Vitamins, nutrients can be harder to find in organic, non-GMO foods

|

Health is a big reason people say they choose organic or non-GM foods over conventional versions. But is this really the case? Often activists make claims that studies show GMOs cause dangerous effects on human health like increases in allergies or cancers (see the discredited work by Gilles-Éric Séralini). Anti-GMO groups have long opined that genetic modification in food carries health risks. Meanwhile, others simply believe that by virtue of possessing an organic label, the food is inherently more nutritious than conventionally grown food.

On the other hand, many pro-GMO activists make the claim that GMOs have been thoroughly tested and found to be equivalent in nutrition and safety to organic food. The World Health Organization declared this while also acknowledging that concerns about possible health effects of GM foods have led to a safety assessment process quite unlike anything for conventional, non-GM foods.

Yet look around the supermarket, and compare organic, non-GMO, and conventional foods and you may find reason to question this thinking: Organic and non-GMO foods can be less healthy and nutritious than conventional foods. How did this happen?

Screen Shot 2016-05-03 at 11.34.11 AM

Via We Love GMOs and Vaccines blog

The National Organic Program (NOP) of the USDA and the private, non-profit Non-GMO Project both advertise the fact that any food under their labels is free from genetic modification. And a number of companies, including General Mills, makers of the Cheerios brand of cereal, include “no genetically modified ingredients” as part of their reasons for the food’s “wholesomeness.” On Cheerios’ website, the company declares:

Screen Shot 2016-05-03 at 11.27.24 AM

***Trace amounts of genetically modified (also known as “genetically engineered”) material may be present due to potential cross contact during manufacturing and shipping.

But a look at the labels of some foods (including Cheerios) before and after inclusion in the Non-GMO project or NOP shows a distinct change in nutrition. For a large number of products, the vitamin content dropped, and for some nutrients, disappeared altogether.

New, non-GMO Cheerios only lists riboflavin as meeting 2 percent of the minimum daily nutritional requirement (RDA) set by the US Food and Drug Administration, while the old, conventional version listed riboflavin as meeting 28 percent of the minimum RDA. This is also keeping in mind that currently, there are no genetically modified oats commercially available.

Cheerios-before-and-after

Via Food Navigator: Left is before and right is new GMO-free version

Post, the maker of Grape-Nuts, “no longer includes Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Riboflavin, and Vitamin B12,” a spokesperson told Food-Navigator USA.

Screen Shot 2016-05-03 at 11.31.59 AM

Some brands of salt (as in sodium chloride) now carry the Non-GMO Project label. While salt isn’t created by any enzymatic, protein-based or genetic process, and therefore can’t be genetically modified, the Non-GMO salt does lack one ingredient—iodine. This ion was included to prevent goiter and other metabolic disorders. While not the only source of iodide, kelp and soy are popular sources of the ion and can be made through genetically modified organisms.

Good nutrients are hard to find

The reasons for Vitamin and micronutrient losses appear to be a head-scratcher at first: why should moving to organic or non-GMO reduce vitamin content?

The answer is in the supply chain. Most vitamins are fortified in cereals and other foods—that is, they’re included from another sources during the manufacturing process. And the sources of these vitamins can largely come from genetically modified crops.

  • Vitamin C is expressed by genetically modifying corn, which itself has been modified by transgenic methods to resist pesticides or contain the Bt protein. So, that’s largely out.
  • Vitamin A is processed from soy, nearly all of which is genetically modified in the United States.
  • Riboflavin, xanthan gum, citric acid, and enzymes used in cheeses (90 percent of all rennet used to produce cheese is from GM fungi), breads and baked goods, alcoholic beverages, and juice are all made using genetically modified crops or microorganisms.

Under the National Organic Program, these fortifications are permitted for organic foods. But other, stricter programs like the Non-GMO Project, and even some organic vendors, don’t allow any ingredients that came from genetically modified sources. Even the NOP is facing criticism for allowing some GM micronutrients and fortifications.

Organic processors face GMO challenges with vitamins, says Brian Baker, research director, Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). According to the Organic and Non-GMO Report, Baker warned the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) about the rising use of GM-sourced vitamins:

The NOSB should be aware that a growing number of vitamins are produced using genetically engineered organisms, making it ever more necessary to develop natural and from organically produced and non-synthetic sources.

Supply chains aren’t easily changed. But as one commenter on the web asked, “What is the non-GMO seal worth?”

Andrew Porterfield is a writer and editor, and has worked with numerous academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @AMPorterfield.

  • Bruce Evans

    Could you take another look at the Cheerios labels. I think they may reversed. Isn’t the right label the gmo-free label? The caption under the labels seems backwards.

    • Good4U

      The caption reads as you suggested. What’s backwards?

  • RobertWager

    Today everything is supposed to be about “healthy” Yet the main stream media has completely ignored this reduced nutrition aspect of Non-GMO products. Why?

    • Mark Smith

      uhmmmm, because it’s a lie? The GMO movement has NEVER created a single crop that had equal or higher food values. They have never produced a single crop of greater nutritional value than the previous;. Robert, you can’t deny that without lying.

      • JP

        You’ve obviously never heard of Golden Rice, or beta-carotene fortified bananas, or the Plenish soybean from Pioneer with no trans fats, or a soybean from Monsanto with more O-3 oils. But OK.

        • Ken Gallaher

          Golden rice is a SCAM.
          It is not commercial anywhere

          • JP

            Not really.

          • agscienceliterate

            Says the yuppie who has full access to cheap, delicious, healthy food, and never had a hungry belly in his life. Let them eat cake.
            You know what, Ken? Don’t eat golden rice, then. Avoid the “scam.” Eat your non-GMO and organic. But do not deny healthy foods to others who are not as entitled and sanctimonious as you are.

          • Jason

            It’s a “scam” because it undermines your anti-gmo narrative. Nothing more.

          • agscienceliterate

            And why is it not commercially available? Because ignorant selfish anti-GE activists have intervened in its production. Look in the mirror. It is you who has contributed to the unavailability of Golden Rice for people much less advantaged than you are, people who could benefit from its health advantages.

      • Jason

        You REALLY should look this stuff up before sticking your foot in your mouth. Last week you claimed the “GMO movement” (whatever that is) had never produced a drought tolerant product and I immediately gave you a link to a GMO drought tolerant product.

        Now you make the claim they’ve never produced nutritionally enhanced crops and are immediately proven wrong again.

        • agscienceliterate

          Check out his looney posts. Mark is the guy who thinks it’s better for Trump to “burn it all down” than permit someone he doesn’t support as the winner. Arrogant, privileged entitled know-it-all activist who doesn’t give a damn about anyone else except himself. Whatta guy.

          • Jason

            He seems a bit fact challenged.

          • agscienceliterate

            Aw, who needs facts when one can use hyperbole, scare tactics, misinterpretation, outright lies, and corporate-loathing as lockstep Trump-think?

      • agscienceliterate

        Um, golden rice ring a bell?

      • J. Randall Stewart

        Low lignin alfalfa is entirely about nutrition and higher food value, nothing else.

    • Lucy7

      Nutrition is reduced because of the over-use of toxic herbicides by conventional/GMO farmers. But nothing more is expected of you Wager, you are full of lies and misinformation. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

      • Jason

        How so, Lucy? Do you have any evidence of this difference in nutrients?

        • Lucy7

          Was I talking to you? I was responding to Wager’s absurd and false comment.

