WUFT News

On The Path Ahead For Genetically Modified Foods In Florida

By on December 16th, 2013

More consumers are accepting of controversial genetically modified food, according to a new study by University of Florida’s IFAS Extension on consumer attitudes towards genetically modified food.

The study comes at a pivotal time as House Bill 1 is up for consideration during Florida’s next legislative session. Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D) of Leon County has sponsored the bill, which requires any food sold in Florida to be labeled as having genetically modified ingredients. If the bill passes, Florida will be the first state in the nation to require labeling of GM foods.

“House Bill 1 is the first bill assigned,” Rehwinkel Vasilinda said. “When you have a bill like this that may have great opposition, you want to put it front and center. We made sure that we had it as bill number 1 to make it important for the state of Florida.”

“If the bill doesn’t get a hearing, if it is not heard in committee, that’s one way to figure out how big ‘big ag’ is. Another way to figure out how big ‘Ag’ is, is to see who is contributing to whose campaign,” she said.

Dr. Kevin Folta, University of Florida associate professor of horticultural sciences, disagrees with her assessment.

He believes the debate over labeling centers around the idea there’s something wrong with the food and he says science does not support that assertion.

“The activists will tell you this is a way to attach fear to a product without scientific backing. The idea is to retaliate against ‘big ag’ and the farmers that grow big ag seed,” Folta said.

He’s referring to a recent retraction to a now infamous report known in food circles as the “rat study.” Dr. Folta believes the proliferation of genetically modified food is a potential benefit to farmers and consumers.

“Farmers benefit from genetic modification of crops by reducing the amount of time required to work with each harvest and treat each crop. Consumers see a net benefit in terms of cost reductions in final production,” Folta said.

Noah Shitama, owner of Swallowtail Farm in Alachua, believes genetic modification is not accepted by consumers, and given the choice, consumers want foods labeled.

“I think the only reason the voice is as loud as it is, is because of the power of the agricultural companies that are pushing for it,” Shitama said. “If you look at the billions of dollars they are spending to fight labeling, for example Prop. 37 in California, they have a clear interest in it and they have a business interest.”

Similar bills in California and Washington were recently defeated. If Florida’s bill is scheduled and passes, all genetically modified foods in Florida will be labeled by 2016.

Dr. Folta said society has not yet seen the full benefits of genetic modification, including for the needy and the environment.

The University of Florida study on consumer attitudes found increasing support for this type of food:

While it is true that consumer attitudes toward GM foods vary widely across the world, it is also fair to note that public opinion is moving slowly toward acceptance of biotech foods. With a global population nearing 9 billion people, biotech crops offer a tremendous potential to mitigate threats of hunger and some of the adverse impacts of climate changes.

The organic food sector continues to grow as well. According to the most recent report from the Organic Trade Association, organic food sales continue to increase each year, as a percent of overall food sales.

Rehwinkel Vasilinda filed the same bill as HB1 in the 2013 legislature and it did not make it to a hearing or to a committee. This year, she is working for a legislative committee and a discussion on the bill. The bill is currently in the Agriculture and Natural Resources subcommittee, and has been there since Oct. 7.

The 2014 legislative session begins March 4. North central Florida representatives Clovis Watson, Jr. (D) and Elizabeth W. Porter (R), members of the subcommittee on Agriculture and Natural Resources, did not respond to WUFT News requests to comment on the bill.


This entry was posted in Florida and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Drew Martin

    If it is so great then why are GM companies contributing millions to stop labeling.

    • Kevin Folta

      Because they are wrong and their tactics to oppose the legislation are as awful and scienceless as those that promoted the legislation. It is fighting insanity and intellectual bankruptcy with insanity and intellectual bankruptcy. It is nothing to be proud of. When labeling advocates lie and distort science, whey are they surprised with those with deeper pockets return the favor?

      Let’s let science and reason prevail here. I’m glad to spearhead this discussion.

      • No Gmo

        It is rather ironic that Folta said, “advocates lie and distort science”. Folta previously stated in comments, “I’m happy to explain why Seralini’s study is inadequate, if not scientific fraud. Figure 3 (lumpy rat figure) says it all– they conveniently left out the control (Table 2 shows it gets cancer too) If that does not show the intent to deceive I”m not sure what does.” (see comments here http://www.elle.com/beauty/health-fitness/allergy-to-genetically-modified-corn )

        There is a control pic in Figure 3, it is pic M which shows that control subject did NOT show evidence of fibroadenoma. In fact nowhere in the study does it say any subjects had cancer, it says tumors. http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GES-final-study-19.9.121.pdf.

        Clearly, Folta has spread misinformation both on his blog where he made a similar claim, and in comments on articles. It is this type of misinformation spread by Folta that hurts science.

        In a recent statement regarding the retraction of the above study, the editor of the journal recites the same misinformation spread by Folta. Almost as if the editor read the misinformation in Folta’s blog instead of actually reading the study. The editor states, “However, to be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted.”

        As was mentioned above and can be seen in the study text, there is no mention of cancer in the study. The mention of cancer comes from misinformation spread by people like Folta.

        I will leave it up to the viewer to decide if Folta is the right person to spearhead this discussion considering his spreading of misinformation in the past.

        • Kevin Folta

          Dear No Gmo, I know you like to go after me at every turn, so I’ll simply ask you to provide me with a control for panels J, K, L in the referenced figure. There is no control animal presented. Period. You can sugar coat this as much as you want, but if you show this to 1000 scientists, 1000 scientists will want that control, or the figure revised.

          The use of term “misinformation” is use profusely in your rant above. Yet you continue to cite a seriously flawed and retracted paper.

          I will continue to spearhead this discussion. As a scientist I’m glad to provide evidence-based analysis and discuss findings as they relate to the scientific consensus.

          I know who you are, you’ve outright libeled me on other pages, and it shows what a threat I am to your charade. I’m glad to have more and more opportunities to discuss science and counter the crazy claims of anti-GM pseudoscience.

          • No Gmo

            The fact that you won’t admit that there is a control pic and there is no evidence it, “gets cancer too” like you claimed, is telling.

            Let’s look at your request, “I’ll simply ask you to provide me with a control for panels J, K, L in the referenced figure.”

            First, you specifically claimed, “the control (Table 2 shows it gets cancer too)” and pic M(control subject 8787) shows it doesn’t, and it doesn’t say any subjects get cancer anyway. So, your claim is already debunked.

            As for the rat, if you look at pics J-L you can see they are not single pics, they are 2 corresponding pics. This means if a full body pic of subject 8787 were shown it would not only be redundant(since pic M already shows no evidence of fibroadenoma), but it would mean the corresponding pic would be an empty table.

            This is how absurd your argument is, you want a pic of an empty table!

            You state, “I know who you are, you’ve outright libeled me on other pages”

            So, you believe because I’ve corrected your mistakes that I’ve libeled you? As a scientist you should be glad I’m correcting your mistakes, that is how science works!

            It is also ironic that you mention, “libeled” since you have made statements like this in previous comments, “I can show in one shot that you are a blazing liar and not worthy of my response.” http://randomrationality.com/2013/03/18/qa-the-lowdown-on-gmos-with-kevin-folta/comment-page-1/#comments

            You have obviously resorted to name calling because the evidence is clearly against you. This shows what a threat I am to your charade.

          • Kevin Folta

            Use your real name, don’t hide behind usernames. I’m not interested in dealing with rabid activists that can’t deal with fundamental science. Who did I libel? “No Gmo”? Yes, clearly libeled. Your good name username has been smeared.

            You may have the final word here. If anyone wants to understand the science behind the retracted Seralini work, there are many solid websites that perform qualified analysis, and are consistent with my conclusions.

            Best wishes.

          • No Gmo

            What does it matter what my user name is, you should debate the subject, not the user name.

            The final word is that you have clearly made mistakes in previous comments with regards to claiming, “the control (Table 2 shows it gets cancer too)” when Table 2 doesn’t show any subjects get cancer.

            Instead of admitting your mistakes, you continue to avoid responding as to why you claimed any of the subjects in the above study, “gets cancer” when the study clearly makes no such claim.

            You made this same claim several times even after being corrected(see comments in links in previous posts). In science when it is recognized that a mistake was made, you own up to the mistake and make the corrections.

            Your conclusion was that, “the control (Table 2 shows it gets cancer too)”. If any website makes a conclusion consistent with yours here, then they are clearly misinformed.
            You should publicly admit that you made a mistake, and unfortunately several people have come to believe your mistake, and repeat your mistake after reading your blog, your comments, etc. That would be the honourable thing to do. Especially when your misinformed claim was repeated by the editor of a journal.

            There is no shame in being wrong, admitting you were wrong and correcting your mistake. There is shame however, in pretending you are right even when you have been corrected multiple times.

          • Kevin Folta

            Here’s the scoop. You engage in “gotchas” and I just have no interest in going there. You want me to admit a mistake? Okay, the paper never says “cancer”. They don’t say the word “cancer”. In the legend of Table 2 they do say that the female rats get “adenocarcinomas”. To me, this is a cancer. So if I made a mistake it is that I should have been more specific and said that they get “adenocarcinomas”.

            Table 2 clearly shows that the controls get the same pathologies as experimental subjects. Period. The authors decided to not include these rats in Figure 3. I know, you think this is acceptable and that’s great. There is nobody in science that agrees with you. We use this paper all the time to teach critical evaluation of literature. Even early-career students figure this one out.

          • No Gmo

            So, I don’t really get the final word, that was just another inaccurate claim?
            I engage in trying to present accurate information, that is what science is all about. Table 2 does not distinguish between what subjects are classified as having fibroadenomas or adenocarcinomas in the description, it gives a general, “Females, mammary tumors”. So, it still doesn’t say, the control (Table 2 shows it gets adenocarcinomas too), either. Accuracy is extremely important in science, so you should be thanking me for correcting you.
            So, do you admit that when the editor of Food Chem Tox said, “However, to be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted.” he was also wrong and that it is possible that he may have even been repeating your claim of cancer, made in your blog?

            Let’s look at Table 2. you can look at the rate of tumors that occurred by the end of the lifespan. The first section says controls. Each group had 10 subjects per sex. So when you scroll down to, “Females, mammary tumors” and anatomical pathologies, “In mammary glands” they are talking about 10 female rats. The number of rats impacted is in parentheses. So if we look at the controls we see 5 rats total had mammary gland impact, so 50%. Now look at every other group for, “Females, mammary tumors” 7(70%), 7(70%), 8(80%), 6(60%), 7(70%), 9(90%), 9(90%), 10(100%), 9(90%). For the total impact, “In mammary glands” we see 5 again for the controls(50%) and every other group has between 7 and 10(70%-100%).
            So, there may be some of the same pathologies for some of the controls, but the overall amount is higher for the test subjects, and as can be seen in the text of the study, the tumors occur earlier in the test subjects.
            Let me try to put this in plant terms for you to understand. If I was talking about herbicide impact on weeds, and I sprayed a field with one herbicide and 50% of the weeds were damaged(Field 1). Then I sprayed an adjacent field(Field 2) with a different herbicide, and 60-100% of the weeds were damaged and that damage occurred earlier than the weeds in Field 1. I then made a Table with 3 pics of different damaged weeds from Field 2 and 1 pic of a weed from Field 1 that was not damaged.
            If I showed you a study that did something very similar, will you get your group together to harass the editor until it was retracted? The pics in the Table would represent the overall result, that more weeds were damaged by the herbicide used in Field 2 than Field 1. Seralini created a Table with pics that represent the overall result, so your complaint is really that you didn’t like the overall result.

          • Kevin Folta

            I understand this perfectly. In fact, it is a super tool to teach about statistics and scientific publishing. I’m not going to spend much time here. If you find the data in Table 2 compelling and that you seriously feel you can distinguish between 5 rats with mammary tumors in the controls and 7, 8, or 9 in treatments, I have a coin for you to flip. There is no way to demonstrate statistically that these are beyond random events. The authors don’t even try to provide statistics.

            Bottom line- you’ll defend it forever, no matter what. I’ll agree wholeheartedly with the paper when someone other than Seralini and Co shows similar results, with statistically relevant numbers. Until then, just another set of claims without a foundation.

            I don’t have a “group” to get together. Us scientists are an independent lot. Enjoy.

            Anyone (Gainesville students/public) that is interested in the real science and wants to meet with students and scientists to discuss this work is welcome to contact me. We’d be glad to have you along for a Journal Colloquium where we’ll discuss this paper and others in Spring 2014.

          • No Gmo

            I find the data in Table 2 doesn’t support your claim as I already stated. You were asked to publicly correct your mistake. Since Table 2 does not distinguish between what subjects are classified as having fibroadenomas or adenocarcinomas in the description, it gives a general, “Females, mammary tumors” and you claimed, the control (Table 2 shows it gets adenocarcinomas too), why aren’t you publicly correcting yourself?

