Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

[xylophone]

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that, because accusing someone of having "tunnel vision" can be construed as an insult in as much as, "t[/background][/size]unnel vision is a common occurrence among people who suffer from personality disorders and has been referred to as a “psychological condition”.

Yes, that'd be one of the autistic disorders known as aspergers (albeit on a high functioning level)

http://www.aspergertechnical.org.uk/discuss/topic54.html

https://www.aspiescentral.com/threads/conspiracy-theories-and-other-paranoia.2546/

High correlation between aspies and obsessing over various conspiracy theories. You fit multiple of the diagnostic criteria.

Particularly:

http://psychcentral.com/lib/symptoms-of-aspergers-disorder/000877

A significant and encompassing preoccupation or obsession with one or two restricted topics, that is abnormal either in intensity, subject or focus (such as baseball statistics or the weather)

I know for a fact that if I had accused someone In my division of having "tunnel vision" then the HR department would have been down on me like a ton of bricks, irrespective of the fact that I started and ran the $2 billion unit and it was one of the most successful in the country.

Kinda irrelevant effort to lend yourself authority and credibility by an unsupported claim. You might as well claim that you're an astronaut.

Oh dear, there you go again Daffy, you just can't help yourself with the insults you throw out, however I will not question your "state of mind" in doing such things, although it is generally considered poor practice when discussing/arguing points of view.

You will have noticed that the links I posted for you have been factual, so are not "conspiracy theories" and that is probably why you are angry because you have been proven wrong and the only way you know to fight back is to do so, ad hominem.

True to form you picked up on the little titbit that I threw out regarding just a little of my background, just as I thought you would and it leads me on to something which proves your "theory" to be totally wrong.

You see when you are starting up a brand-new company/division to invest billions of dollars worldwide, you have to have the ability to think very broadly, question every decision, gather every piece of relevant information and analyse it, think of and workshop the "what ifs", conform with customer rights and local laws, not to mention international laws and market trends, foreign exchange, interact and negotiate with many companies………and so much more.

I did this and this division is now part of one of the major successful financial institutions worldwide.

Thank you for allowing me to point this out and it certainly would not lend credence to any of your assertions as to my mental abilities!!!

For the record, there is no need for me to revisit this thread because I have posted links to the necessary information to back up my "argument" and I have already suggested to "attrayant" that we will have to agree to disagree.

PS. Don't give up your day job.

[attrayant]

I do not want a plant to be altered so that it can be sprayed with a chemical (glyphosate) which may be able to find its way into my body.

That happens in traditional farming too. The only way to avoid herbicides is to go completely organic. Anyway that's a sidebar topic.

Already there are "warning bells" relating to research being carried out as to how this chemical may affect human gut bacteria.

I've seen only a single questionable study purporting to show correlation (but not causation) with celiac disease. If there's anything else, I'd be interested in seeing it.

In addition, Monsanto's practices have resulted in super weeds

Yes glyphosate is a victim of its own success. But overuse of any solution is going to result in evolutionary pressures for adaptation and resistance. I'd be surprised if this wasn't expected by any biologist or botanist. We've already seen it happen with overuse of antibiotics. It's almost certain that pests will eventually become resistance to Bt (bacillus thuringiensis), the environmentally safe insecticide that some crops are able to produce internally. Then it'll be back to the drawing board for new solutions.

I'm not a farmer but I believe the best practice technique is to rotate herbicides and perform minimal tilling of the soil, rather than just constant and increasing reliance on a single chemical solution to the problem. I have no problem with letting the farmers and their seed suppliers work together to find the right solutions to these problems.

I fear that we have not learned from history and that once something like this is changed, it is changed forever.

That's progress for you.

[RPCVguy]

I almost lost track of this thread, but had to add this as an update I spotted today:

Howard Vlieger has done his own on-the-farm testing on GMOs. He grew GMO Bt corn side by side with the isoline (the original corn type that was used to create the GMO) for 2 years in the 1990's and lost money on the GMO corn both years. He also conducted a feeding test with his cattle. When given the choice between the Bt corn and conventional corn, his cattle chose conventional. But this is not a scientific experiment. Read about the brick wall that gets hit when trying to set up an independent scientific study on GMOs and/or Roundup here:

READ: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15027

If you follow that link, the article concludes with the full letter cited above:

"Letter to the editor, Grist
Howard Vlieger
24 August, 2013

Nathanael Johnson's comments about the ability to access the genetics for research purposes are inaccurate. He makes it sound as if the researchers at our land grant universities are waiting with open arms to conduct research on GMO crops and or glyphosate. He makes it sound as if the companies that develop GM crops are eager for full disclosure and testing of GM crops. This is not the case, based on my experience, which has been repeated more than once in different parts of the country. When we approach the land grant researchers with the funding in hand to test a specific hypothesis on a GM crop or how glyphosate may be affecting a GM crop, the reaction is the same every time. This is what we have been told by the researcher(s): “It would be very unhealthy for the career of any researcher to get involved with any research that may shed negative light on a GM crop or glyphosate”.

"I have been active in studying GMOs since 1994 and researching GMOs from the farmer perspective since 1997. As a seed salesman for a seed corn company I have conducted side by side research of BT corn with identical isogenic lines in my field 2 years in a row in the 1990s. The seed was provided by the seed company without need for any signature of a technology agreement. I have never signed a technology agreement with any company that holds a patent on seed. In 1997 it was not illegal to conduct on-farm research comparing [GM] traited seed to its conventional counterpart. Today a bag of patented traited seed cannot even be unloaded on a dealer’s property unless the dealer has signed a technology agreement with the patent holder of the seed. That technology agreement prohibits any research without the written consent of the patent holder. The BT corn caused us to lose money (an average of $58 dollars per acre) both years that we tested it. We also conducted a test with the grain and our cattle. When given a choice between the conventional corn and the BT corn they refused to eat the BT corn.

"While this was not considered a scientific study, on the farm we have to recognize facts from a common sense perspective more than a scientific perspective. When we lose money we try to avoid making that mistake twice. As a result of those early experiences you might say that we have paid closer attention than some. We have witnessed many negative side effects in crop and livestock production relative to GMO crops and glyphosate herbicides. Thankfully this has led me to connect with many qualified researchers from around the world.