          • Jason

            And I was responding to your absurd and false comment. So… where is the evidence that anything you said is true? You called him a liar and yet aren’t able to show that what you say is true.

            You know.. when you post in a public forum, you sort of need to expect that the public might reply.

          • Lucy7

            The difference between you and the public is that you are a paid industry troll who is seen often commenting on articles like this one. But of course this is your home-base since it is GLP. Wager and the article is full of lies, no doubt about that. Where is his proof of what he is saying? Right, he has none so why don’t you question him about that too. Soil is depleted of nutrients from continuous over-spray of pesticides so what do you think this means as far as nutrition goes for what is being grown? Think about that for a moment, if you can handle it. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/americas-polluted-diet-peter-greenlaw-dr-dennis-harper-peter-greenlaw

          • Jason

            Oh, how perfectly elitist of you. The only people that could disagree with your opinions are the ones paid to do so. After all…. how could YOU be wrong??

            Don’t flatter yourself. Now, again…. where is there any evidence that anything you’ve said is true? Please try not to deflect with a straw-man. I’m not concerned about whether Wager thinks the media is ignoring the topic. You made rather alarming claims, however. So…. Prove it.

            Show many any studies showing nutrient depletion as a result of pesticide spraying.

          • Lucy7

            The only people who disagree with unbiased facts and studies are people such as yourself who are payed and have industry interests.You are pro-GMO for a reason and it has nothing to do with sustainability, health or nutrition. You and your cronies couldn’t care less. You are a well-known fixture for these types of articles so stop pretending to be just the “public” who is just commenting lol http://www.ion.ac.uk/information/onarchives/soilmineraldepletion

          • Jason

            Who’s disagreeing with unbiased facts & studies? You made a claim and I am asking for evidence that it is true. I’m asking for these studies!!

            You stated that pesticides reduce the nutrient content of the soil and of the food. This article proves nothing of the sort. In fact, they claim that the blame lies with chemical fertilizers. Yet they never offer any suggestion as to how that could be possible. Interestingly, they also never show any data showing this to be any different in organic goods. Odd…. don’t you think?

            Why the name calling? I’m merely trying to get to the truth. I DO support GMOs. And I do support them primarily because they have moved the environmental needle in the right direction. I support them because they have direct sustainability benefits and because some also have direct health benefits.

            So, given that you can’t produce any evidence that backs up what you’ve claimed…maybe the question ought to be….why do you oppose them?

          • Lucy7

            You must have not read the article or you have issues with reading comprehension and understanding. Sorry to hear about your difficulties with these issues Jason. Maybe someone else can help you with that??
            Maybe this is a simpler read for you. Give it a try. https://www.soilassociation.org/media/4672/7-ways-to-save-our-soils-2016.pdf

          • JP

            None of the links you have posted support your claim.

          • Lucy7

            Only someone illiterate and who does not understand how pesticides which reduce the nutrient content in soil also reduces the nutrient content in crops. It’s all there, just read it, or don’t.

          • JP

            Already read ’em. They don’t say what you want them to say.

          • Jason

            Lucy, I asked for the text from your sources that supports your claims. You seem to have ignored that request. Why? I’m giving you the opportunity to show everyone that you are accurate with your assertions.

          • Lucy7

            Why should I provide anything to you? It’s a lost cause. You’ll just shoot it down and call it whatever you want, to discredit it. If it’s not industry spun pseudoscience from the biotech books, it’s an unreliable source lol. It is what you pro-GMO shills do.
            But here you go anyway. .

            Nutrient/Anti-nutrient/toxin(Glyphosate)
            http://www.gmofreeusa.org/research/glyphosate/glyphosate-studies/

            Bailey, W., Poston, D.H.,Wilson, H.P., Hines, T.E. 2002. Glyphosate interactions with manganese. Weed Technology 16, 792–799.

            Barberis CL, Carranza CS, Chiacchiera SM, Magnoli CE. (2013) Influence of herbicide glyphosate on growth and aflatoxin B1 production by Aspergillus section Flavi strains isolated from soil on in vitro assay. J Environ Sci Health B. 48(12):1070-9.

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03601234.2013.824223#preview

            Bellaloui N;Reddy KN; Zablotowicz RM; Abbas HK; Abel CA (2009) Effects of glyphosate application on seed iron and root ferric (III) reductase in soybean cultivars. J Agric Food Chem. 57(20):9569-74

            http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/19780538

            T. Bøhn, M. Cuhra, T. Traavik, M. Sanden, J. Fagan, R. Primicerio (2013) Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans Food Chemistry Available online 18 December 2013 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

            Bøhn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J. & Primicerio, R. 2014. Reply to Letter to the editor. Food Chemistry. Published online 27 August. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.08.042 .

            Bott, S., Tesfamariam, T., Candan, H., Cakmak, I., Roemheld, V., and Neumann, G. (2008) Glyphosate-induced impairment of plant growth and micronutrient status in glyphosate- resistant soybean (Glycine max L.). Plant Soil 312:185-194. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11104-008-9760-8

            Ismail Cakmak, Atilla Yazici, Yusuf Tutus, Levent Ozturk (2009) Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf concentrations of calcium, manganese, magnesium, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant soybean European Journal of Agronomy Volume 31, Issue 3, October, Pages 114–119

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1161030109000665

            S.Eker, L.Ozturk, A.Yazici, B.Erenoglu, V.Romheld, I. Cakmak I (2006) Foliar-applied glyphosate substantially reduced uptake and transport of iron and manganese in sunflower(Helianthus annuus L.) plants, J.Agric.Food Chem.54(26).PP1001910025. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17177536

            Barney Gordon (2007) Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans BETTER CROPS WITH PLANT FOOD Vol. XCI (91), No. 4

            http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/6023B2456D1CE559852573940017E6CF/$file/BC+2007-4.pdf

            Gordon, W.B. (2007) Does glyphosate gene affect manganese uptake in soybeans? Fluid J. Early Spring:12-13. http://www.fluidfertilizer.com/pastart/pdf/56P12-13.pdf.

            Huber, D. M., & Jones, J. B. (2013). The role of magnesium in plant disease. Plant and soil, 368(1-2), 73-85. http://swfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/hlb/database/pdf/00003075.pdf

            Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241

            Marrelli M, Tudisco R, Mastellone V, Conforti F. (2013) A comparative study of phytochemical composition of genetically and non-genetically modified soybean (Glycine max L.) and evaluation of antitumor activity. Nat Prod Res. 2013;27(6):574-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22455986

            Levent Ozturk, Atilla Yazici, Selim Eker, Ozgur Gokmen, Volker Römheld, and Ismail Cakmak, (2008) Glyphosate inhibition of ferric reductase activity in iron deficient sunflower roots, New Phytologist , 177:899-906. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179601

            Reddy, K. N.; Abbas, H. K.; Zablotowicz, R. M.; Abel, C. A.; Koger, C. H. (2007) Mycotoxin occurrence and Aspergillus flavus soil propagules in a corn and cotton glyphosate-resistant cropping systems Food Additives and Contaminants, Volume 24, Number 12, December , pp. 1367-1373(7) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tfac/2007/00000024/00000012/art00007

            Rui, Y., Wang, W., & Chen, L. (2010). Analysis of the composition and concentration of fatty acids in transgenic soybean (cp4-epsps1) oil. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 5(1), 7-10. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00003-009-0508-z#page-1

            Santos, J.B., Ferreira, E.A., Reis, M.R., Silva, A.A., Fialho, C.M.T., Freita, M.A.M. (2007) Avaliação de formulações de glyphosate sobre soja Roundup Ready Planta daninha vol.25 no.1 Viçosa Jan./Mar. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-83582007000100018&script=sci_arttext&tlng=in

            Ademar Pereira Serra, Marlene Estevão Marchetti, Ana Carina da Silva Candido, Ana Caroline Ribeiro Dias, Pedro Jacob Christoffoleti (2011) Influência do glifosato na eficiência nutricional do nitrogênio, manganês, ferro, cobre e zinco em soja resistente ao glifosato Cienc. Rural vol.41 no.1 Santa Maria http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-84782011000100013&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en=true

          • Jason

            Why do you keep coming up with excuses? You provided the sources. Not me…I assumed you had read them and found some part that supported your claims. All I asked was what that part was. Why is that so hard for you?