            Instead of thanking me for correcting you, you are avoiding responding.

            As I said before, the pics represent the overall result, so you complaining about the pics is absurd. Especially, when there is a control in Figure 3(pic M) which shows that control subject did NOT show evidence of fibroadenoma. As I mentioned before, if you look at pics J-L you can see they are not single pics, they are 2 corresponding pics. This means if a full body pic of subject 8787 were shown it would not only be redundant(since pic M already shows no evidence of fibroadenoma), but it would mean the corresponding pic would be an empty table.

            So, your argument about pics is so absurd that you actually want a pic of nothing!

            You failed to respond to my questions, but what else is new. So, let’s try some new questions.

            As for the claim, “I don’t have a “group” to get together. Us scientists are an independent lot. Enjoy”
            So, you are claiming that all scientists are independent, including those that work for, or with Monsanto employees?
            Have you or any of your lab personnel ever conducted studies with former Monsanto employees? Have you ever had any type of a working relationship with former Monsanto employees, etc.?

          • Kevin Folta

            I work on science with Florida ag in mind. Why does it matter if someone once worked for Monsanto? The people I know that did work for them left because they hated it there. But to answer your question, Dr Harry Klee is in my department and left in there in 1995. A guy from Rutgers named Todd Michael collaborated on the strawberry genome project and now is at Monsanto, maybe others in my lab might have had internships or collaborators. Again, it does not matter. We don’t work on anything MON cares about.

            As usual, you’ll use any tenuous connection to ag company to discredit me. Go ahead. It makes you look bad for attacking a public, independent scientist with a record showing commitment to science in the public interest.

            Plus, even if I had a lab full of former MON employees, who cares? I’m the boss, they work for me, and work on research for the Florida industries and science in general.

          • No Gmo

            Your record, and the record of at least some of your lab personnel show evidence of a working relationship with former or current Monsanto employees. That isn’t an attack, it is a FACT, and you even admit at least part of your conflict of interest and admit that there may be other professional conflicts that you haven’t mentioned.

            It certainly matters if you work with Monsanto employees, and for those of us who understand the definition of professional conflict of interest, it is in fact extremely important.

            Even if you or some of your lab personnel didn’t have an obvious working relationship with former or current Monsanto employees, according to the UF website, “Kevin Folta, interim chair of UF’s horticultural sciences department, genetically engineers plants in his research” So, it would seem this is part of your research, and if accurate, that would certainly mean an even greater professional conflict of interest.

            While you claim, “We don’t work on anything MON cares about. ”

            YOU most certainly do work on things that Monsanto cares about. YOU promote GE foods, etc. and YOU are against allowing people to know and consent to consuming GE foods. Monsanto most certainly cares about that!

            I would also mention which has been pointed out to you by others:

            The definition of, “science” originates from Latin word scientia, which means knowledge. The whole point of science is to know. If you do not know what foods are genetically engineered, you cannot know what positive or negative impact they will have on humans. The word, “pseudo” means pretending. Therefore, anyone against labeling genetically engineered foods is in favor of pseudoscience, because it is pretending to know without the ability to know.

          • Kevin Folta

            If you can’t name the people with Monsanto relationships then don’t go there. My technician, a 30 year UF employee that does some lab management, used to work for Curt Hannah, a guy that studies starch synthesis. I guess she could have maybe been on a paper with a BigAg author at some point (probably in the 80s or 90s) because they could have been collaborators.

            Hannah did not have the funds to keep her in 2005, so she moved to my lab.

            So that’s my intimate intertwining with Monsanto?

            I hope passers by understand your desperation to harm the reputation of an independent, public scientist. Especially on this website! People here know me from science days at the museums and libraries, they know me from tireless efforts with schools and students.

            Keep it up please. You are making a wonderful impression.

            Anyone wanting to visit the lab should contact me anytime.

          • No Gmo

            I shouldn’t have to name the former Monsanto employees you worked with. It would be ethical for you to disclose your working relationship with them.

            You have already admitted to writing for a Monsanto funded website and various working relationships with people who worked for Monsanto in your dept., etc.

            Rather than just admit your record and the record of at least some of your lab personnel show evidence of a working relationship with former or current Monsanto employees, you are playing the maybe game, saying, “I guess she could have maybe been on a paper with a BigAg author at some point (probably in the 80s or 90s) because they could have been collaborators.”

            Keep it up please. You are making a wonderful impression.

          • Kevin Folta

            Okay, I’ve identified the source of your delusion, your central and only weak attempt to discredit a public scientist. I’m only playing along so those reading can see your level of desperate harassment.

            The paper below goes back to 1989 and one of the authors, Maureen Clancy, was a technician in Hannah’s lab. Maureen now works with me as a lab manager. One of the other authors had an affiliation with MON.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1062224/

            1989. You have to go back to a 1989 paper where the technician on that work now works with me, and THAT is proof that im in the back pocket of monsanto?

            Im sooooooo done here. Your harassment, anger and meanness are just a waste of my time. Take care.

          • No Gmo

            That is only one example. YOU conducted a study with a former Monsanto employee, not just your lab personnel.

            The study YOU conducted with a former Monsanto employee was far more recent than 1989. Not that it matters when it was, since a 1989 study still shows a professional conflict of interest.

            I’m not being mean, I’m asking you what many other people have asked you to do, and you have yet to do. Please, disclose your working relationship with former Monsanto employees or any other connections you have with biotech companies.

            It has taken numerous posts just to get you to admit that you write for a Monsanto funded website, you work with former Monsanto employees and person who has received a Monsanto endowment in your dept., some of your lab personnel have worked with former or current Monsanto employees, etc.

            This is a simple question and that fact that you are and have been so reluctant to disclose your and your lab’s working relationship with former or current Monsanto employees is rather telling.

            Keep it up please. You are making a wonderful impression.

          • Connie Kuramoto

            “NOBODY in science agrees with you? ” wow, and you have talked to all of them right, how about the Union of Concerned Scientists to start with . I know MANY scientists who feel that gmo technology is not good science and that the Seralini study points to the importance of doing more research before releasing the environmental and health bombshell that is gmo tech.

          • Kevin Folta

            Hi Connie, the UCS has a handful of GM opponents, and stands firmly against every real professional science organization on this topic. They are softening too as they realize they are defending a crackpot position here, especially when they hit it right with climate, etc.

            Do me a favor, can you please give me a few examples of the “MANY” scientists that feel this is “not good science” and that embrace Seralini as legitimate science? You can send it via email if you don’t want to post here. I’d love to give them a forum on my blog. Please confine your selections to active researchers and not bookselling authors, documentarians, paid advocates or paid speakers. Thanks.

            Of the thousands of actively publishing research scientists I know around the globe, not one is against GM, and there is almost universal opinion that the anti-GM movement is deleterious to science, farmers, the poor and the environment.

          • Caroline Yunker

            We can go around in circles until we’re all blue in the face with this “he said/she said.” Whether you think GMOs are safe or not we may never agreed. So let cut to the chase. Frigging just label GMOs because “IT MY FREEDOM

          • Kevin Folta

            Caroline, I’m with you. Let the market decide. If people are uncomfortable with science then they can buy non-gmo project or organic. Easy. I’m not denying anyone their freedom to believe whatever they want to believe. I do think it is inappropriate to build new levels of bureaucracy at taxpayer expense to satisfy the fears of the scientifically illiterate. Subsidies are another issue and should be revisited. However, the science of biotechnology is solid and could be even more helpful. That’s my interest, simply to keep the science straight. Thanks.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Labeling is about giving EVERYONE the information to decide for themselves if they want to eat GMOs. Without labeling you have a two CLASS food system. One class of food label organic/non-GMO for those who shop at natural food stores. The other class of food is unlabeled industrialized, crappy GMO food in most conventional supermarkets. Sounds fair, huh?

          • Kevin Folta

            So you can differentiate already. Those that don’t want GM (since they suffer from irrational, non-scientific fear) have the onus of shopping harder to find what they want.

            I understand the science, will happily eat corn, soy, canola, etc. If there’s something wrong with it, fine put a warning label. However, there’s no reason, at least scientific, to warn people about GM products.

            If there was something wrong with them they would be banned, and you’d have my full support and the support of all scientists. Similarly, if there’s nothing wrong with them then you should not expect us to voice out against biotech. That would be unethical to berate good science.

          • gmomustgeeoh

            Fuck you folta.

          • susan

            Perhaps you aren’t aware Keven but not everyone in the scientific community agrees with you on the Seralini study..

            ..in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the “Séralini affair”. Richard E. Goodman is a former Monsanto employee.. Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions. Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?”
            http://independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

            Ratted out: Scientific journal bows to Monsanto over anti-GMO study
            http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

            Open Letter on Retraction and Pledge to Boycott Elsevier ISIS Report dec. 4 2013 (Seralini)
            http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php

            FCT is not retracting the studies it published by Monsanto using exactly the same strain of rat and the same number of animals. Incidentally, in terms of the extremity of the collusion with corporate interests in parts of the scientific media, Elsevier – the publisher of FCT (Food and Chemical Toxicology), once published 6 fake journals that didn’t disclose their corporate sponsorship:
            http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F27383%2Ftitle%2FElsevier-published-6-fake-journals%2F
            http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15185-scientific-press-on-a-tight-corporate-leash

            European Food Standards Agency Validates Seralini Study with New long-term GMO Experiment guidelines:
            http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/

            An open letter in support of Seralini’s article, signed by scientists, scholars, and activists, was published in Independent Science News, a project of the Bioscience Resource Project
            http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/images/stories/openletterindepeendentscience.pdf

            EUROPEAN NETWORK OF SCIENTISTS LASHES OUT AT RETRACTION OF THE SERALINI STUDY. The arguments of the journal’s editor for the retraction, however, violate not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published. Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry, the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry. ENSSER points out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and independence of science, indeed a travesty of science.”
            Journal’s Retraction of Rat Feeding Paper is a Travesty of Science and Looks Like a Bow to Industry
            http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ENSSERcommentsretraction_final.pdf

            Seralini validated by new EFSA guidelines on long-term GMO experiments – GMO Seralini
            http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/

            Did Journal Editor Read the Seralini Paper Before Retracting It?
            http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/dec/11/did_journal_editor_even_read_Seralini_paper/

            Smelling a corporate rat
            http://www.scribd.com/doc/116473155/Smelling-a-corporate-rat

            Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical.
            http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/nov/28/journal_retraction_of_Seralini_Study_unscientific

            Journal Fraudulently Retracts Séralini GMO Paper
            In a shocking betrayal of any semblance of scientific legitimacy, the pseudo science publishing group, Elsevier, has retracted the seminal Séralini study that clearly documents severe toxicity of Roundup (glyphosate). It’s worse than their publication of 6 faked journals.
            http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-12-04/journal-fraudulently-retracts-seralini-gmo-paper/

            Scientists outraged at journal retraction of GMO rat study December 4, 2013
            Today, a group of international scientists are calling for the boycott of Elsevier publications for the groundless retraction of the GMO rat study by Séralini et al.
            http://www.examiner.com/article/scientitists-outraged-at-journal-retraction-of-gmo-rat-study
            http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Retracting_Serallini_study_violates_science_and_ethics.php

            Read the details about the Seralini retraction here: Orwellian Airbrushing of Scientific Record
            http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15192-orwellian-airbrushing-of-scientific-record

            Conflicts of interest at Food and Chemical Toxicology and Elsevier -Seralini
            http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15193-conflicts-of-interest-at-food-and-chemical-toxicology-and-elsevier

            Activist Post: Monsanto behind Journal’s retraction of GMO rat feeding paper showing cancer link /seralini
            http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/monsanto-behind-journals-retraction-of.html

            Conflicts of interest at Food and Chemical Toxicology and Elsevier -Seralini
            http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15193-conflicts-of-interest-at-food-and-chemical-toxicology-and-elsevier

            Monslanto called out for trying to discredit Seralini study.
            http://gmoevidence.com/criigen-gm-maize-and-roundup-can-cause-tumours-multiple-organ-damage-and-premature-death/

            Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical *
            http://gmoseralini.org/journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical/

          • susan

            Kevin* so how do you feel about it after carefully studying the issue?

          • Kevin Folta

            Glad to be a scientist and interacting with the public on an important issue. Very happy to talk about research and how it may be applied to real problems.

          • Kevin Folta

            Susan, you can cite all of the activist websites you want, including those by exposed pseudoscientists, and the author of the retracted work. That’s not evidence. I can show you 100 websites that says our earth is cooling, or 6000 years old, or flat, or in the middle of the universe.

