syrup and honey. This impacts the results for the better, too.

    I could have written this article you wrote 4 years ago. Today I am on the flip side. Not due to research or articles, but due to first hand experience of the difference in my whole family. Today I am passionate on the other side, but do not forget that I used to be in your shoes. A great person to watch Ted Talk is Robyn O’Brien. She has a 20 minute TED talk and, even if you disagree, the data is incredible and her sources are straight from our government kept statistics. I encourage you to watch it. Again, no judgement, but I am grateful I have tried the other side. I do feel my family is much healthier for it.

    Best wishes.

    • agscienceliterate

      Your anecdotes are interesting. But they are not scientific. You are free to choose whatever you want to eat. I choose non-organic and GE foods.
      As to Robyn O’Brien? I’ve heard her talk. An organic shill, and a quack:
      http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2013/11/18/ted-talks-and-gmos
      And “real food”? And maple syrup and honey? Talk to a nutritionist. Both maple syrup and honey have exactly the same results in the body as processed sugar, from a health perspective re: diabetes and other sugar risk factors.
      http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html

      You’ve been punked. But it’s your money.

      • Kristin

        I was not attacking anyone. I was sharing my experience. There are massive studies that support GMO’s being bad, but I am not citing those. I am just sharing my first hand experience. You should try it, but you are probably afraid you might experience a change and feel good and maybe become nice enough to not attack people who do not agree with you. Billions of $$ are spent to make you think GMO’s are safe. I guess it works. Good luck to you. My only goal is to avoid cancer for my family. With it affecting 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women, and at younger and younger ages, that is my goal. Until we are old we will not know if that works, but it is my goal. Best wishes to you.

        • agscienceliterate

          I don’t “try” food fads. Especially when promoted by the likes of O’Brien, Mercola, Oz, Food Babe, and other quacks. I make my food decisions based on food science.
          The $60 billion organic industry has punked you thoroughly. As a nurse, I would expect you to be more discerning about unsubstantiated claims than the normally naive person.
          Best wishes to you and your family. Eat organic and non-GMO certified. Labeled in BIG YUUGE letters.

        • Peter Olins

          Hi Kristin — this website is about “genetic literacy”, and often provides useful information for folks who are unfamiliar with this field. For other visitors to this page, could you share details of one or two of the “…massive studies that support GMO’s being bad…”? I try to keep up to date, but I must have missed them.

        • IJR

          Name one study please.

          • Kristin

            Okay, so you are blowing up my email inbox. I do not get paid to troll the internet to try to argue with people. I have a job and work to do. Neither of us is going to agree, so we can agree to disagree. No point in being nasty. Enjoy your day.

          • IJR

            Nice, right in with the paid shill argument, not gonna waste time, just straight to the idiocy.

            We will never agree. The least you can do is stop lying.

            Do you get it that you and every thing is made out of chemicals?
            Enjoy your organic pesticides.

          • IJR

            Just name one study. How about the one where the rats get cancer. Oh wait, that was fabricated.

          • Kristin

            Again, being nasty is not necessary. I seriously wish you the best. I will not be harmed by eating how I eat. Your persistent poking and jabs sound desperate. Unless you are getting paid, I am sure you have better things to do than argue on the internet with someone you do not know and will never meet. At least I hope you have better things to do. Best wishes.

          • IJR

            If you would like to post a study, I would be happy to read it.

            Organic crops often get ten times the amount of pesticides that conventional crops get, yet you seem to think I am eating pesticides and you are not.

            I think you have better things to do than lie about things you know nothing about.

          • agscienceliterate

            “…and will never meet….” What does that have to do with you persisting in throwing out unsubstantiated activist claims? Do we have to meet you (ugh) in order for you to provide a reliable citation?
            Are you yet another of those activists who have nothing to say, no credible citations, and get petulant when asked to provide reliable info for their bogus claims? You gonna just do a snark-troll like so many others, and go off pouting because you were asked a legit question?
            You have been punked by the organic industry, and you have a right to your tin foil hat. It’s pretty silly for you to think that others will buy into your appalling ignorance, however.
            Grow up, Kristin. This is the real world.

          • agscienceliterate

            He asked you to name one of the “massive studies” you flippantly flung out there. You can’t, because you are so busy and have a job to do. Then maybe you shouldn’t post in the first place if you can’t substantiate your woo. You’ve been seriously punked by the organic industry. Don’t try to come here and punk everyone else with your appalling ignorance.