            Now… rather than simply posting what I had asked for, you’ve posted a string of references, some of which I can tell from the titles, have nothing to do with what we’re discussing.

            So…can you tell me what part or parts of these supplied studies supports your claims?

          • Lucy7

            Just as I thought

          • Jason

            You were also thinking that you hadn’t read any of these sources? Creepy.

            Lucy… If you can’t find anywhere in your own sources that supports your argument, then why would you think I could?

          • Jason

            Possibly I have misread. It wouldn’t have been the first time. Could you post the text from either document that backs up your claim?

          • agscienceliterate

            How very odd, Lucy. One would think farmers would have, um, noticed their soils being depleted, right? So, have they? Nope. That is why they buy GE seeds. Oh, and I suppose because I support biotech I am a shill, too, right? Hey, Lucy! Help me get some big buck$ from the $60 billion organic industry, because I am always telling people like you to eat organic and non-GMO certified. Do I get paid by both sides, ya suppose? My posts so brilliant that they are worthy of shill payment? (Awwww, thanks!). Do you really think GE seed companies need “shills” to sell their products? (Hint: they are doing very well.)

          • Garrett Osborn

            Many farmers see the effects/symptoms of poor soils, but may not understand the association. If farmers are having to protect their crops from insects, disease and manage certain species of weeds, there are shortcomings in the soil conditions. When magnified with weather stresses, additional inputs are necessary to salvage the crop.
            Pesticides and Fertilizers all have impacts to soil conditions, which are eventually reflected in crop health & nutrient profile.
            For example pesticide residues will impact the exchange capacity &/or nutrient availability in the soil, and will interfere with biological populations (some of which fix nitrogen or perform a variety of other functions). Synthetic N impairs the soil’s ability to accumulate carbon complexes. Depending on the soil properties, Potassium fertilizers can “age” the clay colloid, reducing the soils exchange capacity.
            We notice the depletion, but it is expensive to fix, compared to the rapid & economical band aids of GE, pesticides, and fertilizers.
            Until the consumer is prepared to pay for nutrient dense, quality food, GE crops & pesticides will be part of most farmer’s tool boxes.

            Mr. Stewart below seems to be quite successful, and must have good soil and management practices. Our experience is somewhat deteriorating in Saskatchewan, and I think we are about to hit a production “wall” where the cost of inputs can no longer be sustained when compared to returns (or the risk of realizing a return). Then we will be forced to take a soil based “cure” approach, rather than a “symptom fighting” based approach.

          • Lucy7

            Thank you Garrett

          • J. Randall Stewart

            I’m pro-GMO because I’m a farmer who has actually raised both types of crops.

            GMO crops are more sustainable, because they need fewer inputs.
            GMO crops can be more nutritious, because a trait such as low-lignin can be inserted into an already good alfalfa variety.

            I care a great deal about the direction of our planet’s resources, how we treat it, and how we manage it. I support GMO production because it produces more product using fewer inputs, which supports more people with a smaller footprint.

            I’m appalled by the misinformation being spread by the anti-GMO crowd.

            Do you have any actual GMO experience? I raise 70% non-GMO and 30% GMO. I’ve seen and experienced the difference first hand.

          • Good4U

            I read the site that you linked. It contains no data, absolutely zero, pertaining to nutritive component of foods with and without GMOs. The only “data” that it contains is a listing of soil nutrients up to 1991, which is well before any GMOs were even invented. The article contains a lot of rhetoric, but no data. I can read the same sort of thing in religious tracts and liturgical proclamations written in the 16th century. That was then, this is now. In the absence of any data, I must conclude that all of the others on this blog who have challenged you for data must be on the right track, and that you are in some sort of blind alley, wishing for the “good old days”. News flash: They weren’t so good. I was there. How old are you anyway?

          • Lucy7

            Well if this makes you feel better, here you go then and it is actually none of your business how old I am. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

          • Jason

            Lucy….did you read your source? It does not show, nor claim that gm or conventional soy are any less nutritious. It merely tries to say they are different. In fact, in much of the data, the gm and conventional were higher in the listed nutrient. In fact…the biggest distinction they seem to be making was that the gm soy had detectable residues of glyphosate and the others didn’t. To which most would say….. Duh.

            It might be time to accept that you’ve been lying to yourself.

          • Lucy7

            Haha, really?!? You’ve just been caught lying! You claim,”did you read your source? It does not show, nor claim that gm or conventional soy are any less nutritious.” ”

            Here is what it says.

            “Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile ”

            Here is the conclusion “organic soybean samples had a more profitable nutritional profile than industrial conventional and GM soybeans.”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

            I must invoke the Kevin Folta rule. Anyone caught flat-out lying, like you just have been, automatically loses the argument and all credibility! So you lose the argument and all credibility!

          • Jason

            Yes, Lucy… They claim that in the highlights. But read the study.

            Your claim has been that applications of pesticide reduce soil nutrients and therefore reduce nutrients in food. The section of your study that addresses this very issue states:
            “Conventional soybeans were observed to have superior nutrient and dry matter composition compared to glyphosate-treated GM-soybeans (Zobiole et al., 2012). In a review on this topic, however, conflicting results were found, with most studies indicating that mineral nutrition is not affected by glyphosate tolerance trait or application of glyphosate (Duke et al., 2012).”

            It directly contradicts the very claim you’re trying to use this as a reference for.

            They also seem to be making a claim of a better health profile solely on the protein content of the beans. They even state that the organic beans were significantly lower in Linoleic acid which is an essential fatty acid. Oddly, rather than stating that as a benefit of the non-organic beans, they explain it away by saying “a high and unbalanced intake (high omega 6 and low omega 3) is emerging as a risk factor for developing obesity.”

            They also state that This was however not supported by our data, where the selenium content was significantly lower in the organic soybeans compared to the GM and conventional soybeans.

            Why do you suppose they ignore or explain away the benefits, yet highlight the disadvantages?

            And could you explain what a “profitable nutritional profile” is?

          • Lucy7

            Haven’t I already proven you a liar? You specifically said they didn’t claim something which they clearly did! You have already lost all credibility so there is no point trying to explain a study to you that you have already been caught lying about. Since it is already obvious that you are a liar and it is pointless to respond to you since you will just continue to lie, I’ll just leave this here for anyone else who might be reading and who is not a troll. “Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile with more sugars, such as glucose, fructose, sucrose and maltose, significantly more total protein, zinc and less fiber than both conventional and GM-soy. Organic soybeans also contained less total saturated fat and total omega-6 fatty acids than both conventional and GM-soy.” ” The organic samples contained significantly more total protein compared to both the GM-soy and conventional soy (p < 0.01, ANOVA, Tukey correction), which was also reflected with a higher content of the indispensable amino acids (IAAs). There was significantly lower content of 18:2n−6, and sum saturated fats in the organic soybean material. There were no significant differences in the 18:1n−9 (monounsaturated) or the 18:3n−3 (Omega 3) fatty acids between the three groups." The content of Zn was significantly higher in the organic samples compared to the conventional and GM samples (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively, ANOVA, Tukey correction). Other differences were relatively small " , etc. They explain why the fat difference is a disadvantage for GE soy. " The organic soybeans had significantly higher levels of total protein and lower levels of linoleic acid LA (18:2n−6) and palmitic acid PA (16:0). Soybeans are a major dietary source of LA and although LA is an essential FA, a high and unbalanced intake (high omega 6 and low omega 3) is emerging as a risk factor for developing obesity. We also show that GM-soy had a significantly higher level of PA, a saturated FA, compared to organic soybeans. EFSA has concluded that saturated fatty acids intake should be as low as possible within the context of nutritionally adequate diets."

            Of course you just want to deny & lie about this as usual. Since they clearly explained why this is a disadvantage, which anyone with even a remote understanding of nutrition, already knows it is quite clear why they rightfully show this is a disadvantage. You just want to ignore the evidence and try to cover for your lie. You have clearly been exposed as a liar and the Kevin Folta rule has been invoked. You were already exposed as a liar and have lost all credibility. This is typical of the anti-science such as you.

          • Jason

            Deny and lie? You provided this study as a source to back up your assertion that pesticide applications reduce soil nutrients and therefore food nutrients. Not only does it not say that, it directly contradicts that.

            They say that organic has the “healthiest profile” but never state what that means. Again…look at their data. Organic was better on some, conventional on some and gm on some. Apparently, a “healthier profile” is merely being defined as whatever the organic happens to be higher in. Why do you suppose that is? And why do you suppose their samples never included the same beans across productions systems? If you really want to test the impact of the system, wouldn’t that be the way to do it?

            Now….what was that you were saying about lying? And what’s your fascination with Kevin Folta?

          • Lucy7

            Once again you lie. You can’t stop lying because that is all you have. Look at the statistically significant differences you idiot. I realize you are science illiterate, but it is quite clear that organic has the healthier nutrient profile as this was explained to you over and over you still continue to Deny & lie. Compulsive liars do this. You keep repeating the same lie as if it will make it true. In fact, you even proved you lied! You initially claimed, “did you read your source? It does not show, nor claim that gm or conventional soy are any less nutritious.” Now you say, “Yes, Lucy… They claim that in the highlights.” So you admit you lied. Yet, even your admission contains lies! They don’t just mention it in highlights, they mention it throughout, from the abstract to the conclusion. You are an anti-science liar and you’ve been exposed for the fraud that you are. Stop wasting my time.

          • Jason

            You seem more focused on trying to show that I lied than supporting your own argument. Are you saying you didn’t claim that pesticide applications reduced soil and food nutrients? Are you saying that you didn’t post several pieces of evidence, none of which backed up your claim? I’ve asked you many times to pick the section of any one of your sources that backs up what you’ve claimed and every single time you decline. Is that a lie?

            Why are you trying so hard to change th subject, Lucy?

          • Lucy7

            You are just too stupid to understand anything. Playing “the game” is your specialty. Nobody is trying to change the subject but you. F.O!!!!

          • Jason

            Lol… You’re not trying to change the subject!? And you’re trying to call me a liar??

            What’s even more hilarious is someone that makes the ridiculous claims that you make calling other people stupid! Wow… You’re a legit whack-job.

          • hyperzombie

            Wow an anti GMOer that is also a math denier.. So funny. They are so funny, they dont even read their own cites. Comedy gold.

          • Lucy7

            I’m focusing on you since you are such a liar. As I have said before, there is no point in arguing with a liar because you lie then get caught in another lie and then lie again. It is a never ending cycle of me proving you’ve lied over and over and it’s just a huge waste of my time. This is why I invoke the Kevin Folta rule. You have been caught flat out lying and therefore you lose the argument and all credibility. You have proven yourself to be a compulsive liar and since your credibility is completely lost, there is no point in wasting any more of my time with you and your gosh darned lies.

          • Jason

            No need to argue, Lucy. I just asked you to post proof of your claims. The only one arguing seems to be you. For some reason, you refuse to give any evidence, what so ever, that anything you’ve claimed is actually true. And for some reason you seem to be trying to blame me for that.

            Why is that? If what you say is true, wouldn’t it be easier just to show the evidence?

          • agscienceliterate

            She can’t.
            And, seriously — “Kevin Folta rule” ?? Ya gotta be kiddn’ me.

          • Jason

            I think she thinks it’s clever.

          • Lucy7

            I have shown you enough evidence but you are just too daft to understand or pretend to be and continue to lie about it. The brainwashing is astounding. Good luck!

          • Jason

            Oh!? You’ve shown enough evidence? Then you should have no trouble pasting the portion out of any one of them (feel free to choose) that supports the claim that pesticidee sprays reduce the soil nutrients and food nutrients. Right?

            After all…you would want people to think you’re lying, would you?

          • Lucy7

            If you are so fixated with finding the exact wording of what I’ve said, look for it yourself. But anyone with enough brains and intelligence would see this information with all the evidence I have provided. You are the liar here Jason.

          • JP

            Lucy: *posts study*

            Jason: “This study doesn’t say what you want it to say and here’s why.”

            Lucy: “LIAR!!!”

            Brilliant.

          • Lucy7

            You’re all such morons! Get over yourselves already. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/

          • agscienceliterate

            Poor Lucy. Must be very hard to deal with morons who actually expect you to substantiate what you thoughtlessly and carelessly hurl out as “evidence.” (Not). You know what? I can tell you where you can post, where you will never be asked to substantiate wild bogus claims. Food Babe website, Mercola, Dr. Oz. Not only will they not actually ask you to substantiate your ridiculous clams, you will get lots and lots of “likes” for your posts. You will dig that, right, Lucy? Much better for you over there. Here, you’re just gonna get folks like us who actually think for ourselves and who are adept at analysis and critical thinking. Too bad, so sad.
            Oh, and stick to organic. Please. And non-GMO certified. Perfect foods for you!

          • Jason

            But Lucy… I’ve tried looking for it myself. I can’t find anything that supports what you have said. It’s almost as if you made it up out of thin air.

            And yet… here I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking you to show me what I must have missed. Given that you have refused to do that many times, I’m left with no other option than to assume you are lying.

          • Lucy7

            No you haven’t. More lies! Just keep lying to yourself Justin, it’s all your type do.

          • Jason

            Well, It looks like we’re about done here. You’ve made it obvious to anyone reading this thread that you made up everything you’ve said. You haven’t been able to produce a single source that backs you up . All the while making up excuses as to why and calling everyone else a liar.

            It’s pretty obvious who’s the factually challenged one here. You have a nice day!

          • Lucy7

            No, you just suffer from denialism and you are a compulsive liar.

          • Jason

            OK, Lucy. You just keep telling yourself that.

          • agscienceliterate

            Lucy, please. Just go take your toys and play in the sky with diamonds. Your rudeness to people asking you to substantiate your woo is immature, and ridiculous. You sound like a petulant little drama queen who is used to tossing her pigtails and saying “Well, I said it, and if you don’t agree, you’re a moron and a liar.” So unattractive. So much fitting the profile of high school science class flunkie. You’re not convincing people of anything except of your jejune dearth of perspicacity.