"The protocol for our pig study was reviewed and data evaluated by scientists from universities and research institutes. The controls were much more closely adhered to than in many industry studies.

"Isn’t it interesting that every scientist or researcher that conducts a study that documents a problem with a GMO crop is labeled as an extremist or a junk scientist?

"This is the view from where I stand, at ground level.

"Sincerely, Howard Vlieger, co-author and primary coordinator of the pig study that Johnson criticised."

Edited December 29, 2014 by RPCVguy

[attrayant]

Problem: The article is full of observational, anecdotal data that can't be replicated when tested for under controlled conditions.

Nathanael Johnson's comments about the ability to access the genetics for research purposes are inaccurate.
He makes it sound as if the researchers at our land grant universities are waiting with open arms to conduct research on
GMO crops and or glyphosate.

What? Nobody wants to spend research money to study something that's already been done to death and will almost certainly yield nothing but negative data? I'm shocked! The author needs to get it straight exactly what we're supposed to be afraid of. Glyphosate has been in use something like 20 or 25 years prior to the widespread use on GMO crops. Why is it all of a sudden a concern?

And like most articles about the subject, the author mixes in as many GMO boogeymen as possible in an attempt to make it all the scarier.

Patent/IP rights boogeyman:

Today a bag of patented traited seed cannot even be unloaded on a dealers property unless the dealer has signed a technology agreement with the patent holder of the seed. That technology agreement prohibits any research without the written consent of the patent holder.

And I can't copy DVDs and give/sell them to my friends unless I have a license agreement with the movie studios. This is news? Sounds like the author has a problem with patent law, not with GMO.

Financial loss boogeyman:

The BT corn caused us to lose money (an average of $58 dollars per acre) both years that we tested it.

Not quite sure what the point is. It seems to be "You shouldn't use GMO tech because I personally lost money on it". Well that's a shame. The author should change his business model and/or methods to avoid further financial losses. Tens of thousands of other farmers, however, are seeing no such loss and are quite happy where they are, making their own decisions.

The "New Coke" boogeymam:

We also conducted a test with the grain and our cattle. When given a choice between the conventional corn and the BT corn they refused to eat the BT corn.

It's with statements like this that the author seems to be grasping at whatever straws are available merely to meet the article's word count requirement. I fail to see relevance, or even importance. And even if true, how does it establish a health benefit or risk factor?

I conducted a test with my cat. When given a choice between canned tuna fish and bagged dry tuna fish-flavored cat food, she refused the store-bought. I guess the store-bought is somehow unhealthy or dangerous, right? How's that for observational data!

And it's interesting how choice of word can color our reading of the statement. Regard:

When given a choice between the conventional corn and the BT corn they refused to eat the BT corn.

When given a choice between the conventional corn and the BT corn they preferred to eat the conventional corn.

I don't know about you, but that second statement, which says essentially the same thing, comes off as a lot less concerning.

The greedy corporation boogeyman:

Vlieger pointed out that biotech companies collect billions of dollars from farmers in technology fees each year. He calculated that "if all of the acres of corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets planted in the US in 2010 were planted with the latest and greatest GMO seed, that would generate just under 8.7 billion dollars in tech fees for just one year."

News flash: Brave independent farmer uncovers shocking truth that companies make money on products that they sell.

Again, how is this relevant? And so what?

Finally, the biggest problem with this is that we can't look at one small set of observational data in a vacuum. We must include it with all the other data that we have to date to see if there is a clear signal or even a trend. If you do that - stand back and look at the combined results of this anecdotal "study" plus the thousands of other genuine studies, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the anecdote is valid data and the thousands of other controlled studies are junk? The only way I can see of reaching that conclusion is by going the conspiracy theory route.

Edited December 29, 2014 by attrayant

[RPCVguy]

When the corporation gets to select who is doing research, has exhibited a willingness to destroy its detractors via lawsuits and assorted pressures - yes, it is tough to get data. Your complaints did not deal with the observations cited, but continue to insist that in this debate, the under-funded side must be wrong.

Here IS a study that does again raise alarms
"The fact that plant DNA is fragmented to small sizes after the process of digestion lead to the assumption that designing primers to amplify smaller amplicons would increase the chance to detect transgenic fragments, which could transfer to the animal genome."

..."ANOVA statistical analysis of the results of this work revealed that feeding rats with GM-diet for 30, 60 or 90 days increased the mean transfer of GM target sequences significantly (8.0 ± 0.0000, 12.3±1.2018 and 16.7±1.4529, respectively) by increasing the feeding durations (Figure 6). Mazza et al. (2005) reported a progressive decrease in DNA detected in the target tissues. Therefore, they exclude the possibility that organs like liver, kidney and spleen elicit an accumulation effects; whereas, results of the present work indicate an accumulation effects in blood, liver and brain tissues."
..."Many GM crops produce an insecticidal protein (for example Cry1Ab) which is under the control of the promoter of the Cauliflower mosaic virus."
..."Results of the present work suggest a health hazards accompanying the ingestion of diets containing Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter since Cauliflower mosaic virus has been reported to be closely related to human hepatitis B virus (Doolittle et al., 1989, Xiong and Eikbush, 1990)."

http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-full-text/BE5331948800

[attrayant]

When the corporation [...] has exhibited a willingness to destroy its detractors via lawsuits and assorted pressures...

What is this in reference to?

Here IS a study that does again raise alarms

..."Results of the present work suggest a health hazards accompanying the ingestion of diets containing Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter since Cauliflower mosaic virus has been reported to be closely related to human hepatitis B virus (Doolittle et al., 1989, Xiong and Eikbush, 1990)."

This is not the study's conclusion. Here is the conclusion by the authors:

Our results support the suggestion that monitoring for transgenic flow is a way to measure the possible environmental impacts of GMO and to serve as a warning system for deleterious effects (NRC, 2002).

There are several things mentioned in the study that the uninitiated reader might have a knee-jerk fear reaction to, but rather than cover them all, I'll just ask what alarms (your word, note the plural) YOU think have been raised by the study?

Edited December 29, 2014 by attrayant

[RPCVguy]

I quoted what I saw of concern in the study. I don't anticipate swaying your opinions, so much as supplying information for the general TV reader as background to consider.