    • agscienceliterate

      Other woomasters and puppets of the organic industry, who scaremonger and push the “naturalistic fallacy,” which you seem to have embraced, include Michae Pollan, Mike Adams, and Jeffrey Smith.

      Robyn O’Brien makes money on the lecture circuit selling pseudoscience. She even said at a meeting I attended, “I know correlation isn’t causation, but…” and immediately dived into speculation and pseudo-correlation between allergies and GE foods. I went up to challenge her afterward, and she was flummoxed to have someone with significant experience about GE policies daring to question her, and she repeated the same ole, same ole. She turned her back on me and started pitching woo to someone else.

      More on this woman:
      http://skepdic.com/foodallergynut.html

      • Kristin

        SOOOOO, you believe that eating food that is formulated in a lab and is considered chemicals is better than food that is grown to be food? Okay, keep eating chemicals. Natural selection is a powerful thing. I think that by eating food that is actually classified as food is probably going to do better for my body, oh wait, I tried it at it did make my body better. Hmmmm. Keep eating pesticides, herbicides, preservatives made in a lab. Please. I beg you. The world is a better place with you dong that. I promise.

        I firmly belive we should all be educated and look at it from both perspectives. I have done this and made my choice. The chemical companies spend BILLIONS, and not millions, of dollars to make us think what they are producing is safe. How did that work for all those people that were exposed to DDT? Or how about those that were exposed to Agent Orange? Hmmmm, but the same companies producing those products are the ones you believe it to keep you healthy? I am totally good with that. I do firmly believe in educating yourself and making your decision and it does not need to be all or nothing for either side. We are all people with choices. I was posting to give a perspective from my personal experience. Not to have a war with anyone. I did not attack anyone for how they believe or what they think. Somehow you think attacking me is a good thing. Okay, and I would NOT want you to eat organic. The world is better with you eating chemicals. Please keep pushing your agenda. Again, natural selection. And perhaps natural selection takes me out for eating the same food people have eaten since people began to exist. Given the state of the health of our country right now, I think I will revert back to eating what has kept mankind going since mankind existed. But, again, please keep eating food laced with new age chemicals and preservatives. I do not want you moving to this side of the debate.

        • agscienceliterate

          So many fallacies! All foods have chemicals. All foods are going with pesticides, including organic. Google “chemicals in a banana.” Google “mutagenesis organic”; you will see that some of your favorite organic foods like organic ruby red grapefruit are produced in a lab through irradiation and chemical blasting. Go back to your nurse science classes. Google correlation versus causation. Google naturalistic fallacy. Disabuse yourself of the fallacy that the food you eat now is what people have been eating since “mankind existed.” Absolutely untrue. The foods that we eat today have been dramatically changed over even the last several decades, through genetic manipulation of all kinds,including mutagenesis and hybridization.
          You’ve been punked, nurse.

          • Kristin

            I am not going for perfect. Just better. And, I don’t know where you got that I was a nurse, but I am not. That is the perfect example of your research skills. All kinds of confused and mixed up seems to be how you report data. That’s cool, though. Seriously, best wishes to you. I mean it. I am not here to battle someone. I am just sharing my personal experience and a way to experiment with what “the other side” might be like, or not. Just a first hand recount of what I found. I respect the person that wrote this article and her perspective. I was sharing mine, but in a respectful way. This has gotten out of control. Best wishes.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope, the nurse is someone else.
            My post above, where I suggest you find out more about chemicals, mutagenesis, organic recalls, naturalistic fallacy, and foods that have existed “…since mankind existed” stand. You have based all your beliefs on food fads, promoted by pro-organic anti-GE shucksters who get paid to promote their snake oil. I’m happy you are healthier. You probably are avoiding the middle aisles in the grocery store. That has nothing to do with GE, and everything to do with junk food. You’ve been punked.
            Your testimonial does not represent science – it represents a mildly interesting, but uncompelling, anecdote.
            Best wishes.

          • Kristin

            If you confused me with a nurse, it sounds like you cannot keep your facts straight and with the amount of time you are spending trolling the internet to try to counter the idea that chemicals are bad for our bodies, you are probably getting paid to do this. Hmmmm. I hope they keep paying people like you to do this. You clearly are easily confused.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. Not getting paid. But thanks for your affirmation that my posts are insightful, chock full of scientific information, relevant, and helpful.
            You have no idea what chemicals are. Chemicals are in everything you eat. Google “chemicals in a banana.” Go on, do it. (I’ve asked you before to do this). Your chemophobia has no place on a science-based site.
            Chemicals are certainly NOT “…bad for our bodies,” and you have been listening to way too much pseudoscience from the people I have helpfully listed for you, to believe that old tired erroneous meme.
            I’d love to be paid. How about helping me get some $$$ from the $60 billion organic industry, since I keep saying over and over and over and over and over again to eat organic and non-GMO certified foods?
            Get over yourself. Nurse or not, you willingly dive into the woo-pool. You have been thoroughly punked.

        • IJR

          You realize that dirt is made of chemicals.
          The expensive bottled water you drink is made up of chemicals.

          Air is made up of chemicals.
          Organic veggies are made up of chemicals.

    • Peter Olins

      Glad to hear that a diet including plenty of pasta, ice cream and waffles is working out well for you. You could make a great spokesperson for General Mills.

      BTW I’d encourage you to look a little further than Robyn O’Brien if you want accurate dietary guidance.

      • agscienceliterate

        Including, but not limited to, that organic Italian pasta that it is created through mutagenesis?

      • Kristin

        That dietary guidance was not from Robyon O’Brien, but you would know that if you truly knew what she is about. Her kid has a life threatening food allergy, like so many other kids today. That is her drive. Kids should not live in fear of dying from food, but that is the world we live in. When I grew up, we did not know about any kids with allergies (although I am sure there were some), but today, there are so many allergies that I cannot pack nuts in my kids lunch for danger of killing another kid. I cannot have soy (major GM crop in most processed foods), dairy, nuts or gluten at my kids birthday party due to the dangers. This is real. This is the world we live in. You might be out of touch with that, but it is very real. It is the reason GM’s are getting such a bad name. You can say the correlation is not causation and I say take away GM’s and see if these go away….Wait…Other countries have done this and miraculously they do not have our health, allergy and cancer rates…..Interesting.

        When we tried the organic, preservative free diet, we ate plenty of vegetables, but my point was that we still ate all those things and lost 10 lbs each (and that is about what each of us needed to lose). General Mills would not like me – all organics in my diet. My point in the post was that I would have fought, just as you are, for the other side. I tried a different way to see if there really could be something to this and I obviously felt a million times better and did not know I was not feeling good to begin with. I started out thinking I would not notice any difference so you cannot say that I caused my outcome in my head.

        But, again, I do not care if you eat GMO’s, preservatives, DDT, Agent Orange and the like. I really do not. I shared my experience from a mom that was just like the mom that wrote the article. I have a different outlook now because I tried something different. I understand you all that are commenting will not even consider trying a 30 day diet of organic, preservative free food. I suggest you do it to see if you notice a difference. Even if you did, you would probably say you didn’t because I am getting the impression you are a very well bought. Maybe you do not get paid directly, but you have fallen victim to the billions of $$ the biotech industry spends to make you believe their products are safe. Just like the tobacco industry did and just like this same industry did when they were promoting DDT, Agent Orange, BGH, etc. They claimed all those were safe.

        I cared to share because it was my personal experience and not an attack. When I did that, I gained better health. Minor issues I have had my whole life just disappeared. You, on the other hand, what do you care if I feed my family organics? What do you care if I spend more of my money on organics? How does that negatively impact you? Robyn O’Brien is promoting food change to save the life of her child. What is your gain in being anti-organic and pushing GMO’s? You should be grateful for the organic movement. If you are so concerned with the cost of food, there are TONS of GM products and the demand for these products is dwindling, so this would create an over supply and thus a drop in price (basic economics)…Unless, of course you stand to gain financially from GM product sales…In which case all your posts mean nothing.

        I do not care if you eat them. In fact, eat pesticides. Please. It does not bother me. I do not know why it bothers you that I feed my family organics. You think I am pushing an agenda, but you fail to realize that all the people that are for organics have a personal story and come from a place of many health issues that disappeared with eating organics. Why does it bother you that these people saved their lives with organic food? Because it is not “science”? Who cares! Let us all eat what we want. And, again, maybe try the other way for a short time and then go back to what you used to do. It will give you insight into why we are so passionate about organics. But, if you tried it, I am sure you are more worried that it would sway your opinion and then everything you believe in would go out the window. Sound smart to me.