            If the work is real then in September of 2012 after it was published thousands of labs worldwide would have sprung to action and tried to learn more about it. Bigger studies, research into the mechanism of how it happens, etc. That’s how science works. Seralini should be expanding his work too, and we might expect a paper any day now.

            But don’t hold your breath. As much as you believe otherwise the scientific community saw this nonsense and moved on. The work is monumental only to activists, a couple of kook scientists, and a handful of bookselling authors and documentarians.

            I’ll save you some typing. When evidence consistent with Seralini’s results comes out of an independent group with better controls and real stats, I’ll be the first to apologize. Let’s reconvene then.

          • JudsonParker

            Says the guy who cites activist sites like Genera and Biofortified as if they are faultless.

          • Kevin Folta

            Judson, yes, Genetic Literacy gets a bit political, but Biofortified is really good. GMO Answers is good too. While industry sponsored is a great site for independent and verifiable answers.

            The difference is pretty obvious to those that read them. All you have to do is compare them with the scientific consensus, which is quite apparent. I’m in the professional societies, work with the people. collaborate with them, worldwide. Scientists are all on the same page here.

            I know, you can find a handful of them that feel otherwise, but there are also a few that believe global warming is a hoax too.
            Science is a wonderful tool these days. People will feel much better when they learn about it. Take care, I’m always glad to answer questions on the topic.

          • No Gmo

            You claim, “Biofortified is really good.”

            So, you think, “really good” means having 43 duplicates on their list of 600 references.

            You state, “GMO Answers is good too.”

            So, you are claiming a website funded by Monsanto and just about every other biotech company is, “really good”. According to your last post they must be independent too since you claimed, “Us scientists are an independent lot.”

            I would argue your claim of a consensus is primarily based on the opinion of groups, or individuals in those groups who are affiliated with biotech companies. However, according to you, “Us scientists are an independent lot.” even when they work for, or are affiliated with biotech companies.

          • KKBurson

            And, what exactly is wrong with people in biotech writing papers based on their research to be reviewed by other experts in the field before being published in peer-reviewed journals? Would you want an electrician to give you a second opinion on a medical diagnosis? Why do those who are anti-GMO seem to think that all scientists are willing, and dishonest enough, to falsify data and/or vouch for the results presented in all of those papers that prove GMOs are safe if they aren’t? Do they truly believe that researchers are immoral, unethical, and/or scared that Monsanto will eat their babies if they don’t comply?

          • No Gmo

            So, you don’t want me to ask an electrician to give me a second opinion on a medical diagnosis, you want me to ask plant scientists with a professional conflict of interest for a second opinion on a medical diagnosis!
            Are you being serious?

            You ask, “Why do those who are anti-GMO seem to think that all scientists are willing, and dishonest enough, to falsify data and/or vouch for the results presented in all of those papers that prove GMOs are safe”.
            If a scientist claimed there were papers that, “prove GMOs are safe” I wouldn’t have to claim they were, “willing, and dishonest enough, to falsify data and/or vouch for the results presented in all of those papers” because it would already be obvious they were by their claim that the papers, “prove GMOs are safe”.

          • KKBurson

            Since independent research is done on GMOs, I don’t see a professional conflict when other researchers review the papers prior to publication. There is no medical diagnosis. The data and results are generated by scientists. Scientists review the work to make sure the experimental design was sound and the conclusions are supported by the results.

            There are numerous papers that prove that the GMOs currently on the market are safe. Therefore, you are stating that all of those authors, the scientists who generated the data, and the reviewers are liars if you continue to believe otherwise. It’s insulting and highly offensive. To believe that you know more than people who went to school for years and are experts in their fields is beyond arrogant and egotistical.

          • No Gmo

            To begin with, other researchers don’t duplicate the study before it is published, so they can only review what the researchers claim. I’m sure you realize that there are surveys which suggest a good portion of scientists admit to some fabrication, falsification, questionable research practices, etc.

            Next, I have not seen evidence that GE foods currently on the market are safe by chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards. If you claim this evidence exists for every GE food on the market, please provide it or you will be exposed for spreading misinformation. You certainly cannot claim, “papers that prove GMOs are safe” and provide anything less.

            Unlike you, I know far more about toxicology than the plant scientists you mistakenly believe to be experts on health. As I said before and you failed to reply to, “you want me to ask plant scientists with a professional conflict of interest for a second opinion on a medical diagnosis!
            Are you being serious?”

            Also as I stated before, but you don’t seem to have the background to understand, “You ask, “Why do those who are anti-GMO seem to think that all scientists are willing, and dishonest enough, to falsify data and/or vouch for the results presented in all of those papers that prove GMOs are safe”.

            If a scientist claimed there were papers that, “prove GMOs are safe” I wouldn’t have to claim they were, “willing, and dishonest enough, to falsify data and/or vouch for the results presented in all of those papers” because it would already be obvious they were by their claim that the papers, “prove GMOs are safe”.

          • Kevin Folta

            Biofortified is solid, and of those 600 maybe there are duplicates, but the list is curated by volunteers that have other lives. I’d argue that they are missing about 1000 papers that support the hypothesis that GM is safe and/or effective.

            GMO Answers is transparent and any points made there may be confirmed in PubMed or via other sources. It is a great place to consolidate answers to questions, about 50% answered by independent, public scientists like me!!

          • No Gmo

            You said, “maybe there are duplicates”.
            Maybe? There are 43 duplicates. All you have to do is look at the first 5 references on the list and you can find a duplicate. Volunteers? According to the Biofortified website they received a grant to put that list together. According to you they missed about 1000 references and still had 43 DUPLICATES!
            Most rational people would say it is unethical to accept a grant and do such a terrible job. However, you believe that it, “is really good” to get a grant to do a terrible job.
            If you think that, “is really good.”, then your definition of really good is a lot lower than mine.
            I know I would be embarrassed to support a site that had 43 duplicates on a simple reference list.
            So, you admit to writing for a Monsanto funded website, and working with former or current Monsanto employees. You and I must have very different definitions of, “independent”.

          • Kevin Folta

            Here we go again. I’m only responding so that those reading through this thread get some balance.

            Biofortified changed the system of indexing the GENERA database. Volunteers have been working on that, and it will improve with time. I’m not so sure why you find duplicates so disturbing. At least references from real journals and reproducible results are provided- that’s better than most of the anti sites.

            So some references appear twice, I’m guessing they’ll get it fixed soon. It is not my website. The GENERA database is one tiny part of that site. I do think it has excellent evidence-based information and is a solid source of information, regardless of duplicate citations.

            As for GMOAnswers.com… I’m there to support science. The companies are kind enough to finance a site to educate the public on science of biotechnology. There are so many bad sites out there that I’m glad to contribute to the balance, and am grateful to the companies for providing that resource. I get nothing to participate there, other than kind emails from many that thank me for good information.

            And yes, I am wholly independent. I make calls based on published information and scientific evaluation. If reliable data come out and show the technology is harmful, I’ll be glad to discuss and report that.

          • No Gmo

            Some references appear twice? Try 43, that is a lot by any rational person’s standards. Yet, you seem to think numerous duplicates is, “really good”.

            I’m not sure why you don’t find 43 duplicates disturbing. I know I would be embarrassed to support a site that had 43 duplicates on a simple reference list. Especially, when they have been informed about the duplicates and they are still there a year later.

            You can make all the excuses you want for why there are duplicates or how duplicates are, “really good”.

            Keep it up please. You are making a wonderful impression.

          • Karl Haro von Mogel

            Biofortified is now an Activist site? I call poe, because that is too funny!

          • No Gmo

            According to Arctic Apples facebook page they state, “It’s no secret what industries those running Biofortified work in”. So, it would seem they are saying that those running Biofortified generally have a professional conflict of interest. So, I don’t see how it is funny to call Biofortified an Activist site, unless you are calling the people at Arctic Apples, liars.

          • Bernie Mooney

            Now that’s rich. Those who actually know the science and do it for a living have a conflict of interest? Yet, activists with no scientific credentials or scientists who don’t work in biotech are the ones who are qualified? Incredible. Remind me to ask my barber about this sharp pain I have in my left side.

            By your definition, Carl Sagan was an “activist.”

          • No Gmo

            Are you seriously suggesting we should ask plant scientists with a conflict of interest and no health or ecology background, about the health and environmental impact of GE crops?

            That is like asking Monsanto to tells us what the health and environmental impact of Agent orange or PCB’s are. I have to believe you are just joking, because there is no way you could seriously believe Monsanto, etc. isn’t biased.

            I prefer to listen to the opinion of health experts when I want information on health, not plant scientists with a conflict of interest and who have never been trained in the field.

            I prefer to listen to the opinion of ecologists when I want information on ecology, not plant scientists with a conflict of interest who have never been trained in the field.

            For example, “Scientists in factor 1 had a moderately negative attitude to GM crops and emphasised the uncertainty and ignorance involved, while scientists in factor 2 had a positive attitude to GM crops and emphasised that GM crops are useful and do not represent any unique risks compared to conventional crops. Funding had a significant effect on the perspective held by the scientists in this study. No ecologists were associated with factor 2, while all the scientists employed in the GM-industry were associated with this factor. The strong effects of training and funding might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organise science and how we make public decisions when new technologies are to be evaluated.” (Kvakkestad 2007)

          • Doug Ducat

            “plant scientists with a conflict of interest and no health or ecology background”

            You make this claim a dozen times throughout this comments section, but it really just demonstrates that you know little about the education that scientists receive and the science behind biotechnology itself.

            I’m a molecular biology STUDENT and even I’m well versed in toxicology, several fields of health sciences, and ecology. These “plant scientists” that you are referring to, be they molecular biologists, geneticists, or botanists, have had much more education than me on these subjects and how they tie in to their individual specialties and you, whoever you are, want to pretend they aren’t QUALIFIED???

            I think you’re either a troll just pretending to believe what you’re saying, a paid shill or lobbyist for organic big ag, or a crazy person. Regardless of which of those things you are, you don’t seem to really be participating in this conversation as much as yelling over it. Maybe you should just go away.

          • Kevin Folta

            Biofortified is an excellent site that presents science clearly. They don’t work for anyone. Just because they write about biotech and companies use biotech, does not mean they work for the companies.

            A key component of your crusade is to harm scientists, science and any information source that presents real information. It is no surprise you would attempt to harm Biofortified.

          • No Gmo

            So, you are calling Arctic Apples liars?

            According to your previous standards you stated, “of course you realize the document is not science. It is an opinion.”

            That document included, “opinions” by numerous scientists including extremely well respected scientists such as Pushpa Mittra Bhargava and of course, numerous references to peer reviewed studies.

            So, if that document is not science, then certainly Biofortified cannot be considered science by the same standard.

            A key component of your crusade is to harm scientists, science and any information source that presents real information. It is no surprise you would attempt to harm Pushpa Mittra Bhargavaand many other well respected scientists.

          • Karl Haro von Mogel

            No, the quote you give doesn’t make the people at Okanagan Specialty Fruits liars. In fact it shows that you spent a long time trying to find a quote somewhere by searching for “Biofortified” and “industry” instead of, well, actually checking our site and the Bios of the people who actually run it.

          • JudsonParker

            Biofortified’s mission statement is pro-GE activism… and it is running a kickstarter right now to run a pro-GE PR campaign complete with pro-GE plush dolls. And the blog is often used as a platform for attacking activists on the other side of the issue often with ad hominem attacks that have no relevance whatsoever to GE science (with an additional focus on demonizing organic agriculture and organic food). It is also used as a rallying point for opposition to GE food labeling propositions. if you don’t want to be called an activist site, quit being pro-GE (or anti-anti-GE) activists.

          • Cairenn Day

            This is their mission statement.

            I see a PRO SCIENCE statement, not a pro GMO statement. So they should ignore the SCIENCE to make you happy? Facts and Science are not pro or anti, they are neutral.

            Biology Fortified, Inc. Mission Statement

            Biology Fortified, Inc. (BFI) is an independent educational
            non-profit organization incorporated in Wisconsin. Our mission is to
            strengthen the public discussion of issues in biology, with particular
            emphasis on genetics and genetic engineering in agriculture.

            To carry out this mission, BFI will focus on four major areas:

            Educate and engage members of the public both through online content and in-person events.

            Online content will primarily be presented through the Biofortified Blog on the BFI website, with accompanying discussion on each post, and promoted through social medial platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

            Maintain a public Forum on the BFI website for members of the public to discuss topics related to the core mission.

            In-person events may include events organized by BFI or those organized by outside entities.

            Reach out to people who hold differing points of view to
            promote inclusive discussion. Commit to transparency and ethical
            conduct, while promoting the importance of these values.

            To encourage transparency and community, we encourage visitors to complete a profile.

            We seek out people with diverse opinions via social media and
            encourage them to engage in conversations on the Biofortified Blog and
            Forum.

            Promote two-way communication between the scientific community and the public.

            Provide a platform where experts can publish content and interact
            with the public, through guest posts or authorship on the Biofortified
            Blog and other resources.

            Provide editorial services and advice to scientists on how to communicate with the public using social media.

            Connect specific scientific experts with journalists, policy makers, and others seeking expertise.

            Provide expert scientific analyses to support the public
            good and the scientific community. Generate public resources to promote
            accessibility and comprehension of the scientific literature.

            This includes the Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA),
            a searchable database of peer-reviewed research on the relative risks of
            genetically engineered crops.

            And you sir are employed by an anti GMO organization, your are PAID to attack Biofortified, researchers like Dr Folta and Karl, and other posters like me.

            Can you tell us why you did not reveal your bias?

          • JudsonParker

            I am not “paid” by an “anti-GMO” organization. In fact, I started it as a side project and I invest hours of personal, unpaid time into it. And it is not “anti” biotechnology. It is GE-cautious. And GE isn’t even the only issue I focus on. I know you are jealous that I reach millions of people each week and that I am not compensated a single penny for it.

          • Karl Haro von Mogel

            Judson Parker is the former Outreach Director for the Yes on Prop 37 campaign. So he was in fact an industry-funded partisan. Glass Houses and rocks…

          • Karl Haro von Mogel

            Oh the kickstarter hasn’t started yet, but I hope you will tell more people about it when the time comes. In the meantime, I’ll go back to reading some of our blog posts written by organic farmers…

          • Cairenn Day

            What is wrong with citing a site that has documented creditable evidence?

          • Connie Kuramoto

            Typical, that a pro gmo person calls all anti gmo scientist pseudo scientists. Seralini is publishing more. You seem quite out of the loop here. Thousands of labs have not sprung to action because most of the labs are funded by gmo companies, Why on earth would they want to publish studies that would show that their products are harmful and the way they make money is unethical.

          • KKBurson

            It is not true that most labs are funded by GMO companies. Why would they fund independent labs when they have state-of-the-art research facilities and excellent scientists on sight? There are many independent studies proving the safety of GMOs, but the anti-GMO people seem to think that one study, that has been shown to be based on bad science no less, trumps all of those. Ridiculous.

          • No Gmo

            So, you claim, “There are many independent studies proving the safety of GMOs” Yet, Folta claims,”Nothing can be proven safe.” So, which one of you is wrong?

          • Cairenn Day

            Proving the safety and absolutely proven something is safe is NOT the same thing.

            It is considered safe to drive to work or the store on a sunny day but every day those safe drives prove deadly.

            If we demanded that everything was ‘proven safe’ we would still be living in cave, eating raw food and the skins of animals killed by predators. Fires are not safe, domestic animals are not safe, houses are not safe.. Cell phones aren’t safe.

            There is NOTHING that can be SAFE. If you drink too much water it can kill you, Water is not safe.

          • No Gmo

            You dodged the question.

          • Cairenn Day

            I did not DODGE the question. I explained why it is a ‘have you stopped beating your wife ‘ question.

            Their is no difference in the safety of an ear of GMO sweet corn and an ear of heirloom organic sweet corn.

          • No Gmo

            You didn’t explain much of anything.
            Why don’t you explain why you claimed the Royal Society of Medicine said something they didn’t, the EC said something they specifically said was not necessarily their opinion and an ADA(now AND) reference the president of the AND said was, “untruthful”?
            I know you didn’t write the list, but you should really take the time to fact check before you post misinformation.

          • KKBurson

            There are numerous studies that prove that the GMOs currently on the market are at least as safe as conventional and organic food and they have the same nutritional value. Nobody deals in absolutes. You want to nitpick precise wording, fine, it shows that you don’t have any real evidence to prove otherwise and are desperate.

          • No Gmo

            Show me evidence of safety for every GE food on the market that meets chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards. If you fail to provide this evidence I’ll take it that you are just spreading misinformation!

          • KKBurson

            The evidence is there. The scientific consensus is that GMOs currently on the market are at least as safe as conventional and organic food. I am not going to argue this point with you further because you are too lazy or too close-minded to read the papers and listen to the experts. If you know so much more about toxicology than I do, then you should be able to understand the results of each of the studies. Spreading misinformation seems to be your specialty, so I’ll leave you to it.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/

          • No Gmo

            I’m not lazy or close-minded, you just don’t understand what chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards are, because nothing you posted meets those standards.
            I would suggest you actually read your own reference and learn a little something about basic toxicology, because you chose to name call instead of posting the evidence I asked for.

          • KKBurson

            I have no idea who you are so why should I believe that you have read all of those references and actually understand the data and results? As far as I know, you are just another person who thinks that googling ‘toxicology’ and ‘carcinogenicity’ is the same as having a scientific degree and experience in the field. And, you know nothing about me or my background, so I would suggest that you don’t tell me to ‘learn a little something about basic toxicology’ unless you mean to be offensive and insulting. You can believe that you are superior to everyone else and that you know more than all of the scientists who have proven the safety of GMOs if that makes you happy. Happy holidays!

          • No Gmo

            Rather than post a list that has numerous references unrelated to what I asked for, please cite the individual references I asked for.

            I assure you, that I have read through the health section of that list, and I do not see evidence that meets chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards for every GE food on the market(or any GE food on the market for that matter).

            If you believe I missed something than show it to me. Don’t just name call, prove me wrong! If you can’t do it, just admit you can’t, and apologize for calling me, “lazy or too close-minded to read the papers.” There is no shame in admitting you were wrong and apologizing for your mistakes.

          • JudsonParker

            That is a pro-GMO activist’s article which links to a pro-GMO activist website that has a list that is filled with “fluff” repetitive studies, many of which actually show harmful effects of GMOs.

            Please show us the scientific consensus, not an activist’s opinion.

          • gmomustgeeoh

            Drop dead Folta.

          • jete100

            Want some real science? Read and refer to all references in this document.

            Your actions indicate fear and grasping; it is obvious that you realize that THE PEOPLE now know all the shenanigans that so-called “scientists” have been playing on us in the US since the late 90′s with the GMO-coverup and hard sell tactics.

            We get it now-even though it took us a while to wade through the lies, and no one is buying it any longer.

            Deride, demean, belittle us all you want, calling us science-haters, misinformed, etc., Doing that just enhances the opinion of you and the other Monsanto puppets as rude, dismissive shills.
            That’s too bad, because you are probably a likeable person who was well-intentioned at one point, but now the $$ means too much.

            There is still time…why not devote your skills to supporting and enhancing natural techniques and products that people actually WANT now (and more so every day): Clean, non-genetically engineered, real food.

            http://www.navdanya.org/attachments/Latest_Publications7.pdf

          • Kevin Folta

            jete, of course you realize the document is not science. It is an opinion. Maybe soften a touch and come by the department. I’d be glad to show you what I do, what we all do. Most of it is not even related to GM, just about all of it isn’t.

            So don’t be so quick to make decisions about me and others here when you don’t take the time to understand what we do. I think you’d be surprised at what little we get by with, our 1980′s infrastructure and rather embarrassing space, cramped into tiny labs. There is no “$$$$” as you imply and I’m sorry if I ever came off as rude.

            We’re certainly not puppets for any company. That’s why we work in the public sector– They’ve invited me twice to apply for jobs as a group leader and I really just like it here better. Plus, I’d hate working for a company.

            I do get pointy because I just try to talk about the science and discuss how cool it really is. Look at the grief I get here on this thread, simply for communicating facts from the vast scientific consensus. It does get frustrating.

            So I hope you, or anyone else on this thread is local and takes the time to come by. If you actually took the time to learn about what we do (for you) then you might change your approach. Best wishes and I’m always here to discuss. Thanks.

      • Jessie Thorpe

        Dear Mr./Dr. Folta,

        Scientific advancements do not exist in a vacuum. The nature of science, as I’m assuming you well know, is changeable. Human beings (living organisms in general) are continually affected by change, i.e. scientific advancement, and in this case: the manipulation of genetics materials. That being said…..

        To go so far as to ASSUME those concerned about the safety and efficacy of GMOs (fathers, mothers, consumers, environmental advocates, economic theorists, political pundits etc.) are NOT thinking in “scientific” or “reasonable” terms is honestly the most arrogantly senseless comment I have read re: GMOs thus far.

        Hiding being “science” and “reason” to argue anything is one of the most classical forms of rhetoric. Logos (one side of the Aristotelean triangle) has been used to manipulate for centuries. Congratulations, your argument is not only not new, but also scentifically incorrect.

        • Kevin Folta

          We have to assume safety when there’s no plausible mechanism of harm and no evidence of harm. To make up or believe that these products are harmful, against everything demonstrated by peer-reviewed science, is not consistent with science or reason. Logos is founded on an informed interpretation of evidence, and therefore is a proper rhetorical device.

          On the other hand, your argument from ignorance is a classical logical fallacy. If you would like to know more about the science I’m always glad to help with that. Send an email.

          • Jessie Thorpe

            Ignorance? Your arrogance is unbelievable.

            My logical fallacies are non-existent. True, I may not have phrased everything 100% accurately, but my message is clear. Clear as day.

            I don’t need to send an email to an ill-informed, pseudoscientific talking head. Thanks anyway, though.

          • Jessie Thorpe

            Kevin,

            Your argument is not a legitimate form of logos (based on your definition). I didn’t say mine was. I said yours (in this context) wasn’t. Because it is –not– “informed” with 100% tried and true definitive research and empirical evidence, (How many studies have you personally done? All the studies across this world done by qualified scientists couldn’t possibly reach a conclusion about the safety of GMOs yet). For the above reasons, your particular argument is rendered null and void.

            Have you ever taken a debate class? Have you even seen one? Your lack of self-awarness & refusal to admit your mistake is not only comical….. but quite frankly, frightening.

            You do not and cannot know -definitively- how each and every organism will react/adapt to a foreign element introduced genetically. That is a fact. Open a biology book. The intricacies of human genome are still under investigagion. A testament to how amazing our genome is.

            Unless you are a time-traveler who has seen the future, and knows how of all organisms adapt once exposed to a genetically modified organism, you cannot say a word.

            Be careful with that false sense of scientific “superiority”.

            Have a wonderfully fulfilling day.

          • Kevin Folta

            Jessie, I was actually the president of my college debate/IE team, and studied rhetoric a bit.

            The big issue is that you might not understand how science works. We can test the hypothesis that gm crops are harmful. So far there is no compelling argument that they are. There is substantial evidence that they work as planned. Could that change? Sure! When the evidence presents itself.

            To answer your question, I have not personally tested a gm crop. I have careffully examined metabolic profiles in thousands of gm fruits (research plants), and never saw anything unusual.

            How many studies have you done?

            This is always faster and easier by email, so contact me if you there, or if you are local, come by for a tour. It would be fun to discuss in real time.

  • Baker

    Seralini did not retract his study, only the journal did. Seralini stands behind his findings.

    GMOs do indeed have adverse effects. Some animal studies have shown GMOs to cause organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging and infertility. In humans, other studies have shown GMOs to leave behind material, such as various viruses and bacteria, though the effects of this are as of yet unknown. In addition, GM plants are often less nutritious than their organically grown counterparts needless to say the massively increased amounts of herbicides and pesticides now required to combat the superweeds and superbugs that have become resistant to the original GM. They are now stacking the glyphosate (Roundup) with 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange!

    Since GMOs’ introduction into the consumer market, the number of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses has increased from 7 to 13 percent; the American Academy of Environmental Medicine believes there to be a causal relationship. For these reasons, the organization recommends that doctors prescribe non-GMO, or organic, diets for all patients.

    This unknowing is the primary issue. We don’t really know if it has a long-term impact on the health of individuals or why companies are against the labeling of GMOs if it isn’t bad for people. But why take the chance. We do have a right to know and decide if we want to take that chance or not. 64 countries around the globe have labeling, why not us? What is there to hide?

    Everyone should contact Rep. Tom Goodson at 321-383-5151 and ask that HB-1 be put on the SubCommittee’s agenda for the 2014 Legislative session.

    • Cairenn Day

      Of course he did ! He is biased against GMOs. He is NOT an independent researcher. Y’all can stop pushing him as one.

  • http://www.twitter.com/triordan TJ

    So you have the right to know how many calories, you have the right to know the % of fat, you have the right to know the suggested serving size, you have the right to know if it comes in contact with peanuts. But hell should freeze before we require them to identify whether or not the food has been injected with bacteria so that it grows with built in pesticides.

    There are NO long-term studies examining the effects. It has been proven that the materials are making their way into the blood system (previously denied), and it’s even being found in the umbilical cord blood of the unborn. Countries around the world have either banned or require a label. I don’t need a regurgitation of the propaganda of benefits. Reason? Common Sense? Label it and let me decide.

    Until you start pushing for the removal of all labeling requirements, than I will continue pushing for my right to know.

    • http://www.twitter.com/triordan TJ
      • Kevin Folta

        Every single point in Myths and Truths has been rebutted and a science-based assessment is coming in early 2014. The main problem is it takes a sentence to make a false statement and a paragraph to show why it’s wrong. Never make decisions based on fear, rely on science and reason.

      • GMOSF

        Hi there, GMO Skepti-Forum on Facebook has begun compiling information on that document. You’ll see from these sources that the Earth Open Source doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny: https://www.facebook.com/groups/280492318756692/permalink/302891343183456/

      • mem_somerville

        No–that should be GMO Mythers and Truthers.

    • MikeinOntario

      Nobody has the “right” to know anything about what is in their food. The only reason we have what we do on current food labels is because that is what the government has decided what consumers should know.

  • Audry Strain Pettit

    I’d like to see who exactly you polled. The people who are in support of GMO’s are the people in the back pocket of big business and big ag. How blessed I am that I have access to Swallowtail Farm as well as so many others farms in this area that are producing food the RIGHT way…the way God and nature intended, not science.

    • Cairenn Day

      Really? I find that folks that have taken the trouble to do some research and to not fall for FB memes, do not support mandatory labeling.

      God or the Creator gave use the ability to use our brains, first to develop agriculture and to domesticate plants and animals. All GMOs are, are an extension of that.

      ‘God’ didn’t place computer on our desks either, we were given the ability to develop them. To turn our back on a technology that can help to feed the hungry and that can minimize the impact on the environment from farming is a good thing.

      To return to large scale old fashioned farming is to doom the environment ( remember the Dust Bowl, worn out fields in the south, 1000′s of acres of forest cleared for crops) and to doom millions to hunger and starvation.

      No Creator would approve of that. Not when the tools to prevent are available.

      • Audry Strain Pettit

        I didn’t say anything about large scale farming. In fact the farms I support here in Alachua County are all small farms, who are producing food in a responsible and sustainable manner. These are the tools we should be utilizing to feed the world.

        • Diana_Reeves

          Audry – don’t be intimidated by these industry trolls. Stick to your convictions. You’re on the right track!

          • Chris Kelly

            Translation, shut your eyes, close your ears, and keep yelling noooooo GMooooooooooooos. Yep, that’s intellectually rewarding and will always get you closer to the truth.

          • No Gmo

            That is ironic coming from someone who said, ” If you are going to make up stories at least take the time to fact check to ensure you don’t get so easily caught out.” When you didn’t even fact check to see you were wrong! Yep, that’s intellectually rewarding and will always get you closer to the truth.

          • Chris Kelly

            It would indeed be ironic if I was wrong about RR wheat but as I am not your point comment is baseless.

          • No Gmo

            The person you replied to never claimed RR wheat was used!

            They specifically said, “When I was at the Ag summit in Camrose last month I talked to several Wheat farmers. They all said they decimate the crop with roundup because it is easy and gets them maximum $$ but would never eat any grain that wasn’t organic because they do not consider conventional or GMO grain safe for consumption.”

            As you can see they never claimed anything about RR wheat and even specifically mentioned conventional grain in their statement. You attacked them for no reason, and said they made this up because you claimed, “There is no commercially grown GM wheat. If you are going to make up stories at least take the time to fact check to ensure you don’t get so easily caught out.

            So, you just admitted it is indeed ironic!
            Please, stop spreading misinformation. As I told Kevin Folta earlier, there is no shame in being wrong, just own up to your mistake,

          • Chris Kelly

            Nooooooo Gmooooooooo, Are you really that slow or just pretending to be? Please go back to the comments and see where i acknowledged my error in understanding. Every other reader can see it, but you can’t? Again please point out where i said roundup is not used in wheat cropping. I await your acknowledgement of your error. Indeed there is nothing wrong with being wrong but continually attempting to defend your error in light of what is clearly documented makes you look more than a little silly.

          • No Gmo

            It appears you were projecting when you said, “Are you really that slow or just pretending to be?” So, you acknowledged your error and then go right back to trying to defend it.
            Every other reader can see it but you!
            You accused someone of making up a story based on your, “error in understanding” and YOU STILL KEEP REPEATING THE SAME ERROR!

            You should listen to yourself, “Indeed there is nothing wrong with being wrong but continually attempting to defend your error in light of what is clearly documented makes you look more than a little silly.”

            DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

          • Chris Kelly

            Calm down Mooo, it will help you to think more clearly if that is possible. My reply is back in the comment thread of the initial discussion where it belongs.

          • No Gmo

            You should listen to yourself, “Indeed there is nothing wrong with being wrong but continually attempting to defend your error in light of what is clearly documented makes you look more than a little silly.”

          • Chris Kelly

            Sombody lend Moooo a ladder.

          • No Gmo

            So, far your entire argument has been to claim someone made something up, when you later admitted you were wrong. Then you posted a reference that you haven’t read. Had you read it, you would likely be admitting you were wrong again.
            Somebody lend Chris a ladder.

          • Chris Kelly

            You are still making things up Moooo, you should know better by now. As stated below i misunderstood one sentence but It is still apparent that his little story is a fairy tale, sterile horses, conventional and GM growers refusing to eat their own produce and only eating organic, truly hilarious stuff!

            Glad to help you on your way to the centre of the earth.

          • No Gmo

            Based on what evidence?
            Your religious belief is showing, if you don’t believe there are conventional and GE growers who won’t eat the food they produce.
            GMO fundamentalists are hilarious!

          • Chris Kelly

            Have a little think about that Moooo and consider on whom the burden of proof rests.

        • Cairenn Day

          But small farms cannot produce enough food. There are NOT enough folks willing to work that hard.

          • Connie Kuramoto

            Small farms can produce enough food. We already produce enough food, but there is so much food waste because of our centralization of food production that a huge percentage never even reaches people, or is old before it does. Also we have problems with distribution in both first and third world countries. GMO companies are not out to feed the world, just to make a quick buck at our expense. The reason big farms can stay in business is that they are heavily subsidized., If those subsidies were more evenly distributed small farms would be much more profitable. Watch King Corn, the movie. Big farms are not profitable, they exsist on subsidies!

          • Cairenn Day

            They do not and can not. I suggest that you review history.

            Your beloved organic farmers are also subsidized, so are companies like Apple and Google.

            In the times of the conventional farm, much of our population was involved growing food. That changed during and after WW II.

            Your organic farms would not have enough manure without the large feed lots and animal confinement farms, that depend on the GMO corn and soy and alfalfa you hate and deride.

            Companies like Monsanto serve their customers, FARMERS. Most farms are owned by FAMILIES, not companies.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Monsanto serves Monsanto. Period.

          • KKBurson

            Does Monsanto have an obligation to their shareholders? Absolutely. Does it make sense to put products on the market that will harm/kill your customers? Absolutely not. Additionally, in order to believe that harmful products make it to market, you have to believe that every scientist (both at Monsanto and in independent labs that reproduce the results proving safety) and every regulatory agency that reviews safety testing data and results are immoral, unethical, and/or completely corrupt. That is insulting and highly offensive.

            I am more confused by the fact that everyone who is anti-GMO is focused on Monsanto. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about Syngenta, Dow, Dupont/Pioneer, BASF, or Bayer? Can you tell me why Monsanto has become the rallying cry? I am genuinely interested.

          • gmomustgeeoh

            i say no subsidies for anyone. that makes a more even playing field for organic farmers who don’t get a penny.

          • Cairenn Day

            Organic farmers also get subsidies. They might have to have a farm bigger than my back yard, however, so does any farmer.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Cairenn – do you agree that we should END subsidies for ALL farmers then? That seems like the only fair solution. Everyone needs to earn their own way.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Totally agreed. NO subsidies for all farmers. AND guess who will be hurting the most? Big Agri Farmers and GMO farmers..

      • Diana_Reeves

        Exactly which planet are you from? Last we all checked, on this planet, Mother Nature does not force genes from one unrelated species into another or use promoter viruses, bacteria or antibiotic resistant markers. Mother Nature does not engineer & patent plants so they can tolerate heavy dousing with chemicals that are genotoxic, carcinogenic, neurotoxic and endocrine disruptors. Last we all checked, God the Creator gave us brains to be able to determine right from wrong; to understand that just because we can do something, it doesn’t mean we should. No creator would approve of using people as lab rats, subjects of a science experiment, without their knowledge or consent. No creator would approve of putting an entire generation at risk in the interest of corporate profits. And neither does this mother, who knows how it feels to have a child die in her arms – before this horrific experimentation began on our food supply – and doesn’t wish this on anyone. And please, stop telling people that there has never been a case of anyone getting sick from GMOs. More lies. Oh and by the way, GMOs aren’t going to feed the world any time soon so stop with the guilt tripping and intimidation. The technology is failing… we have herbicide resistant super weeds and resistant insects and they don’t yield any more than real food – in many cases, yields are lower. The next generation of genetic engineering goes from bad to worse – stronger and more volatile chemicals, more stacked “traits” that will further pollute our food supply. We need to know if it’s GMO – for many, our health depends on it. Without a label, there is no traceability, no accountability and no liability. Just label it.

        • Cairenn Day

          No Mother nature makes plants that produce their own toxins.

          The use of GMO plants have NEVER harmed a single person. YOU can make up stories to fit your Luddite agenda all day, but that will not make them true.

          The Serelini study was poorly done and peer review down checked it. Not only that, but it was NOT an unbiased study. Would you accept a study from Monsanto that no one else would? I wouldn’t.

          “Why would scientists do this?
          The research group has long been opposed to GM crops. It claimed in 2010 to have found evidence of toxicity in tests by the GM-crops giant Monsanto of its own Roundup-resistant maize. Other toxicologists, however, said the supposedly damning data revealed only insignificant fluctuations in the physiology of normal rats.”

          Last week, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin both issued initial assessments slamming the paper, bluntly asserting that its conclusions are not supported by the data presented. “The design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate,” says the EFSA in a press release, adding that the paper is “of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment”.

          “Six French scientific academies issued a statement on 19 October, saying the Séralini study could not reverse previous conclusions that this and other GM crops are safe, because of problems with the experimental design, statistical analysis and animals used, and inadequate data. Meanwhile the European Food Safety Authority declared the study “of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment”. As promised, the organisation invited Séralini “to share key additional information”. That invitation was made on 4 October, and repeated on 19 October. Today, EFSA announced it had (again) made all the data it used to approve the GM maize available to Séralini.

          Are the findings reliable?
          There is little to suggest they are. Tom Sanders, head of nutritional research at King’s College London, says that the strain of rat the French team used gets breast tumours easily, especially when given unlimited food, or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance, or just allowed to age. There were no data on food intake or tests for fungus in the maize, so we don’t know whether this was a factor.

          But didn’t the treated rats get sicker than the untreated rats?
          Some did, but that’s not the full story. It wasn’t that rats fed GM maize or herbicide got tumours, and the control rats did not. Five of the 20 control rats – 25 per cent – got tumours and died, while 60 per cent in “some test groups” that ate GM maize died. Some other test groups, however, were healthier than the controls.

          Toxicologists do a standard mathematical test, called the standard deviation, on such data to see whether the difference is what you might expect from random variation, or can be considered significant. The French team did not present these tests in their paper. They used a complicated and unconventional analysis that Sanders calls “a statistical fishing trip”.

          Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh, UK, adds that in any case, there should be at least as many controls as test rats – there were only 20 of the former and 80 of the latter – to show how variably tumours appear. Without those additional controls, “these results are of no value”, he says.

          • Connie Kuramoto

            How on earth can you say that GMO plants have not harmed a single person. No one can make that statement, because no one knows! Sorry, you are the one with the Luddite agenda. Since the human geome project we know that gmo tech is based on old science that was incorrect.

          • Cairenn Day

            Where is your EVIDENCE? Do you have any?

            GMO is not based on ‘old science’. Every GMO product is sequenced and it is checked for any known allergens.

            Trillions of GMO meals have been ate and there is no evidence of any harm. Please don’t say we need ‘human feeding trials’. That is a straw man, since we don’t require those on other crops.

          • Katherine Schmidt Edmund

            http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

            Given this new information, in conjunction with the lack of consensus by the scientific community on the issue of GMO, it’s obvious that GMOs should be relegated back to the lab where they should be more thoroughly tested.

            Further, the satisfaction of this testing should certainly not be left to the biased laboratories of Corporations whose only purpose is profit. All evidence should be publicly peer reviewed before being re-integrated on an informed public, that humanity as a whole might not yet again become the unwitting victims of a very unscientific human trial.
            If it cannot be properly reviewed because the patent owner does not wish to disclose their methods then the patenting of life process should be overhauled/revoked and the company could thoroughly demonstrate their altruistic motives of feeding the masses/poor.

          • KKBurson

            No scientific consensus? Are you serious??? And there are numerous studies based on independent testing in peer-reviewed journals with high impact factor. Do you know anything about scientific research?

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/

          • Cairenn Day

            Lack of consensus, WHERE did you get that idea from?

            Here are some, none of which are from the US (since any from the US will be discarded as tainted by Monsanto in some way)

            The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

            The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

            International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

            Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

            Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

            “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

            French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

            Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

            International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)

          • No Gmo

            Did you seriously reference this list again after you were corrected on this in another article?

            Even your buddy that works for Monsanto, Ben Schaefer admitted, the Royal Society of Medicine never said that!

            Here was my response to you in a previous article, and I repeated multiple times. So, you have been caught spreading misinformation.

            #1 You claim that quote is from, “The Royal Society of Medicine” but that is misinformation. Try actually reading the article yourself and see that is just an article published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. By your logic, this article must also represent the more recent opinion of, “The Royal Society of Medicine” since it is a more recent article published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, “I view the promotion of GM food as directly analogous to the promotion of a new pharmaceutical product without any testing for safety. The only difference is that GM food could alter the health of a much larger population, and without any element of product choice.” http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/9/435.2.full

            #2 The claim is that this quote is from the European Union, but the report specifically states, “The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.” the authors include people such as Marc Van Montagu who has an obvious conflict of interest considering he founded two biotech companies, Plant Genetic Systems Inc. and CropDesign and makes millions from GMO’s since he invented the Agrobacterium method.

            #3 Affiliate members include biotech companies like BASF and Syngenta http://www.worldseed.org/isf/affiliate.html

            Please, stop posting misinformation. Here is the last conversation we had about this misinformation list, in case you have conveniently forgotten. http://www.kelownacapnews.com/opinion/letters/233650961.html

          • Scott3Bryan

            It is checked for any known allergens? These are patented, novel, new, plants being discussed here and you are satisfied with it is checked for ANY KNOWN allergens? I’m not!

          • Cairenn Day

            Yes their entire genome is sequenced and checked for any know allergens. That is NOT done for conventional hybrids or for those produced by mutations caused by radiation or chemicals.

            That beautiful, tasty Ruby Red grapefruit was developed with the aid of radiation induced mutations.

            Plants mutate naturally, The plant, teosite, that corn came from doesn’t much look like what we thing corn looks like.

            The same is true of einar, that wheat developed from. Primitive sheep had hair, not wool. Wool was a natural mutation.

            GMO items are controlled mutations, so you don’t get a problem like poison potatoes or rash causing celery

          • Scott3Bryan

            The key word here is KNOWN. Do you actually believe that any evidence of reaction from allergens outside of the focused list of KNOWN allergens would be disclosed?

          • KKBurson

            So, how would you propose that scientists test for any UNKNOWN allergens? You obviously know nothing about scientific research, the scientific process, or how testing is done. There is extensive testing done using binding assays with human digestive system proteins to make sure that the protein produced by the gene being added to the plant does not interact. That is a very specific yes/no answer. If it does, then yes, I do believe that would be disclosed to the appropriate regulatory agency (if it was far enough into the pipeline to warrant notification) or, more likely, the project would be scrapped before it even made it to regulatory. Why do you care anyway? Conventional and organic foods are not tested even for KNOWN allergens and I’m guessing that you still eat those.

          • Scott3Bryan

            I care that future generations will continue to thrive. The damage we do now in the name of profits is at their expense. Carefully contrived studies are designed to protect investments not human health.

          • KKBurson

            I know from experience that is not true. But you don’t have to take my word for it, there are many independent studies, with no profit incentive, that confirm the results of experiments done by companies.

          • KKBurson

            And, again, why don’t care about testing conventional and organic foods? GMOs undergo extensive safety testing while no other foods are held to the same standards. Organic foods have killed many people due to pathogenic contamination, but no one seems concerned about that.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Well, maybe we should require human feeding trials on ALL food. Something is making our children sick. 1 in 50 children, 1 in 31 boys have autism. Why? Cancer is now the #1 killer of children. Explain that. The evidence is there. No one wants to connect the dots. And why should they? Imagine if the FDA conducted their own independent study and found out GMOs were making us sick when they have allowed it into our food supply in the first place. Think biotech companies want us to connect the dots? Nope, there is too much money to be made in growing and selling GMOs foods.

          • Cairenn Day

            First, how would you do a ‘human feeding trial’? There is not enough types of GMOs and this isn’t a dictator state where folks can be forced to be used as that way.

            Cancer is not the #1 killer, accidents are. Vaccinations have eliminated many deaths in children. Antibiotics saves the lives of children every day. My Aunt was the first child in Texas to survive a strep throat. That was in 30s. Even then, dietary issues like pellagra was making children ill and making them more likely to die from diseases like flu and colds

            In fact the % of young children that die from cancer is down from 15% in 1970 to 14% in 2007

            http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/images/mchb_child_mortality_pub.pdf

            Autism is on the rise because of a change in diagnosis, increased awareness, and more access to mental health professionals. I have had ADD all of my life but it wasn’t diagnosed until I was in my 50s. I know of several adults that were also diagnosed with it when they were over 30.

            Correlation is not causation. The rise in autism is also parallel to the rise in the use of organic food. but no one is going to claim it is the cause.

            There is a HUGE amount of money being made in the organic food market. Whole Foods is almost as big as Monsanto.

            I find it interesting that you seem to think that farmers are a bunch of ‘money grabbers’, they aren’t.

            “THE TOP THREE CAUSES OF DEATH BY AGE GROUP

            0-1 years:
            Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
            Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
            All conditions associated with prematurity and low birth weight
            1-4 years:
            Accidents
            Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
            Cancer
            5-14 years:
            Accidents
            Cancer
            Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
            15-24 years:
            Accidents
            Homicide
            Suicide”

        • KKBurson

          It’s not true that genes from one species do not exist in other species. Nature evolves to deal with adversity. GMOs do not make people sick. If you have sources that prove otherwise, I would like to see them.
          [PDF]
          http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Agronomy/Chappell/Courses/Papers/Review%20-%20Bock%20-%20TIPS%202010%20(2).pdf

          • Diana_Reeves

            Elimination diet. Google it.

          • KKBurson

            I know what an elimination diet is. I said that there is no nutritional difference between GMOs, conventional, and organic foods, therefore, it is impossible to say that GMOs specifically make you sick. Additionally, anecdotal evidence does not equal scientific proof. Show me the scientific study that proves your claim.

          • gmomustgeeoh

            lies.

          • KKBurson

            Care to elaborate? Show some proof maybe?

          • Scott3Bryan

            Still using the “anecdotal evidence” trashcan to dispose of unwanted evidence I see.

          • Cairenn Day

            Do you have any EVIDENCE other wise?

            Look at what the EXPERTS say . They have reviewed ALL the studies

            American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)

            American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)

            World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

            National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)

            American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)

            American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

            American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

            American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

            American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

            American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

            International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

            Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

            Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)

            Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

            Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

            Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

          • No Gmo

            Didn’t I already show you how flawed this list is on another post?

            American Dietetic Association(who changed their name to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) put out a press release in response to the claim you made, stating that they do not have an opinion on genetically engineered food.
            Ethan A. Bergman, the president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics even said, “In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy.” http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/academy-of-nutrition-and-dietetics-and-proposition-37-the-facts-173146771.html
            Come on, the huge majority of your list involves groups affiliated with biotech companies and other nonsense..

          • Cairenn Day

            Do you have any evidence of ALL those ties? Or is another myth you like to believe?

            I love that you didn’t check the date on your link. It is from over a year ago.

            It does seem that they do NOT have an official position on GMOs.

            “he Academy does not have a position on issues
            pertaining to labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) foods.

            The inaccurate information has led to confusion and an inaccurate portrayal
            of in the media and health-care community of the Academy and its state
            affiliate, the California Dietetic Association.

            “In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy. Our members are the nation’s trusted and credible source of food and nutrition information,” Bergman said.

            As an evidence-based organization, the Academy extensively analyzes relevant scientific studies before taking a position on any issue and systematically reviews and updates its positions as needed. A new position paper that will address GMO and GE foods is expected to be published in 2013.”

            The year 2013 is almost over an there does not seem to have been a paper produced.

            I did find this that was interesting

            http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/video-gm-nutritional-diff

          • No Gmo

            YOU JUST ADMITTED YOU WERE SPREADING MISINFORMATION!
            Your link is well over a year old since the ADA even changed their name to AND since then. SO TAKE THAT ADA QUOTE OFF YOUR LIST BECAUSE IT IS MISINFORMATION!
            I already went through this list with you several times and showed you the majority of the groups on that list were affiliated with biotech companies and there are even QUOTES THAT WEREN’T FROM THE GROUPS YOU CLAIM MADE THEM!
            I will make you a deal, I will go through the list AGAIN, if you take every group with biotech affiliations and every quote attributed to the wrong group OFF THAT LIST and never post them again.
            DO WE HAVE A DEAL, or are you scared of getting your getting your misinformation debunked?

          • Cairenn Day

            I posted a statement they made in relation to the labeling campaign in Cal.

            They said they did not have position on them. It seems that many of their member do support them.

            A list of over 2 dozen groups and you have some evidence that 3 of them are not solid. What there is is that have allowed those supporting GMOs to state their support in official publications. Can you SHOW where any of those also allowed those opposed to GMOs too publish that information?

            Keep clinging to your biased, discredited studies. We know you will keep LYING to public about GMOs. That you will keep spreading hoaxes and lies like the Indian farm suicides, in order to push your agenda of increasing market share for organic food.

            Y’all accuse ‘companies’ of being greedy, while y’all promote FEAR in order to help the companies you like, (?work for—the Carmen study was funded and done on the farm of an organic grower).

          • No Gmo

            I issued you a deal.

            I’ll repeat for you, “I already went through this list with you several times and showed you the majority of the groups on that list were affiliated with biotech companies and there are even QUOTES THAT WEREN’T FROM THE GROUPS YOU CLAIM MADE THEM!

            I will make you a deal, I will go through the list AGAIN, if you take every group with biotech affiliations and every quote attributed to the wrong group OFF THAT LIST and never post them again.

            DO WE HAVE A DEAL, or are you scared of getting your getting your misinformation debunked?”

            All you did was slander me. If you want to accept the deal I will be more than happy to provide the evidence I said I would. Your 23 references(not over 2 dozen like you claimed) are mostly groups affiliated with biotech companies or QUOTES THAT WEREN’T FROM THE GROUPS YOU CLAIM MADE THEM!”

            Why won’t you accept the deal? Is it because you wouldn’t be able to spread misinformation?

            You asked, “Can you SHOW where any of those also allowed those opposed to GMOs too publish that information?”

            Of course I can and already have. For example, in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine(which you referenced) they published this, “I view the promotion of GM food as directly analogous to the promotion of a new pharmaceutical product without any testing for safety. The only difference is that GM food could alter the health of a much larger population, and without any element of product choice.” http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/9/435.2.full
            Whenever you are ready to apologize for slandering me, let me know. Also keep in mind that Nazis were tried for advocating medical experiments on humans without their informed consent.

          • Cairenn Day

            First SHOW use EVIDENCE that they are ‘controlled’ by the agrochemical industry. I asked for that earlier and you ignored it.

            Now to what you just referenced, It was 2008 and this his basis

            ‘GM plants undergo extensive safety
            testing’. This is absolutely false. In the US, while the GM food plants
            must go through
            the FDA for approval, there is NO REQUIRED
            safety testing: it is up to the producer, and if anything is done it is
            minimal.
            These has been essentially no long term animal
            toxicology on any GM product, something the medical community should be
            concerned
            about.2,3

            ‘GM crops consumed… with no reported
            ill effects’ – therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and
            the conclusion
            is not valid. There is no assay and there is no
            epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be
            impossible
            to pick up within the constant background of
            disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are
            no labelling
            requirements. For an example of the necessary
            data to make a conclusion of harm, see Schubert.4

            ‘Increased yields’: there have been none with the current GM crops.”

            On point 1, he was wrong then and he is MORE wrong today. Hundreds of tests by INDEPENDENT researchers, including ones done by the EU governments

            Point 2, That is now wrong, since there are long term studies. One can also look at animals that have been eating GMO based feed for more than one generation now. That type of information was not as available 5 years ago, because they had not been that dominant for that long.

            Point 3– They increase yields by reducing crop damage. Farmers see increased yields at the end of the season.

            How did I slander you? Because I say you promote FEAR, in order to push your agenda? That is true.

            You hide behind an alias and for all I know you are being paid to push the fears in order to grow the market for pricy, boutique food.

          • No Gmo

            Do you not know what slander means?

            You said, “We know you will keep LYING to public about GMOs.”

            Clearly, that is slander. Go look up the definition.

            Anyone who cares about accurate information would accept the deal. Why would you want to continue to spread misinformation? Accept the deal and your little list of 23 groups will be reduced to maybe 5.

            Look at what was posted above, “In the US, while the GM food plants must go through the FDA for approval, there is NO REQUIRED safety testing: it is up to the producer, and if anything is done it is minimal.
            These has been essentially no long term animal
            toxicology on any GM product, something the medical community should be concerned about.”
            The medical community is concerned about this and have been for years. I promote accurate information, while you slander me for exposing the misinformation you post. This is unfortunately, the typical response I get from GMO fundamentalists.

      • patzagame

        Lets for a moment forget about the tumors on Seralinis’ rats,and how about focusing on the liver and kidney toxicity that occurred in those rats…Oh and whats the number up to now?Three trillion GMO meals eaten and not a sniffle?Is that the standard Bio Tech talking point line used?How about this?…,liver and kidney damage doesn’t cause your nose to run!I find the folks I talk to that have done research are demanding labels should be put on foods, and a moratorium should be placed on these foods until truly independent long term science studies are done.Your so called tools are not feeding the hungry,they are causing illness instead.

        • Cairenn Day

          The independent research has been done, the long term studies have been done.

          Serelini was not and is not an unbiased researcher. It seems that anyone that is antiGMO is considered to be ‘non biased’ and anyone that attended a college that took a grant from Monsanto, 20 years ago is considered to be ‘bought’ by Monsanto.

          Where is a case of a documented illness from GMO food?

          I can give a list of folks KILLED by contamination from organic produce.

          • Connie Kuramoto

            Just because it is not documented doesn’t mean it does not exist. How can it be documented if products are not labeled.

          • Cairenn Day

            So your opinion is all we need? You think they are causing harm so we should not grow them? How silly.

            GMOs have been part of the human and animal food chain in the US and Can and other areas of the world for around 20 years.

            We can look at the changes in the crop and see if there is any way it can interact with human/animal biology. SCIENCE not opinions, not anecdotal stories, not made up ones is what is important.

            The anti GMO folks remind me of folks that made comments like this one.

            Rail travel at high speeds is not possible because passengers, unable to
            breathe, would die of asphyxia. — Dionysius Lardner (1842 – 1914) US
            journalist, short-story writer

          • Katherine Schmidt Edmund

            Before the first bite was taken, it should have been adequately and independently tested – long term. What kind of logic is that – to wait until you’ve made someone ill with your edible creation before it’s tested for safety? Ridiculous.

          • Cairenn Day

            It was tested and retested. No ONE is ill from eating it.

            Have you ever heard of the case of the toxic potato

            http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html

            No GMOs there, just like the problems that have developed in some varieties of celery. Conventional crops are NOT tested. When kiwi fruit was introduced, it was discovered afterward that some folks are allergic to it.

            The information you need and should want is available, but it won’t be found on sites that are selling you de tox programs, unneeded vitamins and untested supplements.

            I am very concerned about the unregulated supplement market. That capsule of valerian, might contain oregano. No one tests them.

            The organic produce market seems to have a problem with contamination, folks are dead from that.

            Lets spend taxpayer money on things that need to addressed, not to try to force expensive, boutique food down the throats of millions of Americans or to FORCE farmers to not have a choice.

          • KKBurson

            When it is well-documented and scientifically proven over and over that GMOs do NOT cause illness, it does mean that they are safe. There is no need for labels because they have been proven to be at least as safe as conventional and organic foods and they are the same nutritionally. Plus, labels already exist. If you want organic, buy food with the ‘organic’ label on the package.

      • Connie Kuramoto

        Nope gmo is doom to the environment. You have really no idea about agriculture do you? The dust bowl was because of the misuse of land, and the same thing is continuing in many places because of gmo agriculture. I saw firsthand on Molokai where there is a huge Monsanto presence. Large dust storms where you can barely see the road ahead of you. Using chemical fertilizers instead of organic matter for fertilization and spraying round up, common practices with gmos, are destroying the soil structure and leaving it vulnerable to wind and water erosion. GMO technology is not the answer to feeding the world, Yields are only temporarily increased by this technology and then start to decrease below organic horticulture, and many farmers are returning to growing non gmo crops.

        • Cairenn Day

          You are so incorrect. I know farmers that use GMO crops, they are able to use cover crops that reduce the need for tillage. Cover crops REDUCE the danger to soil from wind and rain.

          Where is your evidence of ‘dead soils’

          The Dust Bowl happened because of the organic farming methods you seem to want us to return to. You don’t care if children are not able to go to school, because their labor is needed on the farm. My mom grew up on one of those early 1900s farm. I heard her stories, I listened to the stories her mom told. It was not an easy life.

          Now for your dust storm, it seems that an extended drought, and a wildfire were among the causes of it.

          ” How is Monsanto addressing the problem of soil erosion (into the reef or airborne soil dust storms) on the Island of Molokai?

          Top soil is an extremely valuable resource to farmers,
          and Monsanto currently uses several best management practices to protect
          against soil loss from its fields. The company has resource
          conservation plans in place at all of its farms in Hawaii to help
          prevent soil erosion from wind (dust) or water (runoff).

          Some of the company’s best management practices include: cross slope
          grass plantings, diversion terraces, cover crops, grass barrier strips,
          windbreaks, spraying water on dirt roads, and as the company is able to,
          laying gravel on high traffic roads. Under excessive wind
          conditions, Monsanto halts all tillage activity until weather conditions
          improve.

          Monsanto has also been working to incorporate strip tilling at its
          local farms. Strip tilling is a soil management practice that reduces
          the number of passes a tractor needs to make across a field in order to
          prepare an area for planting. This, in turn, reduces dust and fuel
          consumption. When it’s time to replant a field, specialized equipment is
          used to till only the strips of soil where the rows of corn will be
          planted. The spaces in between rows are left intact.

          Monsanto has planted windbreaks at its Molokai farm, including Cook pines, kukui trees and a native hardwood shrub `a`ali`i. As these plants mature, they will offer additional protection from the wind.

          The severe drought, limited rainfall and very windy conditions that have impacted the islands for months have made the situation exceptionally difficult.”

          May be you should get some facts and less opinions.

      • Katherine Schmidt Edmund

        ABC News, June 19 93 percent — says the federal government
        should require labels on food saying whether it’s been genetically modified, or “bio-engineered” (this poll used both phrases). “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.”

        The New York Times, 07/27/13A recent New York Times poll
        found that 93% of Americans favor labeling of GE food:

        MSNBC, 2/25/11 Do you believe genetically modified foods
        should be labeled? Yes – 96% of over 45,000 voters believe genetically modified foods should be labeled

        Reuters / NPR, 10/10 Poll conducted by Thompson Reuters and
        National Public Radio finds 93% of Americans believe all GE foods should be labeled as such; only 35% willing to eat GE fish

        Washington Post, 9/17/10 Should genetically-modified food be
        labeled? Yes – 95%

        KSTP – St. Paul/Minneapolis, 9/21/10 Should Genetically
        Modified Salmon Carry a Different Label? Yes, Should be labeled as genetically modified fish – 95%

        Consumer Reports, 11/11/08 2008 Food Labeling Poll found
        that 95 percent of respondents said they thought food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent strongly agreed with this.

      • Caroline Yunker

        GMOs does not feed the world. That was a PR hype or promise that has never materialized.

        I agreed we have the ability to use our brains to develop processes, systems and equipments that are life/time saving but, so far, GMOs is not one of them. Tell me all you want how extensive GMOs have been tested. But those ‘safe’ tests were done by biased GMO scientists. Even the FDA has not tested GMOs. They “evaluate” the tests furnished to them by the biotech companies.

        Do you want to know what GMOs really are? They are another “tool” to control our food supply for profits. GMOs is about greed. It’s about selling more patented seeds and more chemicals.

        No Creator would approve of that.

  • Diana_Reeves

    Don’t believe the nonsense that GMOs are safe. GMOs make me sick. I had to figure it out with a very careful elimination diet that was made more complicated because there are no labels on genetically modified foods in this country. it is time consuming but not impossible to do. No labels? that’s just the way the agrichemical companies that are using viruses and bacteria and antibiotic resistant markers to engineer our food like it. Without a label, there is no traceability, no accountability and no liability. Forget the right to know message folks. We NEED TO KNOW IF IT’S GMO. GMOs make me sick and I know I’m not alone.

    • Audry Strain Pettit

      YES! Thank you.

    • Brandie Nadiger-Harrop

      they make me very sick as well.

    • KKBurson

      There are labels. Anything labeled ‘organic’ is organic. GMOs are at least as safe as conventional and organic food and there is no nutritional difference, therefore, there is no need to label them and they can’t make you sick. Unless, of course, you have a food allergy. In that case, that food will make you sick whether it is GM, conventional, or organic.

      • Diana_Reeves

        More nonsense. You just make yourself look foolish. If something is unique enough to patent and makes novel proteins, it is different. Just label it.

        • KKBurson

          There already are labels! Use your process of elimination. If it says ‘organic’ or ‘GMO free’ (which is usually a rip-off since the vast majority of items with that label don’t have a GMO equivalent anyway…like potato chips and candy canes), then they don’t contain GMOs. I personally don’t care if you eat GMOs or not. If you don’t eat them, though, it needs to be for some reason other than they are not safe or make you sick.

          • gmomustgeeoh

            blah, blah, blah

          • KKBurson

            I love it when anti-GMO people produce such mature responses. It shows just how little evidence you have to support your opinions.

          • Scott3Bryan

            Potato chips? Was I wrong to think that oil seeds could be GMO?

          • KKBurson

            I was talking about the potatoes, but I suppose there could be oil from GM soybeans or corn. GMOs are still safe and non-GMO containing products are still labeled.

          • Cairenn Day

            There is NO DNA in the oil. It is oil, A lab test can’t pick out the difference in GMO canola oil, hybrid canoloa oil or heritage seed organic canola oil.

            You see Science teaches you thinks.

          • JudsonParker

            Proteins are hydrolyzed into the oil and during the process are never 100% removed/broken down into component aminos. Cold pressed oils also contain proteins. This is why someone with a peanut or tree nut allergy may still avoid peanut or tree nut oils, for example.

            If you’d learn some basic science, you may have known that.

          • Cairenn Day

            I know basic science, you seem to have a problem with confusing DNA and proteins, They are NOT the same thing.

            To say that they are is like saying that the instructions for printing a dress pattern is the same as the dress. DNA tells proteins how to form. A gene in peanuts produce the protein that folks with allergies are allergic to. The DNA is not the protein.

            Here is a simple recap for you. Please read through to the end, the last sentence is very important

            “The answer lies in a molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which contains the biological instructions that make each species unique. DNA, along with the instructions it contains, is passed from adult organisms to their offspring during reproduction.

            DNA is found inside a special area of the cell called the nucleus. Because the cell is very small, and because organisms have many DNA molecules per cell, each DNA molecule must be tightly packaged. This packaged form of the DNA is called a chromosome.

            During DNA replication, DNA unwinds so it can be copied. At other times in the cell cycle, DNA also unwinds so that its instructions can be used to make proteins and for other biological processes. But during cell division, DNA is in its compact chromosome form to enable transfer to new cells.

            Researchers refer to DNA found in the cell’s nucleus as nuclear DNA. An organism’s complete set of nuclear DNA is called its genome.

            Besides the DNA located in the nucleus, humans and other complex organisms also have a small amount of DNA in cell structures known as mitochondria. Mitochondria generate the energy the cell needs to function properly.

            In sexual reproduction, organisms inherit half of their nuclear DNA from the male parent and half from the female parent. However, organisms inherit all of their mitochondrial DNA from the female parent. This occurs because only egg cells, and not sperm cells, keep their mitochondria during fertilization.

            DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating.

            The four types of nitrogen bases found in nucleotides are: adenine (A), , thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). The order, or sequence, of these bases determines what biological instructions are contained in a strand of DNA. For example, the sequence ATCGTT might instruct for blue eyes, while ATCGCT might instruct for brown.

