35 Comments

  1. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

    The whole business of GMO food feeding the world is just plain nonscense. It is just a new invention to make more profits for big AG

  2. blank Skeptologist says:

    It has been more than 30 years since GM crops were planted. Is the world really better off?

    Let’s see. Well for one, the papaya industry in Hawaii still exists, which has been largely attributed to genetic engineering.
    http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/papaya-gmo-success-story.html

    Yields for small farmers have improved.
    nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n4/abs/nbt0410-319 .html

    Larger farmers have been able to increase no-till practices.
    wssajournals .org/doi/abs/10.1614/WT-08-038.1

    Crops with the Bt trait have helped significantly reduce the spraying of insecticides.
    nature .com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html

    Sure, it hasn’t all been rainbows and lollipops, but to pretend that GM crops have been an abject failure is simply false. It’s a fantasy perpetrated by propagandists like the author of this article who either have no clue what they’re talking about or are lying.

    1. blank pissed man says:

      That would all be great if they were fit for consumption. The problem is that it is UNFIT for consumption, causes broad spectrum health issues and the long term effects, when studied, are ALL BAD! Yield was NEVER an issue in the days before GMO’s, No Till – Jury is still out on that one, looking like more than 15″ of till may be better; BT traits, BT used to be able to wash it off and eating residue was not too bad, now eating it by the pound and having the trait screw up the rest of the plant genome, makes it unfit for consumption. BT now found in blood, fetus, etc. Oh, and all the insects now resistant to BT will make this once decent pesticide worthless (in less than 15 years) So all the lollipops are also bad, want to try again?

      Here you go, tell us all about the good things for these issues.

      There are numerous problems with genetic engineering that
      are often overlooked. There are code scramblers, hitchhikers, chaperones, DNA
      rearrangement, horizontal gene transfer, gene position effects, gene silencing,
      environmental influences, light switches, hot spots, waking up sleeping
      viruses, cancer, genetic pollution via breathing or pollen, synthetic genes,
      genetic disposition, complex unpredictable interactions, rearranged codes, gene
      stacking, allergens, nutritional problems, antibiotic resistance and human
      error.
      The failure for GMO’s are Biblical and multi generational. The science that is being done is exposing the problems, one after another. 20 years, hundreds killed by Showa denko’s GMO L-Tryptophan, billions exposed to Monsanto’s frankencrops and chemicals. complete and Abject failures, not only failures, but poisonous failures on a worldwide level.

      the GMO advocate who said drinking glyphosate is safe, when given the chance says; “do you think I am stupid”. That’s all we need to know.

      1. blank Skeptologist says:

        The problem is that it is UNFIT for consumption, causes broad spectrum health issues and the long term effects

        If that’s the case, present some examples of peer-reviewed studies to support that claim. Don’t expect me to take your comment seriously otherwise.

        Yield was NEVER an issue in the days before GMO’s

        That’s a pretty clueless thing to say.

        BT used to be able to wash it off and eating residue was not too bad

        Incorrect.
        Occurrence of natural Bacillus thuringiensis contaminants and residues of Bacillus thuringiensis-based insecticides on fresh fruits and vegetables.
        Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 May;72(5):3435-40.

        BT now found in blood, fetus, etc

        Bt in fetuses? Source? I bet I know where you got this from and I bet you have read the actual study that claimed to have found this result, much less understand why the study was garbage. But let’s see if you can even present a source? Then I’ll happily educate you.

        There are code scramblers, hitchhikers, chaperones, DNA rearrangement, horizontal gene transfer, gene position effects, gene silencing, environmental influences, light switches, hot spots, waking up sleeping viruses, cancer, genetic pollution via breathing or pollen, synthetic genes, genetic disposition, complex unpredictable interactions, rearranged codes, gene stacking, allergens, nutritional problems, antibiotic resistance and human
        error.

        Where did you get this nonsense from? What is a “code scrambler”? What do chaperones have to do with any of this? Do you even know what a molecular chaperone is? What do “light switches” have to do with this? You sound like someone who spent 15 minutes on Google and now think you’re an expert. Well, you’re not.

        1. I liken G E to people messing with the atom…i.e. nuclear weapons, nuclear power…………and what is the result of this atomic mess? Disaster for us all. That’s what…..The same is on our door step as a result of people messing with Genetic Engineering and chemical’s applied to our soils, plants, forests. We have a disaster! I don’t know how to be much clearer………..YOU see, people did not make the earth, all life and it’s mysterious manifestations all of which are required for you and myself to exist………Since we did not make it, and it ain’t broke, we can’t add to the basic building blocks( for more personal brilliance) of which you and I are made of…………Need a clearer picture? I can get very specific….you are the who is out in left field with out a fielders glove…….