[xylophone]

I quoted what I saw of concern in the study. I don't anticipate swaying your opinions, so much as supplying information for the general TV reader as background to consider.

The stance that the pro-GMO advocates take is that GMO and glyphosate, for example have been around for years, have been tested by "knowledgeable" people in this field and that the evidence that it is unsafe comes from a few uninformed/radical/Luddite-type people.

What they will never take into consideration is that the drugs listed below (and many, many more) underwent the same tests, with double-blind trials, phased trials and research by pharmacists, chemists and scientists, in order to bring them to market.

And more importantly that the suspicion that these drugs were not safe started with a few doctors providing feedback, proving that all the scientific testing that had previously gone on was "unsafe" and was carried out by those with the most to gain as regards money/profit (sound familiar?).

Furthermore, in some cases it took more than a decade for the voices of concern to be recognised. Just some examples………..

1). Thalidomide was launched in 1957 and the drug was withdrawn in 1961.

Dispute on the question, whether thalidomide did or did not cause malformations was going on for months, though independent confirmation rapidly accumulated.

Chemie Gruenenthal continued to deny the teratogenic effects of thalidomide for years, but there was a growing suspicion that this was not due to honest ignorance but to the purpose of weakening the accusations against the firm.

2). Lawsuits filed by people injured by Actos list a number of counts against Takeda and Eli Lilly, including failure to warn about side effects and willfully concealing the safety concerns with the drug………and they: Concealed testing and research data from the public, provided misleading data to the public and knew the dangers of the product, but sold it anyway to maximize profits

3). Avandia……..The FDA estimates that Avandia caused 83,000 heart attacks from 1999 to 2007.

In 2012, the U.S. Justice Department announced GlaxoSmithKline had agreed to plead guilty and pay a $3 billion fine, in part for withholding the results of two studies of the cardiovascular safety of Avandia between 2001 and 2007. The settlement stems from claims made by four employees of GlaxoSmithKline, including a former senior marketing development manager for the company and a regional vice president, who tipped off the government about a range of improper practices from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s.

4). In 1992, SmithKline Beecham launched Paxil (Paroxetine). Based on the allegation that GlaxoSmithKline misled consumers about Paxil’s safety — including increasing suicidal behavior — a $64 million class-action suit was settled in 2007.

5). In 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Forest Labs of marketing Lexapro for unapproved uses, failing to disclose negative results from clinical trials and paying kickbacks to doctors who prescribed the drug. In 2010, the company’s subsidiary, Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc., agreed to pay more than $313 million to settle the charges over Lexapro and two other drugs, Levothroid and Celexa.

The drugmaker currently faces more legal troubles over Lexapro. The prescription drug has been linked to birth defects in children born to women who used the antidepressant during pregnancy. Some families have already filed lawsuits because the company marketed the drug as being safe for pregnant women and women of childbearing age.

Those with the most to gain in the GMO/glyphosate example will gather their support in the places that matter (lobbyists, agricultural bodies, testing agencies and so on) in order to strengthen their case and this is conveniently overlooked by the pro-lobby.

Companies have been very, very wrong in the past with regards to the safety of their products and the rationale behind them, as has been proven above, but the problem here is that where the drugs can be withdrawn, once this enters the food chain, it cannot be undone.

[attrayant]

The stance that the pro-GMO advocates take is that GMO and glyphosate, for example have been around for years, have been tested by "knowledgeable" people in this field and that the evidence that it is unsafe comes from a few uninformed/radical/Luddite-type people.

Not sure why you put knowledgeable in scare quotes. You're implying that they're not?

What they will never take into consideration is that the drugs listed below (and many, many more) underwent the same tests, with double-blind trials, phased trials and research by pharmacists, chemists and scientists, in order to bring them to market.

I've taken that into consideration, but I don't see much relevance. We've made air travel safer and safer over the years but still the occasional plane goes down. Shouldn't we ban air travel too (or at least research it more to be sure that no more airplane disasters happen in the future)? Of course not; what a ridiculous suggestion I've just made. But that's just about as spurious an argument successfully proving that something is still "unsafe".

Let's consider three kinds of hypothetical product.

• Product A gets tested. Deemed unsafe. Doesn't go to market.
• Product B gets tested. Deemed safe; goes to market. Three or five years later, links to health hazards turn up. Product is recalled. Lawsuits ensue. Lawyers get rich and companies go bankrupt or lose many millions (sometimes billions) of dollars.
• Product C gets tested. Deemed safe. Goes to market. Gets used for 30-some years in an estimated BILLION meals fed to cattle. Thus far no substantiated reports of harm to animal or human health.

Glyphosate is, at the moment, product C. Your concern that it might some day become product B is perhaps valid only to some infinitesimally small degree, but it just keeps getting smaller every time the meal odometer rolls over another million GMO/Roundup meals served with no ill effects reported from the field. How much longer before your fears are allayed?

We've already had an exchange similar to this several pages ago where you tried to compare the current issue with the feeding of crushed bovine rendering back to cows. A bit of a stretch there, but what the heck. My reply was that this is the precautionary principle with the force multiplier of paranoia applied to it, and that is still my opinion. We can never be 100% sure that something bad won't happen in the future. But as far as glyphosate goes, we're pretty much at five or six nines of assurance. Understandably, not too many research institutes or universities are anxious to throw more grant money at something that is extraordinarily likely to return entirely expected results.

Your five examples - yes those were unfortunate. But let's do the analysis fairly and not look only at the data that favors one particular side. Let's compare those five negative events to the number of drugs or food chain products that have NOT resulted in such unfortunate results. What's that ratio like? Pretty good, I'd bet. This site says there are 7736 different kinds of drugs. Up against your five, that's a 99.94% success rate. Now add in herbicides, suppliments, vitamins and all the other products that end up in our food chain.

By the way, you forgot Fenfluramine ("Fen-phen"), which resulted in a 13 BILLION dollar spanking for its producer. Do you really think Monsanto isn't doing everything it can to avoid being hit with a lawsuit like that?