        Keep eating your pesticides, please.

        • agscienceliterate

          You think organic food doesn’t have pesticides? I advised you to look it up. Obviously you didn’t.
          You don’t think all foods have chemicals? I asked you to google “chemicals in a banana.” Obviously you didn’t. Are you just intellectually lazy?
          And oh, yes, I know what Robyn O’Brien is all about. I know very well what she’s about. She’s about capitalizing on her kids’ allergies, fearmongering, and making money on the lecture circuit to demonize perfectly healthy products. Like food babe, she’s a quack. And a scientifically ignorant hypocrite.
          You are mean to advise people to drink pesticides. That is not using pesticides as directed. I would not advise you to give your children a quarter cup of salt in the morning, which would kill them. Is that nastiness your only response to all the scientific info you’ve been given here about your not very interesting personal anecdote? That’s all ya got?
          Again, look up correlation versus causation. This basic fundamental principle of scientific assessment is ignored time and again by Robyn O’Brien, in her moneymaking pseudoscience, and she makes money doing it. Your money. But hey, that’s your choice.
          Eat organic. Eat non-GMO certified. Labeled in BIG letters just for you. You don’t even have to think.
          You have been royally punked.

          • Kristin

            You are very confusing. You first told me I was a nurse. I never said that. Now you are suggesting I said for people to “drink pesticides”. I never said that. Again, can’t really trust anything you suggest. You skim and do not actually read the details and you spout off because, somehow, people who improved their health with organic foods is bothersome to you? I really do not get that. I suggested you keep “eating” pesticides. That is what you are doing with GMO’s. Lots of pesticides. It is what you believe in. That is totally cool. Cannot really trust someone that is so confused about the things they read and repeat misinformation. Really, the fact that you are so bothered by Robyn O’Brien or Food Babe is just odd. Who cares! You probably think that gay people should not be able to marry. Again, who cares! It does not affect you if Robyn or Food Babe are promoting their own personal experience and have a huge following because other people try it their way and see a difference. It should not matter to you. If people did not feel the difference by trying to eat a different way, they would not follow them. Then, Food Babe and Robyn O’Brien would not have a huge following. So, who cares – it does not affect you. Or does it???? Does it hurt your income? You suggested that drinking pesticides is dangerous. Well, eating them on our food is dangerous, too. I don’t need to feed my family that is sprayed with a product that I should keep away from my kids. That is simple. You can say it is safe to eat and not drink, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. I have lost too many people in my life to cancer. I am not looking to lose my kids to it.

            Seriously, we do not agree. You can cite all the research you want. I know that when I eliminate preservatives and pesticides from my food (and yes, organic food has pesticides, too, some are the same I use in my own garden, some are not, and most of my produce is locally grown by farmers I know to avoid the unknown source), I just feel better and have more energy. When I reintroduced them, I felt sluggish, tired and less productive. It is simple for me. I can keep eating food with pesticides and preservatives and feel like crap, or I can eliminate them and feel good. It would be pure insanity to keep eating them for me. I am not willing to sacrifice the way I feel, regardless of what studies say. I need all the energy I can get!

            Seriously, I respect that we are different. We are in the United States where we are free to lead our lives as we choose. It would be a shame if we were all exactly the same.

          • agscienceliterate

            No, we don’t “eat” pesticides with GE foods. Where did you get that bizarre idea? Ah, from Food Babe, right? (And what does the fact that Robyn O’Brien and Food Babe profit from fearmongering on the lecture circuit have to do with gay people marrying? Are you smoking organic marijuana?)
            You should definitely follow Food Babe and Robyn! They make lots of money from you, and you believe in them. What more do ya need?
            You pretty much said all there is to say when you said “…you can cite all the research you want….” Yeah, science is hard. Who cares about research? You have Food Babe and Robyn O’Brien! Cool! Research, schmearsearch. You know an anti-cancer thing when you see it. Good. Keep on doing it.
            Luckily, there are tens of thousands of foods clearly labeled in LARGE YUUUGE letters that say “organic” and “non-gmo certified.” That, plus the detoxifying snake oil that Food Babe sells, and the books that Robyn O’Brien sells, are all you need! You are totally free to choose whatever you wish to read, believe, and eat. Ain’t life grand?
            But you never responded to organic mutagenesis. How truly odd. Selective biases?
            Ain’t gonna cite no more research for ya. You don’t need it, read it, want it, or believe it. Go your own way, and may your food choices result in their predictable outcomes.