          1. blank Skeptologist says:

            I don’t see anything that rises to the level of evidence in your comment. I’m not out in left field. I’m right in the dugout. I am doing research involving GM plants. I am aware of how genetic engineering could be hazardous, but that’s not nearly the same thing as saying commercial GMOs are inherently dangerous. I’m open minded though. Show the evidence and convince me.

          2. here is the problem with theoretical stuff (science) when it’s let loose and it will be. Personally I love science. Math. physics. social aspects also….First of all. There is no need for life on earth to be “redesigned”…..The intricacy of all, one to the other (life forms), are vastly more difficult to understand as a whole, than any person who has ever lived to demonstrate that understanding……..You and I can not command one blade of grass to grow. Not one! When or if, we were to say to a fertile area of earth…..I command you, grass….grow right there! Nothing happens. Absolutely nothing…..yet that grass does grow via means that passes all understanding. My comment is in respect to and for the beauty THAT IS. I am not a religious preacher or pretender…..Look closely at the so called Atomic Energy business…..Humanity has yet to face the outcome of that disaster….the can has been kicked down the road. Why? Well Einstein said it was a damn fool way to boil water…and he is spot on….
            If my reference to the blade of grass is unsettling or you would want…..do answer back and include in you thoughts, why Humans…find it difficult to safe guard their own survival………??
            and tell you something else…I am a combat vet out of Nam, in country 1969 via us army, draftee and was right in the thrust of agent orange, and the rest of our “brilliant political and military minds” doings…………..the only difference between this analogy and a mad scientist is the weapon……………I ask you get a damn grip. You could do some positive education with your background………

          3. blank Skeptologist says:

            There is no need for life on earth to be “redesigned”.

            Practically everything we eat has been “redesigned”. There is no wild broccoli, no wild bananas, and no wild Holsteins. Humans have been “redesign” nature from beginning of agriculture. This idea that life is some how ‘naturally ideal’ is a myth born from human perception. It’s not reality.

            You and I can not command one blade of grass to grow.

            Sure you can. You just need to understand the ‘language’ and what ‘words’ to use. In this case, that language is plant science and the words are regulatory growth hormones. I could easily promote or inhibit the growth of grass in the lab or my backyard by applying hormones.

            You could do some positive education with your background…

            Thank you for the sentiment. And in fact, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do here.

          4. you’re in the dugout?????

          5. blank Skeptologist says:

            Meh. I dunno. I was trying to stick with the baseball analogy.

        2. blank pissed man says:

          You missed the point: BT was NEVER inside the plant cells, It was on the surface and consumed in minute amounts. Not consumed by the pound as found in every GMO plant cell! So trying to make this look Natural is failing.

          1. blank Skeptologist says:

            Not consumed by the pound

            I highly doubt anyone is consuming Bt endotoxin by the “pound”. Stop being hyperbolic. It makes it exceedingly easy to dismissing you.

            For example, Cry1ab (Bt endotoxin) concentration in MON810 grain were measured at about 0.8 ug/g. That means to consume 1 pound of Cry1ab a person would need to eat 545,000 kilograms of MON810 grain.

            Cry1Ab toxin production of MON 810 transgenic maize
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5/full

            Besides, even at very high doses of 5 g/kg, no adverse reactions were seen in mice.

            Safety assessment of Cry1Ab/Ac fusion protein
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691509001392

        3. blank pissed man says:

          People can see how science has been used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. It is because they regard these large corporations as largely unaccountable and their activities and products not properly regulated by governments.

          That’s why so many doubt Monsanto Tobacco science – or more precisely the science corporations fund and promote to support their interests.

          So what was that about the peer reviewed science thing? we all know everything published under a Monsanto rubric will show it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, no problems, everything is fine here. while farmers turn their farmland into chemical wasteland that produces food that is devoid of nutrition, namely the magnesium, manganese and others that Glyphosate chelates. Mass is still conserved.

  3. blank pissed man says:

    What pisses me off the most is that Monsanto decided that their profits are worth more than your health and that they would push their products on the population and treat us all like guinea pigs while they profit off our misery. This is against every moral law in existence, oh I forgot, Monsanto is an amoral company!

    do your own diligence, study up on GMO tobacco science, see how they are making guinea pigs out of your family and kids and causing harm to everything they touch with their glyphosate and unknown GMO science. they know the studies and have done them internally and they hide the data! Get pissed and do something by avoiding the companies that use their products so the companies will eliminate them from their ingredients, starve the monsanto beast. pass laws in your state that abolish their usage, we are already turning this abomination around as the people wake up to the corporate culture of death and profits at all cost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *