How GMO Foods Feed Junk Food Profits – Not the World
Leading to obesity, diabetes, and more
crops
Obesity used to just be a problem of the West, but our insidious Coca-cola culture has spread worldwide along with our junk food habit, so obesity is practically taking over the globe. One of the culprits? Genetically modified ingredients.
Obesity rates do not reflect the often-spread rumor of biotech – that GMOs will feed the world. There is evidence that they do not increase crop yields or make foods more nutritious – in fact the very way in which industrial agriculture conducts its business robs the soil of important nutrients which are then void in our food. What GMOs DO feed are the junk food corporations’ pockets. And believe me, these companies have a voracious appetite.
A study published in the Lancet just last month reveals that the world has witnessed an ‘unacceptably slow’ rate of progress toward overcoming the obesity problem. Over the last decade, the world has gotten fatter, not fitter, and fed with less nutritionally-dense foods.
Why? GMOs account for high fructose corn syrup, and corn solids, sugar from GM sugar beets, as well as ingredients like GM soy used in highly-processed, nutritionally lacking foods that certainly add to the obesity rates.
When they aren’t using GM corn ethanol (which is highly subsidized using our own tax dollars) to make petro-supporting fuels, those ears of corn are making people fat. And this weight gain is followed by cancer, diabetes, reproductive ailments, and kidney diseases. Oh, and don’t forget unhealthy gut flora which adds to decreased immunity and yes, more obesity since your body can’t process the food you eat.
A world of obese children while others starve – that’s an odd picture to fit your head around, isn’t it?
Even the World Health Organization, supporter of Big Ag and Big Medicine, admits that the obesity rates among children is alarming:
“. . .the number of overweight children under the age of five, is estimated to be over 42 million. Close to 31 million of these are living in developing countries.”
What is seriously troubling is that junk food companies target children, creating a GM-generation that is eating Bt corn and high fructose corn syrup by the bucket load. No wonder ‘fat’ children are seen as “an investment in future sales,” according to Tim Lobstein of the World Obesity Federation, a co-researcher on the Lancet series.
Kids are now becoming brand loyal to GM supporters and junk food makers from General Mills, to Pepsi-Co, Coca-Cola to Kraft – unless of course, their parents teach them to refuse the junk food poison being peddled by a few oligarchs.
A Multiple-Country Study Shows GM Crops Contribute to Fat in Surprising Ways
Scientists in Norway, Hungary, Austria, Ireland, Turkey, and Australia have found that GMOs may promote weight gain in other less obvious ways. In their decade-long research, animals fed a diet of GM corn put on weight, were less able to digest proteins, and suffered immune system problems.
In exploring the effects of GM food, studying the impact on rats, mice, pig and salmon, they remarked:
“We are trying to identify which indicators we need to measure in order to explore unintentional effects from GM food,” explains lead researcher Professor Åshild Krogdahl of the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science.
“The findings could give us some understanding of the potential effects for these animal species as well as for humans.”
In the study, led by Professor Krogdahl, rats were fed corn which had been genetically modified to withstand pesticide and herbicide spraying in the hope of being resistant to pests. For 90 days, these rats were fed GM feed, and the control group was not – you can guess which group of rats were fatter at the end of the 90 days – the GM rats, of course. The very same result transpired when the rats were fed fish that had been fed GM corn.
Krogdahl asks:
“If the same effect applies to humans, how would it impact on people eating this type of corn over a number of years, or even eating meat from animals feeding on this corn? It is an interesting phenomenon and worth exploring further.”
More Freakish Results
When the researchers further examined the result of feeding salmon a GM diet, they noticed some frightening changes. Though some of the changes were deemed ‘normal’ there remained a trend among the GM-fed fish.
According to Krogdahl, the GM-fed salmon were:
“. . . slightly larger, they ate slightly more, their intestines had a different microstructure, they were less able to digest proteins, and there were some changes to their immune system. Blood samples also showed some change in the blood.”
The inability to digest proteins efficiently is also linked to obesity. Our bodies need to be able to do this to access amino acids for utilization throughout the body’s systems. This means that contrary to the lies that biotech has told us, GM products affect us in numerous ways beyond obesity – including causing diabetes, digestive disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, colitis, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (ADD), autoimmune diseases, sexual dysfunction, sterility, asthma, COPD, and more.
GM Organ Damage
The researchers also noticed subtle changes in almost all of the internal organs, including the digestive organs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, adrenal glands and reproductive organs.
Krogdahl points out that there’s nothing inherently unusual about physiological changes after food consumption, as this happens with non-GM food as well, but that the changes they observed could cause problems over the long-term in human subjects.
By examining salmon intestines after GM food consumption, the researchers also looked at the intestines of rats eating the salmon. The rats ate slightly more and grew faster than their GM-free counterparts. These rats also had poorer immune systems.
GMO Lie: GM Food Doesn’t Survive the Digestive System
The study also exposes another biotech lie. Krogdahl explained:
“A frequent claim has been that new genes introduced in GM food are harmless since all genes are broken up in the intestines. But our findings show that genes can be transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood; they have been found in blood, muscle tissue and liver in sufficiently large segments to be identified. . .The biological impact of this gene transfer is unknown.”
The more consumers become aware of the results of studies like these, the less likely they are to be happy with eating biotech-altered food. What’s more, is that the platform upon which many GM foods were created and sold to the public – that of being vital to the growing population’s food supply – is proven, beyond a doubt, to be backwards.
Most GM crops are simply used in junk foods, and if the other toxic ingredients in them aren’t already unpalatable enough for you – just know that GMOs could be making you sick and fat. There’s better food out there, we just have to demand it.
 | Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
So What Can We Do?
Between cross-contamination and a shrinking traditional seed stock, it’s questionable whether our sugar beets can ever be non-GMO again. The sugar beet case raises the question of how much control we really have over GMOs once they’ve taken over the marketplace.
“Monsanto and the biotech industry are incredibly powerful and have successfully inserted themselves into the work of legislators and regulators,” says O’Connell. “We’re losing more
and more traditional seed stock in favor of genetically modified seeds, and our actions now will have repercussions for generations.”
To keep GMO sugar out of your cupboard, look for cane sugar—GM sugar cane is still in development, so for now you can be sure that it is GMO-free. Going a step further and choosing
organic and Fair Trade cane sugar will protect the health of the workersand the planet.
And join Green America’s campaign, GMO Inside, to take action for meaningful GMO regulation and labeling.
“Ultimately, the USDA is not going to protect us from GMOs, let alone regulate them,” says O’Connell, “It’s upto us to protect our families and preserve the thousands of years of heritage we have in our seeds and in our food.”
Organic Consumers Association
To: The CEOs of McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts and Subway
I’m writing to ask that you make a firm, public commitment to not source the new genetically engineered Arctic Apple, developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.
The Arctic Apple was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on the basis of its not posing any harm to other plants. While the U.S. Food & Drug Administration will conduct a voluntary review of the new GMO apple, this step in the process is merely a formality—not a genuine effort to determine the safety of the Arctic Apple for human consumption.
According to the Union for Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency advised the USDA not to approve the Arctic Apple without further safety testing.
Yet the USDA ignored that advice.
Scientists who have studied the type of technology (RNA interference, or dsRNA) used to create the Arctic Apple warn that the technology is “untested and inherently risky.” According to scientists,
research shows that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or
human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the dsRNA present in food survive digestion in the stomach and intestines and actually enter the bloodstream and tissues of the body, where it can influence the functioning of the eater’s cells.
As a consumer, I am not concerned about a little rust color on an apple, which results from the natural process of oxidation. I am, however, extremely concerned about the potential health risks associated
with a technology that has not been proven safe.
Please reassure me that your company will not serve GMO apples to your customers, many of whom are children whose immune systems are not yet fully developed. Thank you.
How Monsanto’s Sugar Beets Grew Larger Than the Law
Our GMO Inside campaign urges food manufacturers to label the GMO sugar in their food.
Fifty to sixty percent of US sugar comes from sugar beets—and almost allof that comes from a genetically modified (GM) version of the plant. Sugar is in a good chunk of our foods, even savory ones like soups and bread. With no requirements in our country that GM foods be labeled, you
may be consuming a lot more GM sugar that you think.
As detailed in the April/May 2012 “Frankenfood” issue of the Green American, a number of health concerns have been raised about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and most of them center around how little we know about the long-term effects of consuming these creations.
“GMOs are being put in American food without long-term testing and without labeling,” says Elizabeth O’Connell, Green America’s GMO Inside campaign director. “The American public should have the right to an informed choice on whether or not to eat GM food, as they do in more than 60 other countries.”
You may already be aware of many of the many health issues around GMOs and sugar. What you may not be aware of are the sordid events that led to a marriage between the two, as this plant rose above the law.
Regulating the GM Sugar Beet
In March of 2005, genetically modified sugar beets appeared on the US market for the first time. Crafted by Monsanto to include a gene from a soil bacterium, this GM beet was able to withstand a copious onslaught of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). The agricultural industry could spray as much of the weed-killer as it wanted without impacting crops.
Today, Monsanto’s GM sugar beets make up 95 percent of the US crop, having been planted year after year despite a US District Court injunction against planting and even a ruling by US District Court JudgeJeffrey White that the 2011 crop be destroyed due to illegal deregulation. The story of how Monsanto raised its product above the law is a case study of the power of the biotech industry over federal regulators.
The role of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been “essentially to escort genetically engineered crops through their process as fast as possible,” says Page Tomaselli, senior staff attorney at the Center for Food Safety. The USDA was the agency that initially gave the biotech industry the green light for full deregulation of the sugar beets in 2005, allowing the seeds to be sold
and planted with no restrictions.
Yet, the USDA did so without properly assessing the environmental impacts, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), along with the Sierra Club, High Mowing Seeds, and the Organic Seed Alliance, successfully sued the USDA. US District Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled that the USDA had violated federal law, and his court placed an injunction on the crop. While the farmers could harvest the existing year’s crop, they couldn’t plant a new one until the USDA completed a proper Environmental Impact Statement.
At this point, Monsanto and allies in the sugar beet industry went to the USDA with concerns that this injunction could cause a sugar shortage. There was not enough non-GM seed stock available to meet the demand for sugar beets anymore, they claimed. The USDA decided to issue field permits for the GM sugar beet crop to be planted in spite of the court’s ruling.When the seed companies choose to stock GM seeds and not traditional ones, they are creating a situation where they can “potentially say that their hands are tied and all that they have are these genetically engineered seeds,” says Tomaselli.
You need to quit living in the past Johnny, GMOs are here to stay. If you wish to study the past then go back and see what type of government our country created.
Who Regulates the Regulators?
The nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice responded to these field permits with legal action, arguing that these permits were illegal given the District Court order to cease planting.
“We had to run into court and ask the judge to stop them,” Earthjustice managing attorney Paul Achitoff told Reuters that day, “It’s an extreme sort of a thing … but the circumstances were such that there wasn’t any alternative. They basically had dared the court to stop them.”
On November 30th, 2010, Judge White ordered that the newly planted GM seedlings be removed from the ground.
However, in February of 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge White’s original injunction. Instead of addressing whether the USDA issued illegal permits, it
perplexingly looked at whether the seedlings caused “irreparable harm.” Judge Thomas of that court wrote, “Biology, geography, field experience,and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely.”
The court vacated Judge White’s original injunction. The USDA issued temporary permits for the sale and planting of GM sugar beets while it completed an Environmental Impact Statement.Once the statement was finished, the agency permanently deregulated GM
sugar beets.
Today, over 90 percent of the US sugar beet crop is genetically modified.
The “Monsanto Protection Act”
If Judge White’s order in November of 2010 had been carried out and that year’s crop of sugar beets had been destroyed, it would have introduced a new element of risk for agricultural companies choosing to grow GM seeds. Monsanto wanted to make sure the sugar beet litigation would never happen with future crops, and it knew exactly how to do that—by changing the laws.
On March 29, 2013, President Obama signed H.R. 993, a large appropriations bill, into law. It contained a rider known by anti-GMO activists as “The Monsanto Protection Act,” which was inserted into the bill by Congress.
According to Tomaselli, this rider codified what the USDA did in the sugar beets case, forcing “the USDA to issue permits if a judge vacates a deregulation decision … [creating] a situation where we would not be able to challenge these permits under
the National Environmental Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act or any other environmental law that these permits might be violating.”
The good news is that this bill will expire in September of 2013, giving conerned citizens another chance to fight back when biotech lobbyists attempt to get Congress to reintroduceit. Green America’s campaign, GMO Inside, is already laying the groundwork for the battle to come.
Buy food labeled 100% organic.
The U.S. and Canadian governments do not allow manufacturers to label
something 100% organic if that food has been genetically modified or
been fed genetically modified feed. You may find that organic food is
more expensive and different in appearance from conventional products.
Also, just because something says “organic,” it does not mean that
it doesn’t contain GMOs. In fact, it can still contain up to 30% GMOs,
so be sure the label says 100% organic.
How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods
1
Become familiar with the most common applications of genetic modification. These are the products (and their derivatives) that are most likely to be genetically modified:
Soybeans — Gene taken from bacteria (Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and inserted into soybeans to make them more resistant to herbicides.[1] See How to Live With a Soy Allergy for more information on avoiding soy products.
Corn — There are two main varieties of GE corn. One has a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted to produce the Bt toxin, which poisons Lepidoteran pests (moths and butterflies).[2] There are also several things that are resistant to various herbicides present in high fructose corn syrup and glucose/fructose, prevalent in a wide variety of foods in America.
Rapeseed/Canola — Gene added/transferred to make the crop more resistant to herbicide.
Sugar beets — Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.
Cotton — engineered to produce Bt toxin. The seeds are pressed into
cottonseed oil, a common ingredient in vegetable oil and margarine.
Dairy — Cows injected with GE hormone rBGH/rBST; possibly fed GM grains and hay.
Sugar. In 2012, the FDA approved the sale of GMO beet sugars under
the name “SUGAR.” So now, when we go to buy “All Natural” Breyers ice
cream, we can’t even know for sure that we are actually eating regular,
natural cane sugar. If you see “CANE SUGAR,” there’s a good chance it’s
not GMO. This is one of the biggest frustrations with labeling, as sugar
is in so many things, and we might think we’re avoiding food that
POSSIBLY has GMO sugar, but we’re really not.
Papayas.
Zucchini.
Corn sold directly to the consumer at roadside stands/markets. Buy only organic corn, popcorn, and corn chips.
Baked goods often have one or more of the common GM ingredients. Why
do we need corn or soy in our bread, snacks, and desserts? It’s hard to
find mixes to use as well. Some brands avoid GMOs; find those you like
and try to stick with them. Organic is one option; learning how to cook
brownies, etc., from scratch with your own organic oils is another.
John, what’s the difference between sugar from a GM sugar beet and a non-GM sugar beet?
GMO beets contain a gene from a soil bacterium
That’s the difference between the plants. What’s the difference between the refined sugar from each plant?
GMO beets contain a gene from a soil bacterium
now tell me what is your point troll
So what’s your point?
If you’re going to demand one carry a mandatory label, then you should be able to explain the basis for needing such a label. So what is the difference in the sugar from a GM sugar beet?
I just told you now tell me what is your point troll
Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today.
In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods contain them. Others include
grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products;
vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy
products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products;
and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients
in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut
butter). Consumers don’t know what they’re eating because labeling is prohibited,
yet the danger is clear. Independently conducted studies show the more
of these foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health.
Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of
an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which
are unknown. Yet, the risks are enormous, it will take years to learn them,
and when we finally know it’ll be too late to reverse the damage if it’s
proved conclusively that genetically engineered foods harm human health
as growing numbers of independent experts believe. Once GM seeds are introduced
to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. There is nothing
known to science today to reverse the contamination already spread over
two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading everywhere unless checked.
John, there is no commercial GM wheat. There are no commercial GM animals either. Claiming there are “products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products” is an outright lie.
Prove it
You want me to prove something doesn’t exists??? LOL!
Think about that for a second and maybe you’ll realize why that’s a nonsensical request.
If you think GM wheat or GM animals exist, then show me evidence of their existence. You can’t just make proclamations and then demand people prove you wrong. It’s like me saying “I saw Big Foot” and you responding that Big Foot doesn’t exist, then I demand you to prove that Big Foot doesn’t exist. It’s irrational.
You prove they don;t exist
Failed promises
The promise that genetically modified crops could help feed the world is at least as old as the commercialization of the first transgenic seeds in the mid-1990s. The corporations that helped turn genetically engineered crops into a multibillion-dollar business, including the large chemical companies Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont, promoted the technology as part of a life science revolution that would greatly increase food production. So far it’s turned out, for a number of
reasons, to have been a somewhat empty promise.
It’s not clear whether that boom in transgenic crops has led to increased food production or lower prices for consumers. Take corn, for example. In the United States, 76 percent of the crop is genetically modified to resist insects, and 85 percent can tolerate being sprayed with a weed killer. Such corn has, arguably, been a boon to farmers, reducing pesticide use and boosting yields. But little of U.S. corn production is used directly for human food; about 4 percent goes into high–fructose corn syrup and 1.8 percent to cereal and other foods. Genetically modified corn and soybeans are so profitable that U.S. farmers have begun substituting them for wheat: around 56 million acres of wheat were planted in 2012, down from 62 million in 2000. As supply fell, the price of a bushel of wheat rose to nearly $8 in 2012, from $2.50 in 2000.
Only a handful of large companies can afford the risk and expense of commercializing GMOs.
The most persuasive criticism, however, may simply be that existing transgenic crops have done little to guarantee the future of the world’s food supply in the face of climate change and a growing
population.
GM crops have bred superweeds: True
Jay Holder, a farming consultant in Ashburn, Georgia, first noticed Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in a client’s transgenic cotton fields about five years ago. Palmer amaranth is a particular pain for farmers in the southeastern United States, where it outcompetes cotton for moisture, light and soil nutrients and can quickly take over fields.
Since the late 1990s, US farmers had widely adopted GM cotton engineered to tolerate the herbicide
glyphosate, which is marketed as Roundup by Monsanto in St Louis, Missouri. The herbicide–crop combination worked spectacularly well — until it didn’t.
In 2004, herbicide-resistant amaranth was found in one county in Georgia; by 2011, it had spread to 76. “It got to the point where some farmers were losing half their cotton fields to the weed,” says Holder.
Tell McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts and Subway to Publicly
Commit to not Sell GMO Apples
On February 13 (2015), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the first GMO apple, genetically engineered to not turn brown after it’s sliced.
The company that makes the apple wants you to believe that consumer demand was behind the invention. But the real target customers for GMO apples are fast-food restaurants and food service businesses—companies that want mothers of young children to think they’re selling healthy fresh fruit, even if that fruit is a genetically engineered apple that has undergone no meaningful safety testing for human consumption.
You probably don’t eat any any of these restaurants, so why bother? Because if these major buyers of apples refuse to buy the new GMO apple, there will be no market for them–and farmers won’t grow them. These chains have the power to shut down demand for a product that poses a
risk to consumers, without providing us any benefits. –
Got a 404 error from that link.
No, I’ll stay anonymous thanks.
The Journal of Organic Systems is not a credible source in my opinion. Plus, the lead author of that paper, Nancy Swanson, has a PhD in physics and runs a company that does consulting for laser optics. She has no business writing papers in this field. Check your sources.
You are only one person and since we do not have a list of your credentials this is only your opinion. Anyway don’t look at the writer look at the material written.
You are the obviously the twin of GMO Roberts who has called you in on Monsanto’s behalf to try and discredit any anti-GMO sentiment here.
You guys both bring no independent, valid proof supporting GMO’s safety so you as well must be discredited.
Lol, everybody is getting in on the act of making you look stupid. Go ahead and quote the next captain kangaroo study.
You don’t need any help looking stupid- you do that all by yourself.
Yes I looked real stupid when I had to educate you about the type of government we have. Lol, that was just sad.
Yes, that’s why I stated “in my opinion”. But please, find other plant biologists and ask them what they think about that journal. I’ll wager that you’ll get one of two responses: 1) never heard of it, 2) it’s not a credible journal.
Accusing me of working for Monsanto is exceptionally lazy and shows a distinct lack of critical thinking. I don’t work for Monsanto, but even if I did that would have absolutely effect on what I have said. To counter what a claim I make, you must address that claim not where you think I may work. If you don’t understand this, then you really need to review logic and critical analysis.
As for the scientific evidence for the safety of GMOs, it’s out there if you bothered to look for it, which you clearly haven’t.
An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
Naive is the only thing I can think of when you post. Monsanto has you completely brainwashed. I feel very sorry that you can’t even make up your own mind. Very pathetic.
Jeffery Smith is not a credible source. He’s a propagandist. He knows just enough about science to sound competent to laypeople but to people actually trained in the fields he talks about he sounds like a fool.
Kind of like Jon Entine, the leader of your gang.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine
Kind of like the leader of your gang, Jon Entine.http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine
Skeptologist is not a credible source. He’s a propagandist. He knows
just about as much science as a fifth grader- to laypeople and people
actually trained in the fields he talks about he sounds like a fool.
Lol, are you going to throw out Mike Adams next? You probably buy snake oil off all these as well don’t you johnny.
I don’t think you would like it if someone made oil out of you?
I guess when you don’t have a good comeback for the beating you have been taking here today you might as well try some cheap shots. A better use of your time might be to study our government just a little so you can at least answer a few basic questions. Like what type it is.
I have been reading too many of your posts . I guess your cheap shots have been rubbing off in some of my comments.
Oh by the way you should check out the topic of conversation here. It actually is not about what type of government we have. But I guess when you have nothing influential to say about the main topic you will tend to go off in another tangent. Sorry you can’t think of anything relevant to our conversation.
Sorry, but you started the government thing in the first place now you are trying to back out of it? I bring it up to show that you are wrong and refuse to even admit it when confronted. It is relevant because it could carry over to all your comments.
Prove it.
Come on Johnny what type of government we got again? Give us some more laughs.
Still on that tact are you- still have nothing important to say?
WOW Johnny, you don’t think our government is important enough for you to even learn the basics? Then why didn’t you just say so instead of giving out false information? Purposely trying to mislead people? Seems to be a habit of yours.
Why don’t you admit your a paid Monsanto troll
Because that would be lying Johnny. Why don’t you admit you made a mistake about the type of government we have Johnny.
John, don’t be a petty person. It’s unbecoming.
You might not like what I said about Jeffery Smith, but if you objectively looked at his claims and checked his sources, you’d see that it’s the truth. He frequently sites widely discredited studies (i.e. Seralini’s infamous rat tumor study from 2012), and in other cases he either completely fails to understand the material he is presenting or outright lies about it (for example, the paper claiming to have found Bt endotoxin protein in the blood of pregnant women and in fetal cord blood). He also often refers to the opinions of people who have no relevant training in the fields he’s talking about (e.g. Stephanie Seneff an MIT scientist who’s background is computer science and artificial intelligence).