          • Lucy7

            I am sorry that you also have difficulties finding the very obvious information in which I have clearly provided here. Not only do you like to put people down and call them names, you also deny, lie and twist things to make yourselves look credible while making others like myself, look like the liar in which this is not true. You people do this in every article which pertains to GMOs etc. It’s probably how you’ve alI been trained. I am not here to convince you morons of anything. There is no convincing your type since you have all been brainwashed. Good luck with that and please stop responding, this is redundant. For anybody else reading through these comments who is not a part of the biotech brigade, here you go: http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16688-genetic-literacy-project-accused-of-unethical-practices & http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16722-jon-entine-the-chemical-industry-s-master-messenger

          • JP

            I think anybody else reading the comments will see how you’ve acted and form opinions accordingly.

          • Lucy7

            Dr. Evil. You are all supervillains! https://youtu.be/N9Yh560PoVI

          • JP

            This is just slightly amusing at this point.

            Where will this tantrum go next?

          • agscienceliterate

            Oh for Pete’s sake Lucy. GM watch is an organic anti-GE propaganda machine. You don’t even recognize that?! Stick to your pseudoscience sites. Stick to your organic, stick to your non-GMO certified, and leave the rest of us to established credible science. Take your name calling (“moron,” “liar”) somewhere else. Your posts are a joke.

          • Lucy7

            You mean “pseudoscience” which does not equate to credible science. Good luck with that!

          • agscienceliterate

            Lucy, you have been given scientific citations over and over and over, you have been asked to justify your incredulous claims and you refused to do so and respond with insults, you call people morons and liars and brainwashed if they do not agree with you, you impugn that everyone who disagrees with you is paid to do so, and you post pseudoscience lobbying sites paid for by the $60 billion organic industry.
            As Farmer Sue says , “Your mind is slammed shut tighter than a hog’s ass at fly time.”
            We are done.

          • Lucy7

            And I hope the organic industry thrives more and more each year! It is all we need. It actually sounds like “your mind is slammed shut tighter than a hog’s ass at fly time” Good-bye!

          • JP

            *Screams “liar!” and “stupid!” at anyone that disagrees with her*

            *Insinuates others are close-minded*

            Boy, anti-biotechnology slacktivist hypocrisy is fun.

          • Lucy7

            You are not disagreeing with me lol. I did not make up the references and studies that I have shared here with you and anyone with half a brain can see that. You are disagreeing with science not spun by biotech. Huge difference.

          • JP

            No, you did not make up the studies. But you have made up your own conclusions independent of what the studies actually say, and when presented with that fact, you’ve stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed “liar!” as if just saying it makes it so.

            You are a picture perfect example of the lengths your ilk will go to not have to examine their own preconceived notions.

          • Lucy7

            No. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand what I have shared. You probably didn’t even read any of it. lol What you assume does not make it true.

          • JP

            OK, you keep throwing your temper tantrum and telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

          • agscienceliterate

            As Farmer Sue used to say (where is she by the way? Probably working 15-hour farm days feeding ungrateful and entitled people like Lucy – thank god for our hardworking farmers):
            “Her mind is slammed shut tighter than a hog’s ass at fly time.”
            No amount of explaining or being rational will affect her conclusions, her misrepresentations, and her twisting of science. After awhile, all one can say is “Eat organic, Lucy. Eat non-GMO certified. Convince yourself you are getting better nutrients. Whatever. Just stay away from my food choices.”

          • Jason

            I don’t know what or where she farms, but if it’s here in the Midwest, you’re probably right about 15hr days. The prime planting window is closing fast!

          • First Officer

            Lousy study to determine nutrient differences between the two groups. We know nothing about the soils they were grown in. Ya can’t have zinc, for instance in your crop if it isn’t there to be absorbed from in the first place.

          • hyperzombie

            Lucy 7, did you read this study? How do you feel about the fact that most of the organic soy was from Big Ag?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            While I do not like many of the products Monsanto produces, I do like one thing they do, and that is their use of a seed chipper in plant breeding, which they use to chip little piece of seed and test if it has genetic traits they are looking for. I absolutely love this idea for plant breeding because it saves so much time in breeding plants that have your desired traits. Monsanto uses tried and true traditional breeding methods in combination with their seed chipper and genetic analysis to obtain the best soy. Then, after they have superior soy seed, they genetically modify it to be Roundup ready, which I believe is an absolutely useless trait. Nevertheless, I do have to give them credit for the seed chipper in combination with genetic analysis, to sort through thousands of seeds quickly and identify useful and desirable traits without the need to grow out the seeds.

          • hyperzombie

            I am not a soy farmer, but I think Monsanto doesn’t breed much soy. I believe that they buy the soy genetics from Stine Seed.
            they genetically modify it to be Roundup ready, which I believe is an absolutely useless trait.”

            Well you think it is useless because you are not a farmer. Farmers think it is a great trait, same with the LibertyLink trait.

            The “seed chipper” does not produce any traits, it can only identify them.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I know the seed chipper does not produce any traits. Monsanto uses traditional breeding methods to induce mutation in plants, which produces many new traits, both desirable and undesirable, and the seed chipper used to determine if plants have desirable traits.

          • hyperzombie

            Monsanto uses traditional breeding methods”

            I think you need to look up Modern plant breeding, there is far more to it than mutation breeding and GMO.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I am interested in learning more about modern plant breading, but when I google searched it and found page on Monsanto’s website, that I assume you are referring to, they just talked about using traditional breeding in combination with the seed chipper.

          • hyperzombie

            Well you didn’t look very hard, start with wiki and use the citations at the bottom of the page to expand knowledge.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Thanks, I ended up finding more modern breeding methods, but they were all methods I was familiar with. I had been hoping to find a totally new method that I was not aware of. I did end up learning more about polyploidy, and the chemical Colchicine, which is used to induce polyploidy in plants, also happens to be used in humans as an anti-inflammatory agent and for treatment of gout.

          • hyperzombie

            I ended up finding more modern breeding methods”
            Zinc Finger? Crispr? Cell rescue?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Yes, I think Crispr has the most potential out of those you mention, and I am especially excited about Crispr potential to modify humans for increased lifespan and intelligence. I do think products produced with Crispr, even products created without foreign DNA, should be regulated by the government and have safety studies done on them, especially this first generation of products that are being produced now with this method. While I think it is unlikely, I do think there is small possibility that product created using Crispr without foreign DNA could produce some toxin or allergen or cause some unforeseen environmental issue.

          • hyperzombie

            Crispr potential to modify humans for increased lifespan and intelligence.”
            i think using it to help folks with genetic disorders would be a far better use of the tech.
            I do think products produced with Crispr, even products created without foreign DNA, should be regulated by the government and have safety studies done on them, especially this first generation of products that are being produced now with this method.”

            Why? Did you not read and understand how it works? It would be far less risky than conventional breeding especially mutagenic breeding.

            I do think there is small possibility that product created using Crispr without foreign DNA could produce some toxin or allergen and cause some unforeseen environmental issue.

            There is a small possibility that anything could happen. This goes for everything.

            I would guess the risk of something bad happening is about as great as Bernie Sanders becoming a Gay Pornstar+/- a bit. It could happen, but it is very unlikely.

          • hyperzombie

            Crispr potential to modify humans for increased lifespan and intelligence.”
            i think using it to help folks with genetic disorders would be a far better use of the tech.
            I do think products produced with Crispr, even products created without foreign DNA, should be regulated by the government and have safety studies done on them, especially this first generation of products that are being produced now with this method.”