          • IJR

            Of course you sill not change your mind in the face of logic and reason.

        • agscienceliterate

          Oh, and nuts and gluten aren’t GE.
          And no, “eating pesticides” is not using pesticides as directed. Wow, you are a meanie. I don’t tell you to feed your children a gallon of straight (organic shade-grown) caffeine per day, because that would kill them. So no, I won’t “eat pesticides” even though I’m sure you would like me to do that.
          And the demand for GE products grows every year, dearie, not dwindling.
          But stay on the organic train. Please! They are only a $60 billion industry, so they need your help and support. Please eat organic and non-GMO certified, and help out the struggling organic industry, ok?
          You continue to voluntarily pay for being supremely punked — it is pretty amusing!

          • Kristin

            I like that you think the organic industry is struggling. Costco is financing farmers to go organic because they cannot keep up with the organic demand. Costco has 2 executives that opened a chain of organic fast food restaurants. The major food companies are all looking to buy the smaller organic companies. Kroger introduced their own organic line and, as of last year, their organic product sales alone were more than $11 BILLION. The Wall Street Journal, just last week, published an article that the major food companies are trying to eliminate ingredients from their products because the demand by customers is to have fewer ingredients. They are eliminating things like fructose corn syrup (from GMO corn crops) and other preservatives, many of which are derived from corn and soy GM crops. But, okay, I will keep supporting the “struggling organic industry”.

            You ARE EATING PESTICIDES WHEN YOU ARE EATING GM PRODUCTS. GM Corn is a REGISTERED PESTICIDE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. So, you can call me mean, but you are advocating the consumption of pesticides by promoting GM produce. They are designed to withstand high amounts of pesticides and the bugs they kill off are becoming immune to the pesticides, which has caused an increase of pesticide use to try to kill these bugs.

            I do not necessarily have an issue with GM produce. It is the pesticides they are covered in that I do have a problem with. So if you think you are not eating pesticides, I am floored that you would defend the position you are defending, but then again, I have seen your fact finding and reporting methods.

            One final thing…Monsanto has lost lawsuits by farmers because they were able to prove that their exposure to glyphosate caused their cancer (no link to all cancers, but a documented link to non-Hodgkins Lymphoma). I am not willing to consume products with that as a topping. While you should consider eliminating them, I respect that you do not share my beliefs. So, continue your GM food consumption and be happy.

          • agscienceliterate

            No, I was being sarcastic about the poor widdle $60 billion organic industry as “struggling,” and therefore needing your food dollar. They are doing pretty well for a 5% market niche. Keep supporting them, by all means! The poor guys need your dollar, and you are happy to give it to them. Maybe you can raise their market share to 5.1% !
            “GM corn is a registered pesticide…” Um, no. Where did you get that BS?
            GE crops are not “covered in pesticides.” Where did you get that BS?
            And stating your unsubstantiated beliefs in capital letters just underscores your desperation.
            The insects they repel through Bt technology are not becoming “immune” to the pesticides. Insect resistance is not a GE issue, but a farming best practice IPM issue. Look up “insect refuges.” Oh, I forgot; you are intellectually lazy and won’t look up anything that doesn’t come from Weil, Oz, Food Babe, Pollan, Mike Adams, or Robyn O’Brien.
            By the way, you do know that organic gardners use Bt, right? Instead of being built into the plant, though, like GE, it is sprayed on top. So non-target (innocent) insects are also killed.
            And no, Monsanto has not lost lawsuits to farmers because of alleged cancer from glyphosate. You got a citation on that? Thought not. Where do you get that BS?
            Oh, and do you seriously believe that organic food does not use pesticides? You are willingly blinded by your self-identified “passion for organic.”

            Oh, and question: You have a history of cancer in your family. Should you happen to get cancer in your own future, who or what are you going to blame? Organic, since that’s what you eat? If not, why not? And do you think Robyn wil be around to help you? Naaaah, she will be long gone on her money-making woo speaking tour. But I know you can buy some cancer-detox snake oil from Food Babe!! She will take a VERY great interest in you, oh, yes indeed. Look it up on her website.