Since you don’t understand objectivity in this discussion regarding GMOs your references are discredited. You sources are filled with biased investigators.
John, you’re being a hypocrite. Jeffery Smith is the definition of a biased source. He earns his living by giving anti-GMO talks. He has no actual training in any field related to GMOs. He is not a scientist. He gets paid to tell people what they want to hear. If he were to change his mind, he’d be out of a job.
In contrast, I have no horse in this race. The work I do does involve transgenic plants, but not crop plants nor plants that will ever be released in the environment. The acceptance of GM agricultural crops and people’s opinion of them has absolutely no bearing on my work. It’s purely a hobby interest of mine.
Which investigators have I cited are biased? Don’t make vague accusations without being willing to put your facts on the table. Tell me specifically who you think is biased and why. If you can’t then I think we’ve found out just how much (or rather little) you actually understand about this issue.
Your investigators claim GMOs are safe. This has not been proven yet. Therefore they know that this stance is incorrect and are therefore are discredited. They have there secret agendas and positions which they feel are subject to government and business scrutiny and retribution if they do not act to fall in line.
Which investigators?
Oh I see, it’s all a big conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people? Riiiiight. Good thing you’ve clearly seen through their ruse. You’re quickly heading into foil hat territory.
OMG you are sounding more and more like GMO Boberts every post you make. You have gotten nowhere convincing anyone here of your attempts at deception that now you are beginning to loose composure just like Bobo did. You two are two birds of a dirty feather. As soon as I call you to task you loose it and sound like a moron. You have been brainwashed too sorry
In his introduction, Smith cites the US Food and Drug
Administration’s (FDA) policy statement on GM food safety without a shred
of evidence to back it. It supported GHW Bush’s Executive Order that GMOs
are “substantially equivalent” to ordinary seeds and crops and
need no government regulation. The agency said it was “not aware of
any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ
from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” That single statement
meant no safety studies are needed and “Ultimately, it is the food
producer” that bears responsibility “for assuring safety.”
As a consequence, foxes now guard our henhouse in a brave new dangerous
world.
John, despite what you might think safety data has been submitted to the FDA for every commercial GM crop currently on the market. Is the current regulatory system perfect? Of course not. But instead of engaging in disinformation campaigns, let’s try to talk rationally about ways to improve the system. These type of fear-mongering statements that I often hear from anti-GMO activists might get attention, but as soon as people learn the details that these anti-GMO messages leave out, such activists loose credibility. That’s how I’ve come to the position I hold today. I used to be very concerned about GMOs. But then I got a doctorate degree in plant biochem and started reading more about GMOs. Now I see the smoke and mirror campaign that the anti-GMO camp puts on. It’s not honest.
Note, I’m not saying that proponents of GMOs are being completely honest either. All I’m saying is that any intellectually honest person can see weaknesses in the arguments of both camps.
You actually believe that the FDA is concerned about the welfare of Americans?
Do you not understand the conspiracy that is going on here with the big corporations? Are you really that blind to believe that there is no collusion going on here. I really find it hard to believe that you think that these corporations are in this to help out the world’s food needs? Do you really believe that Monsanto has no influence on what decisions are being made. Do you really believe that the only reason that Monsanto will not divulge their research on GMO’s is because of a stupid trade secret?
In America my friend you must realize that the entity that has the financial power and monopoly makes the decisions.
If you can’t see this you are one very naive American.
This is not a matter of two opposing scientific points of view. This is a case of non scientific power.
We can’t have a fair decision on this matter until the wolf is taken out of the hen house.
Your credibility is in question because you are not objective enough to think both sides of the equation out.
Nick, glyphosate is not a GMO.
I am fully aware of that fact.
Why would you even state that, knowing as you do, that GMO’s are engineered to withstand doses of glyphosate?
No Nick. Not all GMOs are engineered to tolerate glyphosate, and even the ones that are can be grown without it. Glyphosate also happens to be one of the less toxic herbicides available. It’s LD50 is less than caffeine.
All that being said, I’m concerned about pesticides as well. I’m not disputing that we should try to use less pesticides. I would love to see zero pesticide use.
But I won’t indulge false conflation of GMOs and pesticides.
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
“Glyphosate also happens to be one of the less toxic herbicides available.”
Prove it with plenty of back up research and explain your meaning of safe.
“Glyphosate also happens to be one of the less toxic herbicides available.”
Prove it with plenty of back up research and explain your meaning of safe.
Glyphosate if you would actually do a little research isn’t even a restricted use pesticide. Only the ones that pose serious health risks are on the list.
Still haven’t got the proof ? Sorry you lose another argument. Crawl back in your hole troll!
I can list all the data in the world and it wouldn’t be good enough for you. Your bigoted mind has already been made up. The truth means nothing to you. You don’t even care enough to learn about your country after all.
Look at the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ). I’m not saying it’s totally safe and that you can apply it plants while naked and misting yourself with it, only safer than some previous herbicides, both synthetic and organic.
http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/naturalagriculture/weed/files/herbicide/less_harmful_e.htm
http://web.extension.illinois.edu/cce/news/news28815.html
That makes about as much sense as ham and eggs don’t go well together. Skeptologist I used that analogy so you would get my point.
Lets don’t forget that the American Academy of Environmental Medicine is listed on Quackwatch as well.
So what.
Monsanto has been voted the most hated corporation on earth.
Put that on quackwatch too.
237WallSt Jan 14, 2015 America’s Most Hated Companies
Monsanto didn’t even make the top ten in America let alone the world. Maybe if gullible people like yourself wouldn’t believe lies from organizations like the AAEM they wouldn’t get a such a bad wrap.
So, in 2015, they fell out of the top ten.
What an accomplishment!
It is but still well behind helping farmers to feed the world!!
They are only concerned with market shares and profits.
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4720-gmos-fooling-er-feeding-the-world-for-20-years
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html
That’s a complete lie. You can’t back up a word you say. It does the opposite. It causes farmers to commit suicide.
LOL I guess they could get buried under the mountain of grain we have produced the last two years. You are a riot Johnny Boy.
If you were a farmer or had any idea what farmers have to suffer through, you would be more sympathetic to the farmers plight and not making light of their situation.
Still can’t back up a word you say. Monsanto is going to do a better job with their troll choosing.
LOL, yes raising record yields for the last two years does present a lot of problems logistically for the poor things. Fuel bills are extremely high making all those extra trips to the bins. Or should I be sympathetic to the best five year stretch in farm profits? You Sir Johnny have no clue how good have been on the farm the last five years.
Now I know you are against the farmers -you just proved it to everyone here
Thanks!
My customers would disagree since I have helped them to make a lot of money the last few years.
In your wildest dreams. You only have one customer – that’s Monsanto. And you have made Monsanto very mad since they know you haven’t had any effect on readers here..
Monsanto as a customer! That would make me pretty important if my business sold to them? I realize that you think some like myself, who has a far superior iq to yours, and has easily pointed out your lies on here, would be good enough to sell to Monsanto. However, you are wrong again.
Your business did sell to them. But those days are probably at an end with the bad job you’ve been doing here.
I guess you can believe whatever makes you happy, I won’t interfere with your fight to be wrong. After all you don’t even know what kind of a government we have.
And yo can do whatever makes your boss happy.
I will ask the guy in the mirror then.
Nick, the only way for us to get rid of gmo booby is to flag all of its comments and down vote.
You’re definitely on this blog’s Quackwatch
Along with all of the articles!! And those like you that don’t know what type of government we have.
LabelGMOsNewEngland!
Organic Consumers Association
Dear Organic Consumer,
At noon today, several of our Maine-based OCA staff joined Maine lawmakers at a press conference in the State House to announce the introduction of a bill to require mandatory labeling of GMOs now—not later.
OCA is leading the grassroots coalition that will work to pass LD 991, a bill that has strong bipartisan support in the Maine state legislature.