            Why? Did you not read and understand how it works? It would be far less risky than conventional breeding especially mutagenic breeding.

            I do think there is small possibility that product created using Crispr without foreign DNA could produce some toxin or allergen and cause some unforeseen environmental issue.

            There is a small possibility that anything could happen. This goes for everything.

            I would guess the risk of something bad happening is about as great as Bernie Sanders becoming a Gay Pornstar+/- a bit.

          • Peter Olins

            “…help folks with genetic disorders…”

            You mean, like deleting the stupidity gene? But that would eliminate 99% of comments on Disqus—and one of my main sources of entertainment.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I agree that it would most likely be less risky than mutagen breeding, but no one can say for sure that it is 100% safe to use crispr without foreign dna to produce a product because there have not been enough studies on products produced with the method to determine that. It is totally reasonable to do some safety studies on the first generation of cripsr products, and it is reckless not do to do.

          • Peter Olins

            There are only two things that are certain: death and taxes.

            Anyone with half a brain could come up with hypothetical reasons why every single food we eat might have unexpected safety issues. If you want to live in a totally predictable world, your coffin awaits you.

            Now, if you have a specific concern about this SPECIFIC technology, fine, let’s discuss.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I agree that nothing is 100% safe, but when talking about releasing new products for sale to the public created through new genetic modification technique then I think that people like and expect to know that there have been at least minimal safety studies done on the product, so that they don’t feel like human guinea pigs. As I said before, I think crispr is exciting and has more potential for producing desirable traits than many other breeding method. I think that doing the minimal safety studies on the first generation of crispr produced products will ultimately lead to more widespread acceptance of crispr products by consumers.

          • agscienceliterate

            No one can statistically show anything to be 100% safe. Go back to your science and statistics classes.

          • hyperzombie

            Nothing is 100% safe.

          • agscienceliterate

            Contact your local Ag extension office affiliated with your local university, if they have one. They often have great information.
            Also:
            http://www.biotecharticles.com/Agriculture-Article/Modern-Plant-Breeding-Methods-in-Agriculture-859.html

            There are many articles on modern breeding systems.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Thanks

          • Good4U

            Lucy, I’ve now read the Bohn article that you linked above. Thanks for providing that link. I can see why you might believe (based on this article) that there is something about “organic” soybeans that could be different from either conventional or GM soybeans. Take protein for example; here are the values published in this article:
            GM: 34.6%
            conventional: 34.3%
            organic: 36.3%
            Thus the three groups vary only by 2% in protein levels. The reason that these minor differences were significant in the statistical analysis was that the variability within the three sample groups was quite low, evidenced by the standard deviation (SD) values. Keep in mind that statistical significance does not equate to biological significance; there would be no real difference in animal nutritional values for the protein contents among any of the three groups.
            As for potential adverse effects, you might want to pay attention to the barium levels among the three groups:
            GM: 6.4 parts per million
            conventional: 6.2 parts per million
            organic: 11.0 parts per million
            These differences were also statistically significant. I do not know whether the 72% higher barium levels in the organic group would be at toxic levels, but barium is not a “friendly” element in terms of human toxicity. You might want to look into that before choosing organic soybeans for your diet.

            Again, I can see why you might have been interested in this subject, however in order to fully understand whether there are truly any nutritional benefits from GM soybeans I think you might need to undertake some wider ranging studies on this subject. If you choose to do so, I would encourage it. Meanwhile, my advice is to not overreact to polemic rhetorical pieces that you might find on the websites that you have posted previously. They exist solely to monger fear about modern agricultural practices that have been proven through rigorous testing over many decades to produce nutritionally complete and healthy food. The intent of the “organic” marketeers is of course to gain market share by scaring consumers.

          • Peter Olins

            Lucy — Your article claims that,

            “…there are no more trace minerals in our food.”

            And yet, contrary to all expectations, I am still alive.

            I guess I got all my minerals while I was still a fetus. (Coincidentally, it’s Mothers’ Day today).

          • Jason

            Not to nit-pick…. But Mother’s Day is tomorrow. ;)

          • Peter Olins

            Sorry for the declining brain function. Probably a consequence of chronic mineral deficiency. Perhaps Lucy7 was right, after all. ;~)

      • agscienceliterate

        Did you even read the article, Lucy? Did you notice the difference in nutrition? But you should stick to the non-GMO certified, despite its lesser nutrition. You will be much happier that way. Believe me.

  • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

    People don’t like GMO’s due to the mass sterilization pesticides cause.

    Look up multi generation studies where glyphosate causes major birth defects and sterilization. you should repent for your genocidal rhetoric.

    • Jason

      Could you provide any evidence of these claims? And you are aware that non-GMO crops also use pesticides, and in many cases more…right?

      • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/
        http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n
        after 3 generations of using Glyphosate or so, in every major study animals have birth defects and go sterile. Glyphosate is not used on non gmo crops. I avoid all pesticides anyways.

        • Jason

          C’mon… really? You sent over two Seralini studies, neither of which are animal studies and neither of which show any sterility or birth defects.

          Let me pose this to you… presumably the people and animals that are exposed to glyphosate in the largest volumes are farm workers (applicators) and livestock which subsist on an almost entirely GMO based feed ration.

          And yet… neither of these groups suffer from any of the issues that you have described. How could that be?

        • agscienceliterate

          “I avoid all pesticides anyways.” Um, then what do you eat? You ARE aware of the USDA-approved pesticides, some quite nasty, approved for organic foods, right? You must be a very hungry boy.

        • agscienceliterate

          So strange that the livestock ranchers haven’t even noticed. One thinks they sorta would have observed this amaaaaaazing phenomena, right?

        • Pogo333

          Neither of those two Seralini studies state what you claim. Neither is favorable to glyphosate, but they are cell line and culture studies that are interesting, but must always be followed by in vivo studies to validate what is happening in a normal cellular matrix and context. Can you reference studies that found sterility and birth defects?

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            Look at the rest of my comments.I don’t need to spell it out for everyone after making my case. Cheers. .

          • Pogo333

            I did. The pig “study” is merely a survey of malformed pigs for glyphosate. There is no experimental component to it. A farmer takes a group of 38 malformed piglets to a lab for analysis and suspects glyphosate. The lab folks assay various tissues and find glyphosate residues in all of them. The sows that birthed the piglets are never considered. There is no sampling of normal piglets from the same farm to see whether or not they had glyphosate residues (and presumably these malformed piglets were the exception at that farm, but we don’t know that). No other compounds were screened. No mention of the frequency of piglet malformation from that farm. What we do learn from that paper is that 38 malformed piglets at that farm had glyphosate residues in them. That’s all. There is nothing there that can be taken further to say that glyphosate was the cause of malformation. Glyphosate was the only thing tested, and healthy piglets and mother sows were never tested. The only reason the paper was published is because they put it in an Omics journal that has no peer review and will publish anything as long as the authors pay. It tells us nothing meaningful.

            The frog/chicken embryo study is little better, and likewise lacks very important details for evaluating. How were the controls treated – dummy injection, no injection? Sample sizes? What were the dosages (what on earth is “430 mm of glyphosate”?) and formulations used? What was the incubating solution? And it goes on and on. That is a poorly written report and the “study” itself has yet to see the light of day. Had it been as significant as it presumes, and as authoritative as you imply, there are many journals that would have snapped it up. Something smells very funny with this one.