And it is factually incorrect to state that the drugs you mentioned underwent the same level of scrutiny as glyphosate has. In fact I'd wager that no agricultural product has undergone more testing than glyphosate because it's become such a lightning rod. Just a casual search of google scholar shows 96,700 hits (that does not include patents & citations). How many prescription and OTC medications have that kind of attention both before and after coming to market?

[attrayant]

I missed this, and since it was your summary statement I figured I should address it:

once this enters the food chain, it cannot be undone.

Assuming that "this" is glyphosate, it has been the most used herbicide since 2006 or thereabouts. That means we're nearly ten years too late, aren't we? What should be done now?

[RPCVguy]

I missed this, and since it was your summary statement I figured I should address it:

once this enters the food chain, it cannot be undone.

Assuming that "this" is glyphosate, it has been the most used herbicide since 2006 or thereabouts. That means we're nearly ten years too late, aren't we? What should be done now?

Wrong on the assumption -

"What can not be undone" is genetic pollution of wind borne cross pollination that happens once GMO organisms are grown in field tests.

[attrayant]

The quote was specific to the "food chain", so I'm not sure your reading is correct.

Regardless, let's go with that. Genetic pollution being somewhat a pregnant term, containing the default presumption that something bad is happening. I prefer genetic mixing. Whatever we call it, this would have still been a problem before GMO, wouldn't it? What have farmers done in the past when this happened (for example, between two neighboring but different varieties of conventional corn)?

[DaffyDuck]

The quote was specific to the "food chain", so I'm not sure your reading is correct.

It will mean whatever he can get away with while moving the goalposts...

[xylophone]

You may well quote the "many years of research" done as regards glyphosate and how it is deemed low in toxicity, and ridicule any other research which is done, but how about research suggesting that glyphosate can interfere with the shikimate pathway which is present in the bacteria in the human gut?

OR, in Feb. of 2012, the peer reviewed journal Archives of Toxicology published a study showing that, “Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications……….The likely explanation is that the surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine within Roundup dramatically enhances the absorption of glyphosate into exposed human cells and tissue”.

Or… Roundup is toxic and has resulted in death after being ingested in quantities ranging from 85 to 200 ml. 10.1177/096032719101000101

And, Fatal Poisoning with Glyphosate-Surfactant Herbicide Journal of the Intensive Care Society January 1, 2011 12: 37-39 Abstract Full Text (PDF).

This from a chemical which Monsanto once said was “as safe as table salt”!!

Much like the examples I gave of the drugs, where the "vast majority of research" suggested that they were safe, yet it was the individual voices providing feedback over the years which showed they weren't………..sound familiar. (See this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html )

On the subject of the drugs, it could be argued that the pharmaceutical companies producing the drugs were looking for ways to alleviate human diseases and suffering from them, so there was a need. And sure the drug companies would make money from it so it becomes a win-win situation.

Now what is the argument for glyphosate and GMOs?

Is there a shortage of food in the world? No.

Is hunger and starvation in the world the result of a shortage of food? No, and the earlier links given back that up and state that corruption is the main cause.

So is there a need to produce more food? No.

Furthermore; “Debunking the stubborn myth that only industrial ag can ‘feed the world’……..Under the auspices of the United Nations, World Bank, World Health Organization, and other institutions, the IAASTD gathered 400 scientists and development experts from dozens of nations to assess the very problems examined by The Economist……”As for the alleged panacea of genetically modified seeds, the IAASTD was so unenthusiastic about GMOs that Croplife International, the trade group for the globe’s dominant GMO/agrichemical purveyors, angrily pulled out of participation shortly before its release”.

So if there is no need, why is it being done? Well the answer is quite simple, more money for an organisation which aims to gain a monopolistic foothold and it has spent billions of dollars so far trying to do this.

As an example……..(Wiki) “Glyphophate-resistant weeds are present in the vast majority of soybean, cotton and corn farms in some U.S. states. Weeds that can resist multiple other herbicides are spreading. From 2005 through 2010 researchers discovered 13 different weed species that had developed resistance to glyphosate.

For southern cotton, herbicide costs has climbed from between $50 and $75 per hectare a few years ago to about $370 per hectare in 2013. For soybeans in Illinois, costs have risen from about $25 to $160 per hectare”.

So it is quite clear that the benefits of this herbicide and others like it are not quite what was expected, only that it is making the producing companies a lot of money.

As if to add insult to injury, the pro-lobby have always argued that "this revolution will mean farmers in poor countries can produce more food".

Well that myth has already been put to bed, and even if it wasn't, to think that poor farmers in poor countries could afford to pay huge amounts of money for GMO technology and the increasing herbicide costs is a nonsense.

Remember that this is from a company which was described as, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society”. This after it was found guilty of lying, deliberately hiding the truth and responsible for pollution going back years. So it has no problem with poisoning people

.

And in its quest to make money it could be forever changing what is in the food chain and what we eat and adding yet another chemical which we ingest, and that is too high a price to pay for no benefits to mankind, other than to make a large corporation more money.

[Ragzilb]

Humans have been modifying plants for centuries.

I can remember back in school many years ago being taught about a Monk (French Italian) who cross bred wheat, I think.

Cross bred two tall plants and got a result. crossbred a tall plant and a short plant. Got a result. Crossbred two small plants. Got a result. And documented the results and went on to breed the best of them. Probably the worlds first geneticist.

Why not use science to our advantage?

Then again the naysayers of genetic engineering based on science are the same mob who scream climate change...based on science!!!

you really dont know what you talk about, GMO and Cross pollinating is not the same. Crosspollinating is simple can be done with your fingers from one flower to another.

GMO is inserting in a LAB a bacteria into a vegetable, like fish DNA into Tomato that has only been done for about 40 years and was introduced to consumers in the start of the 90's so its not something we have done for many years, and we really dont have any clue to what it might do to our health. but its your body and your life. My only hope is that for those who dont want that crap will be offered the change to choose by labelling or making GMO areas in the supermarket.

[attrayant]

GMO is inserting in a LAB a bacteria into a vegetable

You capitalized LAB for some reason, so I guess that's a problem for you. Can you explain why some process that occurs outside of a lab is okay, but it's suddenly suspect when it's done in a sterile, controlled environment? In vitro fertilization happens in a LAB too.

like fish DNA into Tomato that has only been done for about 40 years and was introduced to consumers in the start of the 90's so its not something we have done for many years

But has been happening in nature for millions of years.

and we really dont have any clue to what it might do to our health.