Please help us raise $200,000 by March 31 to fund GMO labeling in
Maine, and in other New England states, including Massachusetts. Details on how to donate online, by check or by phone here.
If you were wondering if Monsanto had knocked the wind out of our sails, wonder no more. We may have narrowly lost a few ballot initiatives. But we won in Vermont in 2014.
And we can win in Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island this year. But only if we pull out all the stops.
You may recall that in 2013, Maine passed a GMO labeling law. But that law contained a trigger clause which requires five Northeast states, including New Hampshire, to also pass mandatory labeling laws before Maine’s law can take effect. Maine’s 2013 law also said that if the five-state threshold isn’t met by December 31, 2018, the bill is dead.
We can’t let that happen.
Please help us raise $200,000 by March 31 to fund GMO labeling in Maine, and in other New England states, including Massachusetts. Details on how to donate online, by check or by phone here.
The bill we introduced today, with broad, bipartisan support, would remove the trigger and make Maine the second state to pass a trigger-free mandatory GMO labeling bill.
Why is Maine important? And why do we also need to raise money to support mandatory GMO labeling in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and other New England states?
Because the race is on in Washington D.C., a race funded by Monsanto and the junk food industry, to pass a federal law that would preempt states’ rights to protect their own citizens by passing state
GMO labeling laws.
Right now, only Vermont has passed a trigger-free labeling law. And the state is currently defending that law against a suit filed by the biotech and junk food industries.
As soon as enough states have passed laws requiring the mandatory labeling of GMO foods, Congress will be forced to follow suit—not with a weak, voluntary law that has no teeth, but with a strong, mandatory law that provides consumers with the same basic information that citizens
in more than 60 other countries already have the right to know.
We believe we can win in Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island this year. But only if we commit the resources to counter the inevitable attack we will face in these states by Monsanto and the Junk Food
Giants.
Please make a donation here today to help us raise $200,000 by March 31.
Yes lets spend all that money needlessly just so the federal government can enact a national standard of voluntary labeling.
What really scares you about labellng? What are you and Monsanto really hiding. Oh well we’ll soon find out .
And by the way comrade this is a democracy.
Do you ever tire of being wrong? Look it up the US is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. You really do make this to easy Johnny. The least you could do is try.
I see you still can ‘t answer the question – that’s because you can’t give an honest answer and yes, for all intents and purposes we are a democracy
Do you even know the what a democracy is? Obviously not, LOL. The founding fathers didn’t want anything to do with it, and they were right in doing so because of the irrational thinking like labeling. So you just really can’t admit it can you? LOL, why Johnny? afraid everyone will think less of you for admitting something we all know already?
The founding fathers wanted to have a republic because of GMO labeling. Boy I laughed some hard on that one.
I see you still can ‘t answer the question – that’s because you can’t
give an honest answer and yes, for all intents and purposes we are a
democracy
Insulting hundreds of thousands of Americans again are you Sammy?
You wouldn’t know anything about the founding fathers- all you ever studied was facism.
Prove you know what I studied? Once again you are just running off the mouth about things you have no clue. We do have your own words though to prove you have no idea what kind of government we have.
I know you are a student of fascism and I know what you haven’t studied.
Yes, just as you KNOW the United States is a democracy. Lol, you are a riot johnny boy.
Trying to divert the main topic of conversation again I see.
Trying to stay on the topic of getting you to repent your errors. So what kind of government do we have again Johnny?
We have a very corrupt government Sammy
Trouble staying on issue Johnny? We were discussing what type it is and how you don’t even know that simple thing. But I will humor you if you think it is so corrupt then leave.
Data
Ginsberg and Bachner made a point of surveying individuals who
had been hired or appointed—that is, the unelected who make policy.
They gathered directories of government offices, think tanks, and
Capitol Hill offices, then emailed individuals. They reached
respondents in person and online. Ultimately, they gathered about 1,000
responses, which Ginsberg says is about the same response rate used by
the average national survey intended to represent the views of 350
million Americans. Findings included that 46.5 percent of respondents
believed the percentage of the U.S. population that is 65 or older is 22
percent, when in reality it is 13 percent; 43.1 percent of respondents
believed the median income in the United States to be $47,000, when it
is actually $52,000; and 47.6 percent of respondents believed
African-Americans make up 17 percent of the population of the United
States, when in fact it’s closer to 13 percent.
But do they know the type of government?
They do but unlike you they don’t want fascism
Wrong again Johnny, quite a habit of yours isn’t it. I like it the way it is. By the way what is that way Johnny?
If you don’t like it on this blog why don’t you leave? What are you really doing here What’s really your agenda?
To discredit liars like you. And to educate you of course on the type of government we have here in the good old USA. Of course so far I have failed in that area, because you still don’t have a clue.
You are the big failure here. No one believes a word you say since you can’t back up anything you say. How’s that check from Monsanto- a little less this week?
Last check from Monsanto was over ten years ago for chemical rebates. Since then we haven’t sold any of their products. I have repeatedly told you this but you do not listen. As far as facts I back them up plenty for people that really want to know to learn something, but you obviously don’t because you don’t even care enough to learn what kind of government we have.
Let’s hear you back them up here – can’t do it- you’re a fraud
Johnny, why do you always try to change the subject Johnny? Admit your mistakes and then we can move on.
You are the only one hung up on that Sammy.
Yes I am. I think it is disgraceful that you care so little for you country that you can’t even know the basics about it.
You don’t care about this country because you are willing to expose men women and children to this GMO experiment. I wonder if your conscience will bother you when all the ugly repercussions finally appear and there will be no going back
Conscience is fine. Does not bother me one bit to put those healthy gmos on my families table. I think it is far better than some of those organic labeled produce that were created using atomic radiation. As far as who care about the country, at least I care enough to know what type of government we have.
Except for the fact that you don’t know they are healthy or not. You are only going on biased information you have received second hand.
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, just like I know what type of government we have Johnny. None of these are secrets Johnny so why is it you are always in the dark?
Chemical boy, we were founded as a “Republic” but in the early 20th century we really became a democratic society, unfortunate but that is the truth. Please stop lying to yourself and everyone here! If we had a true Republic I doubt we would have the current mess that we have. Enough of your lies, and you win, I won’t reply so that you can play your assinen games.
So you really wish we had a true republic so are weak state governments would quit giving into the whining of the mob that call for labeling for no good reason? You seem to have more sense that anyone gave you credit for kimmie, you really do like gmos!!
After 20 years in Washington, Johns Hopkins political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg came to believe that American policymakers assume the
American public is stupid. So in 2013, he and Jennifer Bachner, director of the Johns Hopkins master’s program in government analytics, decided to find out in a more rigorous scholarly way what Washington’s bureaucrats think of the Americans they represent. The researchers sought the opinions of 850 civil servants, congressional and White House staffers, and consultants and contractors.
The forthcoming book What the Government Thinks of the People (W.W.
Norton, 2016) addresses disparities between the ruling and the ruled.
It also offers suggestions that Ginsberg and Bachner believe could llessen the polarity between the two.
Context
Ginsberg, who is chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies in D.C., wanted to survey unelected U.S. policymakers because while elected officials pass legislation, the unelected write the rules.”Much of what we think of as the law is written not by elected officials but by government agencies,” he says. “That’s why it’s important to find out how they view us—they aren’t elected, and much of what they do is not overseen.”
This issue is possibly the most important Ginsberg has addressed in book form, he says. “The creators of the Constitution created a very nice framework, but much of our government is in the hands of bureaucrats, who on a day-to-day basis march to their own drummers.”
I bet Ginsberg could tell you the form of government how bout you Johnny Boy?
There are hundreds of thousands of Americans in the White house?
The founding fathers would never have approved of GMOs
LOL, you know so much about them like what kind of government they created for us. Don’t even try and go there you already lost all credibility on that one Johnny. Why don’t you man up and admit for a change you were wrong.