            So, do you have any good references on birth defects? And you have presented no evidence at all on sterility, despite your claims that glyphosate also causes that.

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            Look closer.

          • JP

            Pogo seems to have looked significantly closer than you considering he/she can actually speak to the study methods and findings instead of just your insistence that the studies say what you want them to say.

          • agscienceliterate

            Otherwise known as Trump talk. Meaningless pontificating babble.

          • Pogo333

            At what, exactly? What am I missing? Perhaps you can tell me what “430 mm of glyphosate” means? Strange way of expressing a dose – using a unit of length – don’t you think?

          • agscienceliterate

            Maybe he is lining up drops of glyphosate in a row – ? 430 mm long?
            I love it when people post stuff from pay-for-play journals and try to pass it off as “science.”

    • agscienceliterate

      My goodness. “Mass sterilization a….” Strange we haven’t noticed. But then, you haven’t posted any citations.
      Advice, Eeamonn … You should stick to organic and non-GMO certified. You will be a lot happier. And, while you do, please stay far away from legit science, and from my own food choices.
      Repent I shall not, but thank you for your evangelistic interest in my afterlife.

      • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/
        http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n
        it takes 3 generations or so.

        so when your an old man you will see the soft kill genocide of the majority of humanity and the dawn of the GMO humans.
        its not a christian hell i think would be appropriate going to for advocating GMO, but a hellish planet in the next life.
        Welcome to hell on earth.

        • agscienceliterate

          You are seriously citing the debunked Seralini in pay-for-play journals for citations? Well, at least I know where you are getting your woo.
          You should avoid GE foods and “save” yourself. Repent. Eat organic and non-GMO certified. (And no, the $60 Billion organic industry is not paying me to tell you to eat organic.)

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin
          • JP

            For these studies:

            -The first one doses the rats with FAR higher amounts of glyphosate than could be considered even worst-case scenario for residue levels. Indeed, the abstract even states “These doses do not correspond to human exposure levels.”
            – The second one incubated embryos with herbicide. If you don’t see how that is not applicable to real life, there’s not much I can do to help you.

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-in-malformed-piglets-2161-0525.1000230.php?aid=27562

            http://nfuontario.ca/upload/files/userfiles/12542-lab-study-establishes-glyphosate-link-to-birth-defects.pdf

            “Here we show that glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells
            within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with
            agricultural use”
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/
            http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-in-malformed-piglets-2161-0525.1000230.php?aid=27562
            Malformed pigs found with Glyphosate in their blood.
            its like you have cognitive dissidence, “glyphosate causes birth defects for sure, But I’m positive the amount i like to eat is good for me.”

          • agscienceliterate

            Um, it’s “cognitive dissonance,” but keep protesting with your “dissidence.” Hilarious! “Cognitive dissidence,” yeah! Haha!

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            So you agree you lost the debate, but you laugh it off because I misspoke. feel like repenting?

          • agscienceliterate

            “Lost”? Nope. I stand by my science. You can stand behind whatever woo pseudoscience you choose. You can eat whatever you choose. Keep dissidence-ing! Hahaha!

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            than respond to my rebuttal instead of cowardly going after my character.

          • Good4U

            We’re not going after your character, such as it is. We are not interested in your character. We only rebuff your lying. There are no sterile pigs, or deformed hearts, or cancerous growths, from being exposed to glyphosate. No one “knows” about those things except you, thus no one agrees with you. You can take your “organic” slop, go home and eat it now.

          • Jason

            Youre really scraping the bottom of the barrel here! The pig study makes no claims at all that glyphosate caused anything.

            Your second link isn’t a study at all. In fact, the bulk of its sources are articles from GW Watch. C’mon… You can do better.

            And you rat study purposely tested unrealistically high doses. In other words…who cares?

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            oh… my…. god. I’ve been wrong this whole time, this whole time, i have nothing to worry about because instead of 3 generations we may have 5 generations. Monsanto know from the 90s that glyphosate causes sterilization, and they knew that in smaller doses it would cause dilated hearts.
            Nice play of words but they do suggest their is a connection. “The detection of such glyphosate concentrations in these
            malformed piglets could be an allusion to the cause of these congenital
            anomalies”

            No one here is denying it causes sterilization, the question is how much and how long.

          • Jason

            You should have just stopped at “…been wrong this whole time.” It would have been the first time you were right.

            And yes….pretty much everyone but you is denying it causes sterilization…. Including most every regulatory agency that’s ever reviewed it. But ya…. who’s counting?

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            People in this conversation agree that large doses of glyphosate causes sterilization. That is a not really up for debate. Low doses according to Monsanto causes dilated hearts after a few generations. No one denies that. When a pig was fed high doses of glyphosate it gave birth to deformed piglets.
            I am pretty sure you have better things to do than advocate for Monsanto. Monsanto and your government are in bed together.

          • JP

            Oh, good grief. And now the Argumentum ad Monsanto comes out.

          • agscienceliterate

            What “people”? What sterilization documentation? You think pig and other livestock farmers wouldn’t, um, notice their expensive livestock going belly-up and having deformed offspring?
            “That is not really up for debate.” Um, if it’s woo, yes it is.

          • Jason

            You keep saying that, but there are no people in this conversation that have agreed with anything you have said.

            I’m not advocating for anyone in particular. I’m advocating for the truth. How about you?

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            How many corroborating studies do you need. Give up this motivated reasoning and and consider the potability that you might be wrong. can you show me one multi generation study that says different, I just gave you 4 out of many.

          • agscienceliterate

            http://www.genera.biofortified.org
            Close to 1800 studies good enough fer ya? Naaaah, didn’t think so.

          • agscienceliterate

            Oh, just one. One peer-reviewed study.

          • Jason

            How about a review including 900 studies on glyphosate?

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

            Allow me to make it easy for you: “In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR 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. “

        • agscienceliterate

          “…The Dawn of the GMO Humans…” Great title for my next sci-fi comic book! Hilarious!

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            Look up SETI, the head scientist predicts that super computers are going to revolutionize GM and we are not going to recognize humanity by the time 80 years go by. It is a valid and possible theory if we have no ethics surrounding GM.
            We know glyphosate causes birth defects, like heart dilation at low doses, and quick sterilization at higher doses. you haven’t even made an argument. Well a pig was accidentally given high doses, and it offspring was all deformed. so it has already begun.

          • agscienceliterate

            No citation then? Despite many queries to show proof? Just your claim about “a pig” somewhere? You gotta do better than that, if you’re trying to make an argument based on science. One last time: do you or do you not have any scientific citations for your outrageous claims? If not, everything you say is just speculative woo and you will not be worth responding to in the future. So, post a citation. Otherwise, SETI will indeed confirm that indeed there is very little intelligent life on your planet.

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            You seem well spoken but you are not clearly very intelligent, i already posted the link and referred to the deformed piglet with High levels of glyphosate. You are a big boy, you can find it. My argument is based on observation and logic. Monsanto knew since the 80s that it caused sterilization and birth defects at high doses, and heart dilation at small doses. Studies have already been done and if you don’t remember them than that’s you gaslighting.

          • agscienceliterate

            Goodbye, Eeamonn.

          • Peter Olins

            I assume that you are referring to that abomination of a paper from the Kruger group:

            http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-in-malformed-piglets-2161-0525.1000230.pdf

            Care to speculate how a new-born piglet could have 80 ppm glyphosate in its tissues?

    • J. Randall Stewart

      Not accurate. Our dairy cows have been eating GMO crops for many generations, and are more fertile now than in the past.

      What you claim has not happened on our farm, or on the many farms similar to mine who use GMO feed.

      • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

        Hey, I hope your doing well Mr Stewart. In one of my links, there is a piglet filled with glyphosate and it was deformed. Monsanto knew since the 80s that high doses of glyphosate causes these things, and lower doses cause heart dilation after generations. There are many studies that prove that glyphosate causes sterilization in high doses, its the invisible poison. soft kill. There are other things giving people birth defects and it is occurring more frequently as of late. I am sure you have compassion for you cattle, and i am sure you find clone cows repugnant to an ethical society. poison is poison, all the research has not been done, but don’t base your believe system on doubt.

        • J. Randall Stewart

          These things are simply not happening.

          My animals are more healthy than ever. They are more productive than ever.

          Like most farmers, I’m also healthy, as is my family. All around me and on my farm, our parents are still working even into their 80’s

          The sky is only falling on activist web sites, right here at ” ground zero ” we’re fine, and our animals are doing well.

          • Eamonn Riel David Glavin

            Your cattle, more than likely have dilated hearts according to Monsantos own research on low doses of glyphosate and other sources. Nice to hear that your parents are healthy but i do not see how it is relevant to the research. If glyphosate levels increase, which they have before in the piglet than you can expect deformities like in every study done on multi generations of high glyphosate levels. You may feel like there is nothing going on, but just because you haven’t seen anything YET, means that the levels of glyphosate haven’t been significant enough for it to be obvious. compare their hearts to a heritage cow that ate pasture grass.
            Thanks and good luck!

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Unless you have your own cattle (in your own study, or raising then) you’re guessing, or trusting someone else.

            I have my own cattle, grazing, grass fed beef and conventional dairy. I can actually compare.

            We also do a post mortem on any animal that died too early.

            We do find problems. Real problems that we correct. I can give examples of you wish.

            What you are claiming is unheard of in the real world.

            Who ever you are believing is jerking your chain pretty hard. Your sources are inaccurate.

            Do you have your own livestock to confirm these wild stories you’re repeating?

            The stories are wrong. You are being made the fool by believing them.

          • Peter Olins

            How do you make the prediction about “dilated hearts”?

            Did you read this review:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581053/

  • Ken Gallaher

    Adding vitamins to cereals has always been a SCAM.

    • hyperzombie

      Funny, great Trolling.

  • mrpuma2u

    Vitamin A can be manufactured in your own body, from Beta-Carotene found in any orange or red vegetable, no GMO’s required. I am not against GMO’s, but rather against laws that prevent consumers from knowing what is and is not GMO. Seems like big brother Monsanto types think that ignorance is bliss.

    • hyperzombie

      Yes that is so true, but how many poor people have access to red and orange veggies? And if they had beta carotene in the rice it is a double win.

      • mrpuma2u

        But if the rice is trademarked, will the companies sue the farmers for saving their seeds like Monsanto does with round up ready soybeans? That would really be a sucky greedy move.

        • JP

          But the rice isn’t trademarked…

        • agscienceliterate

          You seem to have a problem with seed companies (not just Monsanto, btw) having technology use agreements with farmers who willingly buy their patented seeds. (And seeds have been patented and 1930.). Sucky and greedy? Farmers don’t seem to think so. They buy them willingly for greater yield and less negative environmental impacts on soil, water, and air.

          • kevin

            I know a lot of farmers. Most of them now realize that they have been deceived by Monsanto. Why do you claim that farmers don’t “seem to think so?”
            GMOs are genocide. Long term they are comparable more to lead that they are to increased yields.

          • agscienceliterate

            Great! You just go ahead and listen to these little made-up farmers in your head. You choose what you wish to believe. You choose what you want to eat. See? Your misery is solved. The world will continue to turn and real farmers will continue to buy and plant whatever they want.
            P,S. Monsanto is not the only GE seed company. And Monsanto and other GE seed companies also sell conventional and organic seeds. Knowledge is such a bitch, right?

          • JP

            “GMOs are genocide.”

            Can we at least stop with the melodramatics like this? Good grief.

          • agscienceliterate

            Good luck with that. Melodrama is what is taught at Oz and Mercola and Food Babe Universities. So droll, so predictable, so immature, so drama queen, so ….. yawn …. so….. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..

          • agscienceliterate

            OK, holding your feet to the fire now. Challenging your statement “I know a lot of farmers. Most of them now realize that they have been deceived by Monsanto.” That’s garbage and makes no sense. I’ll prove it. Answer these questions:
            What kind of farmers? (Conventional, GE, organic). What do they grow? What GE crops did they grow? Where did they buy their seeds? (certainly not just from Monsanto). Why do they feel they were “deceived” — did they forget to read or sign their technology use agreements with the seed seller? Did someone force them to buy seeds from one company or another?
            If you can’t answer these specific questions, then we know you are manufacturing your “I know a lot of farmers” assertion. You are full of big-mouth, but utterly devoid of content and hence credibility.

        • hyperzombie

          The rice is owned by a Non Profit Humanitarian group, there will be no charges for the seed. Well unless you are a farmer that makes over 20,000 USD per year.

  • kevin

    The genetic literacy project is funded by Monsanto. The public is not interested by lies. Monsanto lies to us as much as Hillary.
    Be careful about names agscienceliterate, below would more accurately be described as agsciencedenier or agscienceilliterate.
    This Monsanto promoter is brought to you by Monsanto and is everywhere on these sites.
    Monsanto is a criminal, responsible for manipulation, illness and death.
    They are going down.

    • JP

      Why are, I assume, grown adults so eager to brag to everyone that they still have a boogeyman that they pin all of their worries to?

      • kevin

        Do you approve lead in your water if concentrations are “small?” I have one friend who just got prostate cancer. He was told by his doctor at the VA that Dioxin from the Vietnam war is the cause. I had another but he died.
        I don’t consume or support anything connected with Monsanto.
        I don’t have a boogeyman to pin anything on. I am the boogeyman.

        • Peter Olins

          I would love to hear this doctor explain his/her rationale.

          The latest review concluded:

          Overall, epidemiologic research offers no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to Agent Orange or TCDD and prostate cancer.

          http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-014-9931-2

          I think it’s a mistake to focus on a specific chemical, rather than criticizing the population who tolerated—or even supported—the immoral, and even genocidal, activity of their military.
          Given recent history, we still do not appear to have learnt this lesson.

        • JP

          Well, let’s see: lead isn’t made by Monsanto, and dioxin has nothing to do with the current Monsanto Company.

          Nice non sequiturs though!

    • agscienceliterate

      Wow, you put me in the same category of fear, evil and loathing as Monsanto? Never attributed such influence to myself, just a simple guy interested and knowledgeable about science, but thanks.
      Kevin, please do us all a favor. Buy organic and non-gmo certified. You will be a happy camper. You will feel safe. You will have no worries. Life will be good. This message paid for by the $60 billion organic industry.

  • Wackes Seppi
  • Jameson

    And the folic acid they add to cereals doesn’t agree with most people. I’m sure it’s not the only nutrient. Most Americans do not need the extra nutrition anyways.

  • Anna Mitchell

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure this one out. Due to pesticides the soil is being depleted of vital nutrients. The vitamins that they put in GMO products are SYNTHETIC. Look up the ingredients in synthetic vitamins and it will disgust you. Just because on the surface GMO products look healthier doesn’t mean they actually are. DO NOT REPLY THIS COMMENT.