Which is why extensive testing and FDA approval is required, so that we will have a clue.

So what's the problem?

[xylophone]

GMO is inserting in a LAB a bacteria into a vegetable

You capitalized LAB for some reason, so I guess that's a problem for you. Can you explain why some process that occurs outside of a lab is okay, but it's suddenly suspect when it's done in a sterile, controlled environment? In vitro fertilization happens in a LAB too.

like fish DNA into Tomato that has only been done for about 40 years and was introduced to consumers in the start of the 90's so its not something we have done for many years

But has been happening in nature for millions of years.

and we really dont have any clue to what it might do to our health.

Which is why extensive testing and FDA approval is required, so that we will have a clue.

So what's the problem?

Or maybe we won't "have a clue"

"The UN's International Agency for Research on Cancer says three pesticides, including the popular weedkiller Roundup, which is sold in New Zealand, are "probably" carcinogenic.

It classified the herbicide glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup - and the insecticides malathion and diazinon as "probably carcinogenic" on the basis of "limited evidence" of cancer among humans.

"The general population is exposed (to glyphosate) primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use and diet, and the level that has been observed is generally low," the IARC statement said.

The evaluation of glyphosate saw "limited evidence" of a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as seen in studies in the US, Sweden and Canada conducted among farm workers since 2001.

Even more frightening is the fact that the FDA, which is supposed to protect the general public, has been at fault with the "testing" (supposed) of GE foods..............

"One the main pieces of evidence that came straight from the FDA’s own files was a letter written by the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator, sent to a Canadian health official only seven months before the FDA announced its policy on GE foods in May 1992.

In that policy, the FDA purported there was an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that these foods are safe—so safe in fact that they do not need to be tested.

But in the preceding letter, the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator had admitted that there was not a consensus about safety of these foods in the scientific community at large...

In fact, FDA scientists had overwhelmingly concluded that GE foods present a different array of risks than their conventionally produced counterparts; that none of them can be presumed safe; and that they need to be demonstrated safe through rigorous testing, which also happens to be the law.

And they weren't tested so the poor public has been duped by the very organisation which is supposed to protect them. Big industry influence and money runs deep, far and wide.

[Rancid]

No doubt US multinational Monsanto spreading it's influence and dollars.

The evidence against GMO is overwhelmingly bad, seems they have serious side effects, especially in the long term. Positive reports are paid for by GMO companies and the FDA is either negligent or bought.

Read up on Monsanto Roundup if still harbouring doubts, truly evil stuff.

For those wanting to believe they are safe, that's fine, but for the rest of us that have bothered to research we would prefer free choice and having none in our diet. US cereals, McDonald's food, Lays chips just to name a few are all crammed full of GMO.

The companies pay big money so that US labels do not declare GMO because even they know consumers don't want it.

[northernjohn]

Oh no, there goes my weekend.

Many NGOs feel GMOs do more harm than good.

When they've got something other than a "feeling" to base their fears on, I'll listen.

Even this neutral-toned report indicates some of the real dangers. Cross-contamination, where the GMO is naturally spread to other fields is a big one.

Has it ever been conclusively shown that this spread is a bad thing? I mean this kind of seed distribution happens to non-GMO seeds too, so that's also a kind of cross-contamination. Seems to me the statement simply begs the question (i.e. assumes the premise to be true) that GMO seeds are intrinsically bad.

Even the language used in discussing this situation strongly implies that something bad or evil is happening. Look at that word "contamination". Ooh, something evil must be happening! Scary, right?

people who know the real deal about this garbage just dont [sic] want it...thats [sic] why so many Countrys [double-sic] are running away from it

It turns out that the people who know "the real deal" don't actually know anything at all. When the man on the street is asked why they reject GMOs, their answer never has anything to do with the science. It's always something like "we shouldn't be messing with nature!" which is purely a philosophical position, not a scientific or rational one. Politicians, of course, always want to appeal to the lowest common denominator so they end up listening to these uninformed opinions of the man on the street.

Always over looked is many NGOs are in it only for the money they can put in their pocket.

They have no research facilities. By the time they pay their wages

there is no money left to research.

Edited March 21, 2015 by northernjohn

[attrayant]

"The UN's International Agency for Research on Cancer says three pesticides, including the popular weedkiller Roundup, which is sold in New Zealand, are "probably" carcinogenic.

It classified the herbicide glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup - and the insecticides malathion and diazinon as "probably carcinogenic" on the basis of "limited evidence" of cancer among humans.

"The general population is exposed (to glyphosate) primarily through residence near sprayed areas, home use and diet, and the level that has been observed is generally low," the IARC statement said.

The evaluation of glyphosate saw "limited evidence" of a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as seen in studies in the US, Sweden and Canada conducted among farm workers since 2001.

No link, but I guess this is it: Roundup Weed Killer Has Probable Carcinogen, U.N. Says

From the article:

The French agency's experts said the cancer risks of the weed killer were mostly from occupational exposure. "I don't think home use is the issue," said Kate Guyton of IARC. "It's agricultural use that will have the biggest impact. For the moment, it's just something for people to be conscious of."

Also worth noting that this was not a new study. No new research was done and no new data was produced. This was an examination of existing studies. And if we take the report at face value (and I'm not), the new classification (2A) suggests that glyphosate might be as carcinogenic as working on the late shift or being a hairdresser/barber (two other things that have the same classification level).

So to sum up, this is earth-shattering news for anyone who drinks Roundup.

Newswire: IARC misclassification of glyphosate as Group 2A probable carcinogen

RALEIGH, N.C., March 20, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- The IARC Group 2A misclassification is not consistent with the conclusions reached by other evaluations carried out by regulatory authorities and other authoritative scientific bodies across the world, all of which have concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer. As recently as January, the German government completed a four-year study of glyphosate on behalf of the European Union and concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk in humans.

It is baffling that IARC arrived at such a different conclusion than all these other scientific reviews. Importantly, IARC did not consider any new or unique research findings when making its decision. It appears that only by deciding to exclude certain available scientific information and by adopting a different approach to interpreting the studies was this possible.

Finally a ration of criticism from scientists all over the world:

Expert reaction to carcinogenicity classification of five pesticides by the International Agency for Research on Cancer

[multiple scientists will be quoted in a single quote box, since I've reached the limit on quote tags]

Prof Andreas Kortenkamp, Professor in Human Toxicology at Brunel University London, said:

"The authorities in the EU must now consider whether existing measures are sufficient to protect consumers and pesticide applicators from cancer risks."

Dr Oliver Jones, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, said:

"This sounds scary and IARC evaluations are usually very good, but to me the evidence cited here appears a bit thin. The study itself says that for all compounds, the evidence of human carcinogenicity was limited or considered inadequate.

People might be interested to know that there are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as ‘probably carcinogenic’, including night shifts. In the highest category of known carcinogens are ‘alcoholic beverages’ and ‘solar radiation’ (sunlight) – along with plutonium.

So yes, pesticides can be dangerous, but are many other common things which are also dangerous in sufficient amounts or over long periods of time – the dose makes the poison. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this does seem to me to be a precautionary rather than a reactionary change.

From a personal perspective, I am a vegetarian so I eat a lot of vegetables and I’m not worried by this report."

Prof Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Imperial College London, said:

"The IARC process is not designed to take into account how a pesticide is used in the real world – generally there is no requirement to establish a specific mode of action, nor does mode of action influence the conclusion or classification category for carcinogenicity. The IARC process is not a risk assessment. It determines the potential for a compound to cause cancer, but not the likelihood. These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm."

Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said:

"I have served on a number of regulatory bodies for the UK, EU and WHO and I am well used to sifting wheat from chaff in the analysis of pesticides. What is missing in this new assessment is balance in the consideration of the studies. There are over 60 genotoxicity studies on glyphosate with none showing results that should cause alarm relating to any likely human exposure. For human epidemiological studies there are 7 cohort and 14 case control studies , none of which support carcinogenicity.

The authors have included non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but that diagnosis is no longer used in pathology because it’s far too imprecise. Even if you do include NHL there are still 7 studies, only one of which is positive – and that one is not a good study in my view. The weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity.

This assessment has looked at a group of 43 diseases lumped into one category, multiple pesticides with very different chemistry, and has failed to include critical data. There is nothing here to suggest that the variety of genetic changes in these diseases could be caused by these pesticides. This appears to be a rather selective review."

Prof David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Southampton, said:

"IARC monographs do not present new primary research. Rather they rigorously and systematically review the available evidence from published peer-reviewed studies in animals and humans in order to classify chemicals according to their cancer hazard (i.e. their potential to cause cancer at some level of exposure) in animals and in humans.

Given the large number of epidemiological studies that have been carried out on pesticides and cancer, many of them looking at multiple types of malignancy, it is to be expected that some positive associations will occur simply by chance. Thus, when evaluating the epidemiological evidence, one is looking for a consistent pattern of increased risk for one or more tumour types, which is unlikely to be explained by biases (often unavoidable) in the study methods. It is clear from the summary table in the Lancet report that clear and consistent evidence of this type was not found for any of the pesticides that were considered.

The IARC report does not raise immediate alarms. However, I would expect regulatory authorities around the world to take note of this new evaluation, and to consider whether it indicates a need to review their risk assessments for any of the pesticides that they currently approve."

Prof Tony Dayan, Emeritus Toxicologist, said:

"[The IARC's] assessments have always tended to be influenced more by laboratory toxicity data from rigorously controlled experiments than by reports of human experience, with its common problems of poor reproducibility and the well-known problems of trying to combine analyses of disparate clinical reports in which it is difficult to distinguish the possible effects of the compound in question and the many other substances and factors to which we are exposed in ordinary life.

In the present report the classification of glyphosate and malathion as carrying a Class IIA risk of causing cancer in humans reflects a variety of laboratory results with a small number of studies in man of varied quality and mixed conclusions. Detailed analysis of the nature and quality of the evidence overall does not support such a high level classification, which at the most should be Class IIB."

Finally, if we're going to be rational about this (or any controversial topic) we need to remember to look at the aggregate research, not just a single study or report. When we do that, we should continue have overwhelming confidence that glyphosate is safe at the levels that consumers are commonly exposed to. So on one side of the scale, we have a mountain of research showing little to no risk. On the other side we have this report which is, at best, a lukewarm "maybe" for the average consumer. We'll need more than that to tilt the scales the other way; a whole lot of reproducible positive toxicity studies will need to be forthcoming.

[xylophone]

As regards glyphosate………….

We have gone from a company statement which suggests that it is as "safe as table salt" to the fact that ingestion of Roundup in quantities ranging from 85 to 200 ml (of 41% solution) has resulted in death within hours of ingestion…….

And birth defects in Argentina……

“In 2002, two years after the first big harvests of Roundup Ready soy in Argentina, residents and doctors in soy producing areas began reporting serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers [2]. Environmental effects include killed food crops and livestock and streams strewn with dead fish [2, 3]……………”

“Reports of birth defects in glyphosate-sprayed areas of Argentina gained scientific credibility in 2009, when senior Argentine government scientist Prof. Andrés Carrasco went public with his research findings, fully published a year later [1], that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying (see [5] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects).

“At a recent conference, Carrasco, professor and director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), said a frequent result of malformations in human embryos is miscarriage. He said that it was now not unusual for women in GM soy producing regions of Argentina to have up to five miscarriages in a row [7]”

To………

A 2014 meta-analysis limited to epidemiological studies of workers who use pesticides found a correlation between occupational exposure to glyphosate and increased risk of B cell lymphoma, the most common kind of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Workers exposed to glyphosate were about twice as likely to get B cell lymphoma.^[50]

And finally………..

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer named glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

As regards GE food……

Well the second paragraph from FDA scientists overwhelmingly concluded ……..that none of them “can be presumed safe”.

“FDA’s biotechnology coordinator had admitted that there was not a consensus about safety of these foods in the scientific community at large...

In fact, FDA scientists had overwhelmingly concluded that GE foods present a different array of risks than their conventionally produced counterparts; that none of them can be presumed safe; and that they need to be demonstrated safe through rigorous testing, which also happens to be the law”.

IMO there are enough alarm bells ringing to suggest that all is not well with glyphosate and GE foods, and when you add to this the fact that Monsanto has knowingly poisoned people in the past, over many years, and been found guilty of this, then I fear for our future.

And this when none of this is necessary as discussed by United Nations scientists (see my reference to this in post #164).

[attrayant]

As with all things we put into our bodies, the dose makes the poison. The phrase "safe as table salt" , while cute, is functionally useless. Salt is toxic if consumed in sufficient quantities. Sprinkle some on a snail at it'll freaking dissolve. 19 grams of caffeine can be deadly to a human. The median lethal dose of water, for crying out loud, is only eight liters.

Of course I'm being dramatic for effect. See how easy that is to do? That's why we need to pull ourselves together and rely on the science (rather than the anecdotes and correlations) to better understand the world.

The important question - the one we should be asking - is a substance harmful at the levels consumers will likely be exposed?

Secondly, supposing that some smoking gun is found and it turns out that glyphosate is toxic at low levels (in spite of all the research to the contrary). What then? Do we go back to the toxic urea herbicides of the 70's and 60's? No herbicide at all? If we do that, better get ready for crop prices to triple or worse. It's an easy decision for us to make, as we sit in developed countries where we have an abundance of food. I wonder what the decision would be if left up to the people in underdeveloped nations whose lives and livelihoods depend on the production of affordable, safe agriculture.

[BSJ]

It took thousands of years for plants for food to evolve and some non-harmful plant breeding to get good crops to a productive level per acre. Do people really trust Monsanto with their GMO's after only a few decades....not hundreds of years.

I am not a tree hugger but I am on the side of the naysayers with this.

It's to big an issue. After you release GMO's in a country it will be hard to go back as all the non-GMO's will be hard to source or wiped out altogether.

[attrayant]

It took thousands of years for plants for food to evolve and some non-harmful plant breeding to get good crops to a productive level per acre.

Your phrase "non-harmful plant breeding" implies that there is a 'harmful' way to breed plants. Care to elaborate?

Do people really trust Monsanto with their GMO's after only a few decades....not hundreds of years.

Enough already. Monsanto is evil. We get it. But this thread is about genetically modified crops, the safety/danger of which has nothing to do with Monsanto, BASF, Simplot. DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer or any of the other two-dozen or so companies that are producing GE crops.

After you release GMO's in a country it will be hard to go back as all the non-GMO's will be hard to source or wiped out altogether.

You're twenty years too late. That hasn't happen so far. Why do you think it will happen in the future?

[xylophone]

“The important question - the one we should be asking - is a substance harmful at the levels consumers will likely be exposed”

I suppose you could ask the poor women in the areas surrounding treated soy crops if they are harmful, this especially after many miscarriages and birth defects.

Your question, although seemingly sensible, doesn't stack up in real life, after all, lead is not harmful at certain levels, but it is excluded from any paints or anything that is likely to come into contact with humans, nor is asbestos if it is included in some building materials, however that too is banned, and the list goes on.

Simple answer is not to put humans in contact with a chemical which is not really necessary and may have devastating results.

“Secondly, supposing that some smoking gun is found and it turns out that glyphosate is toxic at low levels (in spite of all the research to the contrary). What then? Do we go back to the toxic urea herbicides of the 70's and 60's? No herbicide at all? If we do that, better get ready for crop prices to triple or worse. It's an easy decision for us to make, as we sit in developed countries where we have an abundance of food. I wonder what the decision would be if left up to the people in underdeveloped nations whose lives and livelihoods depend on the production of affordable, safe agriculture”.

This is actually much easier to answer……… as there are many alternative ways to kill weeds in amongst crops without resorting to stuff that will poison humans, or indeed spraying the very crops that we are eating with this herbicide, and to enable the plant to live, also genetically modify it so that it can live with this herbicide in its system, thereby passing it onto us.

The only good thing about the Monsanto glyphosate debate and other similar chemicals is that it has spurred research into alternative farming methods, and believe it or not some of the older methods, way before destructive herbicides and fertilisers were introduced are being researched again as to what made them "low producers".

Great results have been achieved through not tilling the soil and growing a cover crop that will put nitrogen and other nutrients back in the soil and keep down the weeds. The old way of tilling the soil, planting a crop, harvesting it, then applying artificial fertiliser, and then growing the same crop again was the reason why more and more artificial fertiliser was needed and more and weed-killer was needed.

Biodynamic farming has shown that the use of heavy and dangerous chemicals is not necessary to ensure good produce. Now adapting its practices to larger scale farming is the challenge.

As for “I wonder what the decision would be if left up to the people in underdeveloped nations whose lives and livelihoods depend on the production of affordable, safe agriculture”.

Well that is not the case is it, and this has been proven in many of the posts here because the monopoly which Monsanto has over the reuse of its seeds means that farmers have to buy from them and prices have doubled and tripled in recent years (actual amounts in a previous posts), which would make them well out of the reach of farmers in underdeveloped nations.

In addition these very same farmers would have to pay more for the roundup spray and other herbicides to combat those weeds which have become resistant to it, and you will also see in other posts that the cost of these has risen dramatically, again putting them well out of the reach of farmers in underdeveloped nations.

So you can see that the whole system that Monsanto has in place is in fact designed to do one thing…………Make Monsanto a lot of money and the reality of it is that folk in underdeveloped nations will not be able to afford this.

Monsanto looking after the people…… pull the other one.

[RPCVguy]

Several blended topics in this thread.

On the core issue of GMO or no-GMOs... This video (Conflicting Science on the Safety of Genetically Modified Food) offers a way to evaluate the different experts each of us have cited in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO463X6uPLw [1:23:19} is a professor's hour presentation followed by a Q&A session. Sheldon Krimsky received his undergraduate and Master's degrees in physics from CUNY and Purdue University respectively, and his MA and PhD in philosophy from Boston University. His research is focused on the linkages between science/technology, ethics/values and public policy. Dr. Krimsky is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Council for Responsible Genetics.