You are very Naive. You are living in the past. The government we have to day is nothing like the founding fathers had in mind. In those days you didn’t have huge powerful companies who were in bed with the government. You need to wake up and smell the roses. You are being duped and can’t see the light.
The form of government is still the same. You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth. For farming you claim we can’t be progressive and have to go back to the “old ways of the past” and for everything else you only want progress. Once again you simply can’t believe anything you say.
Upshot
Moving forward, Ginsberg thinks bureaucrats must receive more
education about the nation’s citizens: “Number one, we need to expect
officials to have a fiduciary responsibility [toward those they
represent], like a doctor or a lawyer. I don’t need a good understanding
of the criminal code to hire a lawyer—they’re trained in that. Civil
servants aren’t good servants to us, [in part because] they have no
training in how to understand the American public.”
He also thinks mass media mistakenly concentrate on how little
citizens know about government. ”I got tired of reading those articles
about what people know about government and how they couldn’t pass the
citizenship quiz, which is a very silly quiz, by the way. There’s this
entire area of literature disparaging the people.” We should be more
concerned about how little government knows about its citizens, he says.
Still trying to change the topic? just admit that you were wrong. It really isn’t that hard Johnny.
Why should the government be more educated on citizens like you that don’t care enough to learn about the basics of the government? It sounds Johnny like you are worried they might take away your food stamps someday. Maybe you should figure out what type of government we have so you can do something about it.
Oh my not this again – you just insulted millions of Americans- Americans don’t want fascism – why don’t you leave your fascist ideals out of here.
Johnny, again try to follow this time we don’t have a fascist government, if we did troublemakers like yourself would have disappeared long ago. That strike two Johnny, try again and tell us what kind of government we have.
Having trouble reading my posts again? You really have to stop smoking that weed
Tell us again what type of government do we have johnny boy?
Yes, lets have industry spend over 100 million dollars to fight labeling their unwanted, altered food.
http://www.inspirationgreen.com/vote-yes-on-37.html
We will be spending much more money in health care after the problems of GMO products surface their ugly heads.
how long do we have to wait? After twenty years zero issues the only thing ugly is your lies, and lack of knowledge about your country.
I can see from your comment you know very little about science and even less about how huge corporations can fudge their research in order to sell a poisonous product to the public. You really need to take off those rose colored glasses and wake up to the truth.
Yes the great conspiracy it always has to be doesn’t it. We have used them in the real world for almost twenty years now with zero issues so it has confirmed the research that they are totally safe. By the way what type of government do we have? If you don’t know the simple stuff why should we believe anything else?
What do you and your bosses have to hide Bobo?
Nothing John boy, except maybe what kind of government we have! They put it in plain view and you are still to blind johnny boy.
Good post- and good site- I look forward to sharing this link for the benefit of the readers here.
For any Canadians out there:
http://gmoinquiry.ca/where/
The GMO Inquiry 2015
is a project of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN). CBAN
is a campaign coalition of 17 organizations that researches, monitors
and raises awareness about issues relating to genetic engineering in
food and farming. CBAN members include farmer associations,
environmental and social justice organizations, and regional coalitions
of grassroots groups. CBAN is a project of Tides Canada Initiatives.
GMO’s only benefit the companies that patent and sell them., Monsanto, etc. Two out of the six countries that manufacture GMO’s have banned them in their own country.
The USA is too corrupt to protect it’s citizens and ban GMO’s.
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
They are not safe, regardless of the flawed, industry produced studies.
the Daily Beast
[Bad habits] cannot explain the ballooning of one particular segment of
the population, a segment that doesn’t go to movies, can’t chew, and was
never that much into exercise: babies. In 2006 scientists at the
Harvard School of Public Health reported that the prevalence of obesity in infants under 6 months had risen 73 percent since 1980. “This
epidemic of obese 6-month-olds,” as endocrinologist Robert Lustig of
the University of California, San Francisco, calls it, poses a problem
for conventional explanations of the fattening of America. “Since
they’re eating only formula or breast milk, and never exactly got a lot
of exercise, the obvious explanations for obesity don’t work for
babies,” he points out. “You have to look beyond the obvious.”
GMOs are not the answer for global food security.
Genetically engineered crops have shown no increase in yield and no
decrease in pesticide use. In many cases other farm technology has
proven much more successful, and even Monsanto agrees that its
genetically engineered crops yield less than conventional farming.
The safety of GMO foods is unproven
and a growing body of research connects these foods with health
concerns and environmental damage. For this reason, most developed
nations have policies requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods at the very least, and some have issued bans on GMO food production and imports.
How you can avoid eating GMOs
There are several ways that you can avoid eating GMOs. One
of the main ways is by significantly reducing the amount of processed
foods in your diet. When you do want to reach for a salty or sweet
treat, make sure that it is either certified organic or certified
non-GMO by the Non-GMO Project. You can also obtain a copy of “Unjunk Your Junk Food: Healthy Alternatives to Conventional Snacks”
by the creators of Naturally Savvy and use it as a guide to eating better junk food.
What GMOs DO feed are the junk food corporations’ pockets.
I don’t see how this statement is remotely accurate. GMOs profit the companies that produce them and the farmers that use them. But I’m open minded, perhaps there is some evidence to support this claim?
Why? GMOs account for high fructose corn syrup, and corn solids, sugar from GM sugar beets, as well as ingredients like GM soy used in highly-processed, nutritionally lacking foods that certainly add to the obesity rates.
Whether these ingredients are derived from GM crops is wholly irrelevant.
more obesity since your body can’t process the food you eat.
Let me get this straight. Not being able to “process” (whatever that means) food results in increased obesity? How can your body become fat off of food it can’t process? Am I the only one that finds this hilariously wrong?
What is seriously troubling is that junk food companies target children, creating a GM-generation that is eating Bt corn and high fructose corn syrup by the bucket load.
Again, what does GM corn have to do with this? I highly doubt that any Cry proteins remain intact or even present in processed HFCS. I’m not saying HFCS is good for you, quite the opposite. But Christina Sarich’s incessant need to tying this issue to GMOs is delusional and ignorant at best or outright intentionally misleading at worst.
Scientists in Norway, Hungary, Austria, Ireland, Turkey, and Australia have found that GMOs may promote weight gain in other less obvious ways.
I can’t find the scientific paper presenting these results. As usual, Sarich just links to another anti-GMO blog, not an actual peer-reviewed study. If anyone can link the study, I am very curious to read it. I haven’t heard this claim before and would like to follow up on it.
The very same result transpired when the rats were fed fish that had been fed GM corn.
Hmm. That sounds fishy. I’m not buying it.
GM products affect us in numerous ways beyond obesity – including causing diabetes, digestive disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, colitis, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (ADD), autoimmune diseases, sexual dysfunction, sterility, asthma, COPD, and more.
Rubbish. In science there is a saying that a theory that explains everything explains nothing. Claiming GM products are the behind everything from autism to asthma and sexual dysfunction is exactly the same thing. There is no plausible hypothesis as to how GMOs (which don’t have any common physical characteristic) could possibly have such broad impacts. This is blatant fear-monger.
“perhaps there is some evidence to support this claim”
There is – so why not go out and do some research instead of getting someone else to do it for you. You are dangerously close to be branded a troll.
John, I do quite a bit of research. I read a lot of peer-reviewed papers, and I actually conduct laboratory research in this field. Call me whatever you want. I only care about empirical evidence.
How about if I call you GMO Robert2
Once again you attack someone that simply doesn’t agree with you, thanks for knocking your own credibility again johnny.
OMG I broke out laughing so hard after reading your post I scared the cattle. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black.
GMO Roberts- the most consistant troll and attack artist this board has ever seen. LOL.
Buddy you need to read your post while staring at the mirror.