            You continue to be seriously punked. Fine, your choice. But don’t try to spread it here cuz you wil be deluged by knowledgeable farmers, scientists, and plant breeders.

          • IJR

            You know nothing of pesticides or farming.

        • IJR

          I stopped reading after you gigantic lie at the end of the first paragraph.

          Did you know that 44% of foods labled organic are not actually organic?

          The are dozens of approved organic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides routinely used on organic crops. Since organic pesticides and the like are not as effective, they are often used at as much as 10x the rate of synthetic pesticides. Please do not think that your organic foods are not doused in chemical pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

          Organic foods have not been shown to be tastier or healthier.

          Go ahead and buy organic foods and eat those pesticides.

      • agscienceliterate

        Yeah. Let’s check her diabetes and cholesterol numbers in a few years.

      • Luanetodd

        Come on…there are organic flours in every health food store in the country and you can get most of the other ingredients for pasta, ice cream and waffles in those same stores…no General Mills required.
        What is your problem with breads in general since that is basically what waffles and pancakes are, just fast versions of biscuits.

        If you really are interested in a nutritionally sound way to use grains I suggest Nourishing Traditions cookbook from Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, RN as a source for very sound dietary guidance, especially in the best ways to prepare all foods but particularly the grains.

        From the review…
        ‘Topics include the health benefits of traditional fats and oils (including butter and coconut oil); dangers of vegetarianism; problems with modern soy foods; health benefits of sauces and gravies; proper preparation of whole grain products; pros and cons of milk consumption; easy-to-prepare enzyme enriched condiments and beverages; and appropriate diets for babies and children.’

        The side bars on each page provide additional information from a variety of qualified commenters.

    • agscienceliterate

      Hey, Kristin!
      Did you know that for every organic kale you buy at 2x the price of nonorganic kale, you are helping GE farmers everywhere? Yes, indeedy-do, you certainly are! Instead of just adding your $0.99 for “ordinary kale” into the economy, you have put $1.99 for SUPERORGANIC kale into the economy!
      And your thoughtful generosity helps hardworking farmers who grow healthy, sustainable GE crops have a better season, because they benefit from the healthy economy, can afford to buy the more expensive (but better producing) GE seeds and all the equipment that goes with it, and they can afford more easily to send their kids to college to become plant biologists, scientists, cancer researchers, physicians, and farmers for future generations.
      Wow! I bet you never thought about the ripple effect of your food dollar! (Well, dollars, in your case)
      Your expenditure of a greater number of dollars on organic food is a huge boon to GE farmers everywhere, Kristin. A YUUUGE boon. By helping the economy at 1.5x or 2x the rate of the rest of us, you are more than doing your share!
      Thank you!

  • jason cain

    I feel really bad for you, because your so misguided on this GMO/Organic food subject.

    • agscienceliterate

      And if she were “properly guided,” what would she be thinking instead? GMO bad, organic good?

    • IJR

      44% of food labled organic is not actully organic.
      Organic farming is not sustainable and bad for the environment.

      My yoga pants are binding up on me and my man bun is covered in dandruff.

  • Dr. Evan Scott

    Hey good for you, Feed them whatever you like, they are your kids not mine, why should I care if they drop dead. Just don’t spew your corporate chemical garbage in internet articles, if you want to live in a cave that’s your own deal, everyone else has a right to know how much poison they are eating. Sincerely Dr. Evan Scott

    • agscienceliterate

      “Poison”? Good Doctor, you ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.
      As for you? There are tens of thousands of products labeled organic and non-gmo certified, just for you. So what’s your beef?

      • Michael McCarthy

        He’s a dentist, what do you want?

  • Michael Edward Parker

    GMO has zero value i suggest you check out codex alimentarius with Dr remma the end of healthy food and the dangers of big farma and big aga hope this info will shine a light on the subject

    • RobertWager

      Funny even the European Science disagree with you:

      A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research 2001-2010

      Food Safety:

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

      “There is NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment
      than any other technology used in plant breeding…There
      is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy…It is
      vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in
      all its facets.” EASAC-Planting the Future report 2013

  • mikel archibald

    If you can afford fresh organic genetically unmodified food but don’t, just because you don’t like the kind of people who eat fresh, organic, genetically unmodified food, that may have nothing to do with parenting skills, but doesn’t sound very bright.