...and then a side bar into Glyphosate => The technology of GMO is often used so as to impart a resistance to the herbicide (mineral chelating agent) glyphosate (TM = Roundup)
The net exposure/consumption of any substance (water/ salt/ or glyphosate) is always a determinant.
That said I understand attrayant's concerns "What then? Do we go back to the toxic urea herbicides of the 70's and 60's? No herbicide at all? If we do that, better get ready for crop prices to triple or worse."
It has been asked and answered repeatedly that non-industrial styled agriculture can produce more food, with less soil damage and erosion - organically... but not in the mono-cultured fields that corporations find profitable. The trade off in soil security and productivity is really a matter of paper currency vs real wealth of sustainability. (Both xylophone and I have cited http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-03-10-debunking-myth-that-only-industrial-agriculture-can-feed-world/ but carry it forward to some extreme examples of productivity

• "Could a controversial farmer in California have found the most effective way to grow food in a warming world? Paul Kaiser of Singing Frogs Farm in Sonoma County, CA, uses no-till organic farming methods which, without doing any weeding, and without using any sprays - either synthetic or organic - has increased his yields and profits while decreasing his water usage by more than half. One might call this methodology sustainability on steroids, because it can generate substantial profits. Last year, Kaiser’s farm grossed more than $100,000 an acre, which is 10 times the average, per-acre income of comparable California farms. This includes Sonoma’s legendary vineyards, which have been overtaking farmland for decades, largely because wine grapes have become much more lucrative these days than food - at least the way most farmers grow it. What's Kaiser's secret? COMPOST! Tell us again... we need GMOs because? Oh, that's right. So chemical companies can monopolize our food supply and sell more toxic chemicals." READ: http://craftsmanship.net/drought-fighters/
• Diversity of farms, reducing the use of fertilizer and other changes are desperately needed according to the report, which was highlighted in this article from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. It also said that global trade rules should be reformed in order to work toward these ends, which is unfortunately the opposite of what mega-trade deals like the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the U.S.-EU Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are seeking to accomplish. http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-says-small-scale-organic-farming-only
• Another example of a tiny and productive "farm," http://urbanhomestead.org/

Non-use of herbicides and pesticides can be done, it is the financial incentive that is then cited - and yes, eliminating the costs of those chemicals and "special seeds" turns out to save enough expense so as to provide a similar livelihood for organic farmers. For farmers low on capital, it actually reduces the risk of going into extreme debt. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/AboutGEI/SuccessStories/OrganicagricultureinUganda/tabid/29866/Default.aspx

... which is a long prelude to getting to the concerns raised by xylophone:

"“The important question - the one we should be asking - is a substance harmful at the levels consumers will likely be exposed”

I suppose you could ask the poor women in the areas surrounding treated soy crops if they are harmful, this especially after many miscarriages and birth defects.

Your question, although seemingly sensible, doesn't stack up in real life, after all, lead is not harmful at certain levels, but it is excluded from any paints or anything that is likely to come into contact with humans, nor is asbestos if it is included in some building materials, however that too is banned, and the list goes on.

Simple answer is not to put humans in contact with a chemical which is not really necessary and may have devastating results."

The recent report out of the UN DOES NOT DEFINITIVELY SAY that glyphosate causes cancer. Instead:

"There were several studies. There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations ... and damaged chromosomes," Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute, said in an interview. Blair chaired the 17-member working group of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which rocked the agricultural industry on March 20 by classifying glyphosate as "probably" cancer-causing. Monsanto Co , which has built a $15 billion company on sales of glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide and crops genetically engineered to tolerate being sprayed with Roundup, has demanded a retraction and explanation from WHO. Monsanto officials have accused the IARC group of relying on "junk science" and basing conclusion on politics rather than sound science. Company officials say glyphosate has been proven safe for decades. "We are in the process of determining the best path forward," Monsanto spokesman William Brennan said. "Monsanto would like to understand how this conclusion could be reached and how the IARC process differs from other scientific reviews." But Blair said Thursday the classification is appropriate based on current science. There have been hundreds of studies on glyphosate, he said, with concerns about the chemical growing over time. The IARC group gave particular consideration to two major studies out of Sweden, one out of Canada and at least three in the United States, he said.

"He stressed that the group did not classify glyphosate as definitely causing cancer. "We looked at, 'Is there evidence that glyphosate causes cancer?' and the answer is 'probably.' That is different than yes," said Blair."
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-monsanto-herbicide-idINKBN0MM2JR20150326

I'm not for letting glyphosate off the hook. Here is a partial listing of studies that are cause for concern http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/glyphosate
Add to that list this month's report "Common pesticides linked to antibiotic resistance" http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/24/pesticides-antibiotic-resistance-study

But getting back to alternatives - can we admit that the attempt to combat weeds head on is a charade... doomed to fail as is the war on drugs or a global war on terror - i.e. a marketing ploy unable to ever succeed. The claims of reduced need for herbicides and pesticides is short lived as the weeds that survive are spreading as super-weeds, resistant to Glyphosate. Meanwhile, glyphosate does long term damage to soils, adding to requirements to add fertilizers. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/08/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-soil-damage

[RPCVguy]

Someone in the Monsanto team has publicly slipped... or let slip the truth we've been stating here repeatedly:

"The bad news just keeps coming. Monsanto caught with their pants down again! Monsanto’s Dr. William “Bill” Moar presented, to a group of agricultural students, the latest project in their product pipeline dealing with RNA and spoke about Monsanto’s efforts to educate citizens about the scientific certainty of the safety of their genetically engineered products. One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire department” dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs. Monsanto's anti-science Discredit Bureau has been EXPOSED."

READ: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/27/1373484/-Monsanto-s-Discredit-Bureau-Swings-into-Action

[attrayant]

If "Occupystephanie ♥" said it, it must be true!

[RandomSand]

In the animal kingdom, house cats cannot breed with lions, even using artificial insemination. Nature has many examples we can learn by, but through breeding we have had GM animals and plants for thousands of years.

Maybe so but house cats don't need to be sprayed with an Monsanto Roundup.

Edited April 1, 2015 by RandomSand

[xylophone]

This sums the Monsanto situation up very well although I don't always agree with what Mercola says, I think this article is on the button.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/28/monsanto-sustainable-agriculture-company.aspx?e_cid=20150328Z3_DNL_B_