And by the way Mr.GMO “mind your own business” Roberts where did I disagree with him?
Now you are trying to dictate who can post? You seem to think the whole world should bend to your perverted will. If you don’t want me to reply to you then don’t post. If you do quit posting use the time to educate yourself for a change.
“Now you are trying to dictate who can post?”- prove it
Your comments say anything that needs to be said. Each person may make up their own mind — Oh I’m sorry people thinking for themselves doesn’t sit well with someone like you does it?
The only reason you incessantly drone on about how wonderful GMO products is because you’re a paid troll for Monsonto. It’s obvious to everyone here. You add nothing to the discussion here. You refuse to acknowledge any of the mounting scientific evidence that is available on hundreds of web sites and scientific magazines. Instead you believe religiously, every single spoon fed, secret Monsanto story. You can’t think for yourself so you blindly obey the Monsanto creed totally oblivious to any serious consequences to humans and the environment. Nobody here wants anythng to do with you.
They are all tired of your deceitful garbage you spew.
Again speaking for others? You already proved that get that wrong with the water issue. Also you don’t listen as I have stated I don’t work for Monsanto, I’m an ag retailer. I don’t even buy anything from Monsanto and haven’t for years. I do buy a huge amount from Dow and those are the traits we support as well. If your simple information is this wrong you expect me to believe your scientific results? Please try to be serious.
Everyone knows you are a monsanto informant.
They’re not my scientific results. You need to do some more reading
Skipped right over your democracy statement didn’t you Johnny. Why don’t you just admit that you were wrong? It isn’t that hard it will even be good for you.
“Now you are trying to dictate who can post?”- prove it
Your comments say anything that needs to be said. Each person may make up their own mind — Oh I’m sorry people thinking for themselves doesn’t sit well with someone like you does it?
Call me whatever you like, but that doesn’t address anything I’ve said. Look up “ad hominem fallacy”.
This is something that might interest you.:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…
By the way can you supply the readers here with some links to your research in this field?
Authors: Marina Santadino, Carlos Coviella, Fernando Momo
Pesticides’ sublethal effects are not regularly taken into account when assessing agrochemical’s toxicity. With the objective of detecting chronic,
sublethal effects of the widely used herbicide glyphosate, an experiment
was performed using the earthworm Eisenia fetida as model organism. Earthworm adults were randomly assigned to three glyphosate treatments: control (no glyphosate), regular dose for perennial weeds, and double dose. Six E. fetida individuals were placed in each pot. Two random pots were taken weekly from each treatment and the number of adults, individual weight, number of cocoons, and presence and number of young earthworms were recorded. A matrix analysis was performed with the data. The matrix population model built showed that while the control population had a positive growth rate, both glyphosate treatments showed negative growth rates. The results suggest that under these sublethal effects, non-target populations are at risk of local extinction, underscoring the importance of this type of studies in
agrochemical environmental risk assessment.
John, I am very much open to the idea that pesticides are unhealthy. It’s not something I am disputing. My mistake if I gave the impression that I was.
By the way can you supply the readers here with some links to your research in this field?
Nope. I’d prefer to stay anonymous right now thanks. I understand you might not believe me, but I’d rather take that risk than have nuts start harassing me personally. (Not saying you’re a nut at all).
Why? What are you afraid of. Do you work for Monsanto. If you are an independent researcher with no ties to Monsanto or the other GMO producers what are you worried about.
You said
“John, I do quite a bit of research. I read a lot of peer-reviewed
papers, and I actually conduct laboratory research in this field.”
Unfortunately if you can’t produce evidence that you are then this statement is no longer valid. Sorry,
I wish to remain anonymous. Anti-GMO activists (I’m not saying you) can be ruthless and some outright delusional. I don’t want to risk subjecting my family to crazy people.
Remain anonymous if you wish just don’t try to come off as knowledable about things if you can’t back it up.
John, I am very open about what I know and don’t know. If you think I’ve said something wrong, point it out.
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
“In science there is a saying that a theory that explains everything explains nothing.”
There is another saying:
If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
And what exactly is the problem? Obesity? I’m actually at the gym right now.
you
By Gina-Marie Cheeseman
on October 30, 2013
Several studies in the last year have linked obesity to the consumption of GMO food, including a 2012 European study on the impact of GMO food on rats, mice, pigs and salmon. Researchers from Hungary, Austria, Ireland, Turkey, Australia and Norway participated in the study. The animals were fed GMO corn and soy over 90 days. What the researchers found is that the rats fed GMO food grew slightly fatter faster than the control group fed non-GMO food. Fish fed GMO food experienced the same effect. The researchers also found changes in the organs of the fish fed GMOs.
Researchers were able to disprove the claim that new genes introduced in
GMO food are harmless. Professor Åshild Krogdahl of the Norwegian
School of Veterinary Science said the study showed “that genes can be
transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood; they have been
found in blood, muscle tissue and liver in sufficiently large segments
to be identified.” He added that the “biological impact of this gene
transfer is unknown.”
A peer reviewed paper by American researchers released this last spring looked at the
toxicity of residue of the herbicide glyphosate on food. As the paper notes, glyphosate, which GMO food is engineered to tolerate, is “found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat.”
That means GMOs are present in most processed food. What the researchers found is that glyphosate “enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins.” They linked a number of diseases common in Western countries
with glyphosate residue on food, including obesity, diabetes, and heart
disease.
I’m interested in the peer-reviewed research behind blog posts like this, not the blog posts themselves. I won’t even read blogs. They’re a waste of my time.
What are you doing here then?
Good question. I enjoy talking to people who share different opinions. I try to expose myself to other ways of thinking to avoid becoming too limited in my perspective.
Authors: Hanaa A. S. Oraby, Mahrousa M. H. Kandil, Amal A. M. Hassan, Hayam A. Al-Sharawi
Genetically modified (GM) food crops are considered to have the
potential of providing food security especially in developing countries.
Scientists have raised concern over the hazards associated with the
consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). One of these
hazards, which have great controversy reports, is the possible
horizontal gene transfer from GM-food or feed to human or animal
tissues. Many researches were conducted to investigate the presence of
some transgenic sequences in animal tissues fed on GM- crops. Many of
the inserted genes in the GM-crops are under the control of the promoter
of the Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMVP35S) and produce insecticidal
proteins. Health hazards are suggested to accompany the ingestion of
this promoter. CaMVP35S can function in a wide range of organisms
(plants and animals). It has also been demonstrated that the CaMV-P35S
promoter sequence can convert an adjacent tissue- and organ-specific
gene promoter into a globally active promoter. The present work was
conducted to evaluate the possibility of horizontal gene transfer from a
diet containing DNA segments from Cauliflower mosaic virus -35S
promoter (CaMVP-35S) to the cells of different organs of rats fed for
three months on diets containing genetically modified components.
Analysis of the results revealed that: 1) ingested fragments from the
CaMV-35S promoter incorporated into blood, liver, and brain tissues of
experimental rats, 2) The total mean of transfer of GM target sequences
increased significantly by increasing the feeding durations, and 3) The
affinity of different transgenic fragments from the ingested GM-diet, to
be incorporated into the different tissues of rats varied from one
target sequence to the other.
Horizontal gene transfer is a theoretical risk, but not one that concerns me to any significant degree. After all, humans have been eating plants ever since humans evolved. We ingest DNA from plants and animals every day without any noticeable negative consequences. There is a dramatic difference between ingesting foreign DNA and that DNA becoming incorporated into the genomic DNA of our cells. This paper does not demonstrate that the latter is happening. Show me evidence that this presents an actual risk, not just that we simply absorb the DNA of things we eat. To that I say, who cares? We’ve been absorbing the DNA of things we eat for our entire history.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks
Look just like GMO Roberts you are willing to take a risk on the many proven potential dangers of GMOs and are instead taking the risk on the unproven “safe” partial research done on GMOs. There have been no long term generational studies on GMOs and you are unable to prove that GMOs are safe. The majority of unbiased, neutral scientists in the world would never go out and a limb and suggest GMOs are safe.
“We ingest DNA from plants and animals every day without any noticeable negative consequences.”
You are talking apples and autos here.
” After all, humans have been eating plants ever since humans evolved.”
Again you are generalizing and simplifying ( which every narrow minded GMO Monsanto human plant has done here).
Never in nature has anything remotely similar to these GMOs ever survived in the wild.
What “proven potential dangers”? That’s exactly what I’m talking about with regards to horizontal gene transfer. There is no evidence to support the claim that GMOs pose an inherent risk. Yes, it’s something we should be mindful of, but there’s not reason to think GMOs are inherently more dangerous than similar non-GM plants.
There have been no long term generational studies on GMOs
Have you tried looking?
Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
You are talking apples and autos here.
How so? Explain to me how DNA from a GM plant is dramatically different than DNA from a non-GM plant.
Never in nature has anything remotely similar to these GMOs ever survived in the wild.
There aren’t any wild Granny Smith apples either. No wild bananas. No “natural” wheat anywhere similar to what we grow. This concept of “natural is better” is built upon a lack of awareness of context.
Do you even know what long term means?
Over eighty five percent of the worlds scientists say they are safe. You lose again. By the way what government do we have again johnny?
Over ninety percent of the worlds scientists say they are unsafe. Better check your sources. Lost again are you fascist.
Prove it. List them. Without it you are just lying. Of course what would you expect from anyone that doesn’t even know what type of government rules them.
Prove it Sammy
It is in many articles go ahead and read them. By the way if you are reading try to figure out what kind of government we have here.
Tell us all about it Sammy – if you really can. I know you haven’t read any of these articles yourself. That’s why all you do here all day long is harass posters. You haven’t posted anything informative yet. That’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Informative? that is your opinion, but it is a fact that you don’t even know what type of government we have.
Conclusion
Ginsberg believes government officials should be taken out of
Washington and rotated through field offices. “Every study shows that
public officials working in the field offices develop more sympathy for
the American people,” he says.
Americans’ civic education could stand some change, too, he says:
“There should be less about George Washington and the cherry tree—more
about how to be a little cynical and understand politics as it’s seen in
Washington.” He adds, “Officials’ lack of concern or even knowledge of
the views of the general public does not leave us with much confidence
that the interests of ordinary citizens will carry much weight in the
process of administrative rule making.”
Hard to have sympathy for people not smart enough to know what kind of government we have.
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/abstracts/Swanson-et-al.html
You have it right! All of these bad things like high fructose corn syrup and processed foods would still exist if gmos didn’t and would be just as bad for you. Gmos have nothing to do with it. It is lack of exercise and bad diets.
What does obesity have to do with GMOs???
By Washington’s Blog
Global Research, March 20, 2012
Washington’s Blog 20 March 2012
Scientists tested GM corn at Monsanto laboratories, and found that the GMs increase body weight in rats. Specifically, a paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences reported in 2009:
We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. The three animal feeding studies were conducted in two different laboratories and at two different dates; at Monsanto (Missouri, USA) for NK 603 and MON 810 (June 7, 2000) and at Covance Laboratories Inc.
(Virginia, USA) for MON 863 (March 14, 2001) on behalf of Monsanto.
Crude and relative liver weights are also affected at the end of the maximal (33%) GM maize feeding level as well as that of the heart which for corresponding parameters to a comparable extent, showed up to an 11% weight increase.
Additional statistically significant differences include … higher … overall body (3.7%) weight Several parameters indicate increases in circulating glucose and triglyceride levels, with liver function parameters disrupted together with a slight increase in total body weight. This physiological state is indicative of a pre-diabetic profile.
Our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal [i.e. kidney and liver] toxicity.
This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [Remember that some GM crops are engineered to have the plants produce their own pesticides, some pesticides can cause obesity, and the pesticides are not magically destroyed before making it into our bloodstream].
All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863).
These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.
GMO’s feeding the troll of the world.
Last week GMO Bob and I were having a one way conversation about the lab rats. All he could say was the Sprague Dawley rats sucked. I asked him what should the use since that rat seems to be the norm for Monsatan and there ilk. I seen some labs use Mongolian Gerbils, and he had some perverse idea about them. So I looked into it a little bit like what did these rats eat before going to the lab. Make sense?
1. What are standard diets?
A more complete name would be Standard Natural-Ingredient Diets. These diets are manufactured in large quantities (at least 2 tons) and stocked at one or more Harlan Teklad distribution centers. Standard natural ingredient diets are readily available and can generally be delivered within a few days after an order is placed. These diets primarily contain grains (corn, wheat), legumes (soybean meal) and to a lesser extent ingredients such as fish meal, and meat and bone meal. Standard natural ingredient diets includeGlobal and Traditional diets and are available Irradiated and/or Certified.
so the obvious question that comes to mind with “Certified” USDA certified??
5. What are certified diets?
Certified diets are diets that have been tested for a standard panel of environmental contaminants that are known to be capable of interfering with a study. These diets help ensure that a study complies with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices regulations requiring periodic feed analysis. A Harlan Laboratories certificate of analysis signed by a nutritionist is made available to the customer. For more information see Certified Diets.
Well this tells a little.
Contaminant Maximum Acceptable Limit Unit
Arsenic 1.00 ppm
Cadmium 0.50 ppm
Lead 1.50 ppm
Mercury 0.20 ppm
Selenium 0.50 ppm
Aflatoxin B1, B2, G1, G2 5.00 ppb
Aldrin 0.03 ppm
Lindane 0.05 ppm
Chlordane 0.05 ppm
DDT & related substances 0.15 ppm
Dieldrin 0.03 ppm
Endrin 0.03 ppm
Heptachlor 0.03 ppm
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.03 ppm
Toxaphene 0.15 ppm
PCB’s 0.15 ppm
a-BHC 0.05 ppm
b-BHC 0.05 ppm
d-BHC 0.05 ppm
Hexachlorobenzene 0.03 ppm
Mirex 0.02 ppm
Methoxychlor 0.50 ppm
Thimet 0.50 ppm
Diazinon 0.50 ppm
Disulfaton 0.50 ppm
Methyl Parathion 0.50 ppm
Does anyone else notice what I don’t see??
Malathion 0.50 ppm
Parathion 0.50 ppm
Thiodan 0.50 ppm
Ethion 0.50 ppm
Trithion 0.50 ppm
I see some pesticides, but I guess there is some truth to “The Government doesn’t test for glyphosate”.
What’s your point Abe?
HOW DO YOU RIG AN ANIMAL FEEDING STUDY?
Well lets say your going to do a feeding study with these rats on GMO’s.
Well these animals at the lab rat creation factory have been eating foods with glyphosate and BT toxins till they get thrown into a box and sent to do a study.
As you can see by this list to be certified,,, I see they don’t test for Glyphosate, BT Toxins, 2,4-D, etc……
So after your study you conclude there’s know difference because the study group and the control group both have say tumors.
In laymens terms the control is already contaminated with the chemicals, and toxins your going to study. Diabolical? Yes Sneaky? Youbetcha. Brilliant? I’d shoot’em dead at the door of my casino!
Oh I see what you were getting at. Not sure if I fully agree but you don’t have to try to convince me that many anti-GMO studies are flawed.
This was a good read.
Very solid and revealing truth about GMOs. It’s amazing how gullible the people are and especially GMO supporters who have been duped by big business. This list of noxious and abusive GMO foods needs to be part of everybody’s avoided commodities.
Thanks for keeping us up to date on how the American consumer is being lied to and deceived by big business and by a government who isn’t sensitive to and protective enough of their charges and true responsibilities.