            Each DNA sequence that contains instructions to make a protein is known as a gene. The size of a gene may vary greatly, ranging from about 1,000 bases to 1 million bases in humans.

            The complete DNA instruction book, or genome, for a human contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes on 23 pairs of chromosomes.

            DNA’s instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

            Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the “language” of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell’s protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins.”

          • JudsonParker

            You are really missing the mark here. Transgenes code for novel proteins. Therefore there are novel proteins in certain genetically engineered crops and foods. You keep arguing that “proteins aren’t DNA” but I think you don’t understand science well enough to realize transgenes code for novel proteins.

          • Cairenn Day

            I also know that any GMO product is checked for any allergens. They are not creating ‘novel’ proteins.

            Take the Arctic Apple, it has NO DNA from an outside source. All they did was to ‘silence’ a gene.

            The way that a GMO is made now is very precise. In the beginning, it was less precise, but even then it was orders of magnitude more precise than using radiation or chemical induced mutations or even from conventional hybridization.

            Nature causes mutations, some are fatal, some are useful to humans, like the mutation that caused a wooly coat in early sheep. EVERY one of those natural mutations can cause different proteins.

            I GMO crops the genome is sequenced and all non standard proteins are examined.

            Since you are claiming to know and understand genetics, it seems fair to ask where and when you took genetics classes.

          • JudsonParker

            I’m sorry Cairenn, but you aren’t very well versed on this issue.

            There are different kinds of GE – transgenics, RNAi, cisgenics… You are trying to compare RNAi (Arctic Apple) to transgenics (herbicide resistance, insect tolerance, etc). You’re right that RNAi creates no novel protein. However, the GE food crops used to produce oil (soy, corn, canola) are generally all transgenic crops, not RNAi.

            The gene that codes for bt toxin does indeed create a novel protein in bt crops, as an example. There are many different kinds of GE crops that contain novel proteins. If you’d like to continue this discussion, it would be nice if you’d actually learn what you’re talking about.

            Next, I don’t know why you are bringing chemical mutagenesis and ionizing radiation into this discussion. I’m not commenting on the safety of transgenes or the precision of techniques used to achieve desired results. I’m simply pointing out that many GE foods do indeed contain novel proteins and that it is quite possible for those novel proteins to be found in the oil (especially cold pressed oils).

            Finally, while none of these novel proteins are considered major allergens like shellfish, milk, peanuts, etc (and you are correct, scientists do compare the new proteins in GE foods to known allergens in order to gain regulatory approval), there have been studies that have found some humans show allergies to the novel proteins in GE crops. And in other cases, sensitivities have been discovered (and note that sensitivities and allergies are not the same thing – the former can exist in absence of an IgE response).

            I suppose you think you’re arguing with an anti-GMO activist responding based on emotional responses to internet memes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I’m neither pro nor anti GMO technology as a rule, and no real scientists would ever claim to be.

          • Cairenn Day

            “The Campaign for Safe Food is a grassroots effort to push government and corporations on issues like genetically modified organisms (GMOs), artificial dyes, chemical residues, and other unsafe or un-tested products in the U.S. food supply.”

            Their FB page is full of memes that are full of misinformation and cherry picked information.

            https://www.facebook.com/SafeFoodNow

          • JudsonParker

            Jealous that we reach millions while your pathetic efforts reach barely thousands? :)

          • Cairenn Day

            I dislike those that twist the public opinion to fit them agenda and that is what YOU are doing.

            You see, I have NO connections to any agrochemical company, No family, no personal friends and certainly not to pay my bills.

            Lets see some EVIDENCE of your claims.

          • JudsonParker

            What “claims” have I made?

          • JudsonParker

            You can find plenty of evidence if you’d bother to do some research outside of pro-GMO activist groups like GMOLOL, etc.

            Yum, H. et al. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–Jun 2005): 210–216.

            Kleter, G.A. & Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct. Biol. 2 (2002): 8–19.

            Vazquez et al. Intragastric and Intraperitoneal Administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sci. 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897–1912.

            But really, I shouldn’t have to do this for you. You are obviously capable of using Google.

          • Richard Green

            Speaking of being able to use Google…

            Perhaps you should read more than just the titles of the studies of you are listing.
            To paraphrase the Princess Bride: Evidence I do not think it
            means what you think it means.

            The Yum study from 2005 doesn’t
            really show a difference between GM and Non-GM but does indicate a need for more work:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119037

            The Kieter study from 2002 is more about assay development. Themethod used resulted in a lot of false positives and again the authors call formore work to be done.
            http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6807/2/8/

            Football is on so my Google time is
            limited, and as you say, I shouldn’t really have to do this work for you…

          • JudsonParker

            Eh? You basically just pointed out the reasons I posted those studies. The Yum study shows independent allergy to GE soy and calls for more research. The Kleter study shows that sections of the amino acid sequence of the GM protein that makes Roundup Ready Soy resistant to the herbicide are identical to known allergens, and that models to predict allergenicity are poor.

            So yes, these studies call for more research. A far cry from the quasi-religious “pro-GMO” stance folks like yourself take.

          • Richard Green

            Let me get this straight…

            You agree that I’ve pointed out the reason you posted those studies.

            What I pointed out is that Yum shows no allergy concerns, and that Kieter is about an assay that needs more work from which no conclusions can be drawn.

            Somehow I don’t think you actually agree with me.

            Of course those studies are fairly old and more work has been done. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, the scientific consensus is clear, GM food is as safe as its organic and conventional counter parts.
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/

            I find this somewhat frustrating. I encounter a similar denial
            of scientific consensus when having discussions with people who don’t think humans have impacted Climate Change.

            Oddly many of the folks who turn to science to bolster their climate change arguments, deny the science on GM, the irony of that always astounds me.

          • JudsonParker

            I agree with your statement that these studies show that GE safety requires more testing.

            You linked me to a pro-GMO political activist’s article who links to GLP, which is an activist site with a flawed list that contains numerous repetitive studies to bloat their list and also references studies which show environmental or animal health risks while claiming they all show safety.

            The Yum study shows specific allergy to only GE soy, which is concerning in that every pro-GE activist out there will tell you that it is “impossible” for people to be allergic to novel proteins introduced into currently marketed GE products. This merits much additional study. And the Kleter study similarly finds concerning data which has never resulted in a conclusive follow-up study that I am aware of. This in and of itself is concerning.

            Comparing this issue to climate change is dishonest. On the one hand, the consensus on climate change is that humans are contributing to global climate change. This is a consensus of independent scientists – the industry noise machine funds climate skepticism. On the other hand, the industry noise machine funds the pro-GE talking points and “consensus” while independent science is far more nuanced, showing environmental, animal, and human health concerns. In short, industry funds climate skepticism, independent scientists are the GE skeptics. The false and bloated promises of GE technology and the wholesale dismissal of concerning data merit much skepticism from the science community.

          • No Gmo

            You should really fact check your reference before you post it.

            First, there were not over 2000 studies on that list. Hundreds were letters to the editor and hundreds had nothing to do with safety or the environment, they were surveys on opinions about labeling, etc.

            Second, 3 of the 4 scientists involved were biotechnologists with not only a conflict of interest, but a clear lack of understanding ecology or health. The fourth was a soil scientist so again no health background and little ecology background.

            Third, there were plenty of studies suggesting problems that they just ignored or didn’t understand since they have no background in health or ecology! For example, #1319 states, “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.” so this claim is already debunked.
            #1422 on the list states, “An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”, and many others too numerous to mention in a comment section, which suggest problems.
            It was a huge waste of my time going through that reference. Please, don’t spread this misinformation again, so others don’t have to waste their time like I did.

          • Richard Green

            Misinformation is not what I post. Let me clear up some things.

            I never made a statement saying that GE safety requires more testing. I know the opposite is true, but it was a nice misdirect.

            Speaking of fact checking.
            I think I see where your confusion on my post is coming from. If you read the article and follow the links, you will find that it speaks to 1783 studies (that is not yet 2000+) but then the author does some math and says once it is added to the 650 currently listed in the GENERA it will be over 2000. I think that math checks out.

            The other bit of confusion might be that you are confusing the Journal Toxicology Letters as somehow being letters to the editor. I can also see how that can be confusing, I had to Google it to be sure.

            The article is really well done with a couple of links on psychology and politics that also make for good reading.

            If you are unhappy with that last post as a source on the safety of GM food, perhaps some data from EU with its well-known aversion to GMOs will hold more weight.

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

          • No Gmo

            The 650 on GENERA? There are only 600 listed and 43 of those are duplicates, not to mention several of those would be repeats since they are on both lists. The math clearly doesn’t check out.

            Next, you clearly have not even read your own reference list because there are not 1783 references. Anyone who even started reading the list can see #4 and #5 are the exact same reference posted twice. I count a maximum of 1770 and I may have missed some duplicates.
            #59 and #60 same exact study
            #123 and #124 the same exact report
            #172 and #173 the same exact study
            #209 and #210 the same exact book reference
            #225 and #226 the same exact study
            #270 and #271 the same exact study
            #317 and #318 the same exact study
            #323 and #324 the same exact study
            #341 and #342 the same exact study
            #370 and #371 the same exact study
            #381 and #382 the same exact study
            #422 and #423 the same exact study
            #440 and #441 the same exact study
            #934 and #935 the same exact study
            #1162 and #1163 the same exact study

            As I mentioned above which you don’t seem to understand, numerous references are letters to the editor. Look at #6 on the list(actual #6 not the 6th reference). “Industry scientists look for benefits not risks”. You can see it clearly says, “correspondence” at the top of the page. This is an obvious letter to the editor for anyone who read it, and there are many letters to the editor on the list as well as book references, etc. I wasn’t confused, you just didn’t fact check very well. So, there clearly aren’t even 1770, “studies” on the list.

            As for your, “Decade” reference, it is rather obvious from reading the, “GMO and Food Safety” section “New methods for the safety testing of transgenic food” for example, there appear to be no studies specific to GE foods currently consumed. Of the studies referenced, statements such as, “In conclusion, the design of the present animal study did not enable us to conclude on the safety of the GM food.” (Poulsen 2007) and,

            “both PHA-E lectin and Cry1Ab protein were capable of inducing an antigen-specific antibody response” (Kroghsbo 2008) suggest more research needs to be done before safety can be claimed. Therefore, the references in the food safety section do not support the claims made in the introduction.

            Not surprisingly, the authors include people like Marc Van Montagu who has an obvious conflict of interest considering he founded two biotech companies, Plant Genetic Systems Inc. and CropDesign and makes millions from GMO’s since he invented the Agrobacterium method.

            Please, don’t spread this misinformation again, so others don’t have to waste their time like I did(again).

          • Richard Green

            O.K. I can see we will be getting nowhere, which is not surprising considering your other comments on
            this thread.

            Lets say your numbers are true and that the study authors and their peer reviewers made some clerical errors and allowed some duplication and your 1770 is correct. Lets also assume that GENERA also has some errors of duplication so the number is more like 557. The math still works. By your own numbers, 1770 +557 is still over 2000+ studies.

            I don’t think we will make any progress as long ideology is placed ahead of data and information.

            I’m a science-based person. I’m more than willing to accept
            that the overwhelming scientific consensus on GM-Food (or for that matter Climate Change, or Evolution) is wrong.
            But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            Sure a handful of single studies might suggest some kind of concern but so far none of those suggested concerns have been demonstrated. It is not as if folks aren’t looking. If some scientist out there were to find some mechanism by which GM-Food would be less safe then Non-GM or organic food, that study (and its follow-up work confirming the results) would be on the cover Nature and every other respected journal, and I’m guessing they would be shoe-in for the Nobel Prize. Heck, they might even make the nightly national news cast for more than a 30 second spot. But I’m not holding my breath, of the various plant breeding techniques GM is really one of, if not the most, precise mechanism.

            I’m no expert but I do know which experts to trust: The
            American Medical Association, Food and Drug Administration, American Association for the Advancement of Science, World Health Organization, European Commission, The list goes on…

            So I will leave you with a couple a links you probably won’t like:

            20 points of broad scientific consensus:
            http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/20-points-of-broad-scientific-consensus-on-ge-crops/

            Nathanael Johnson at Grist looks into what safety testing is required for GM-crops.
            http://grist.org/food/the-gm-safety-dance-whats-rule-and-whats-real/

            It has been an interesting exchange.

          • No Gmo

            Are you being serious? I already stated, “As I mentioned above which you don’t seem to understand, numerous references are letters to the editor. Look at #6 on the list(actual #6 not the 6th reference). “Industry scientists look for benefits not risks”. You can see it clearly says, “correspondence” at the top of the page. This is an obvious letter to the editor for anyone who read it, and there are many letters to the editor on the list as well as book references, etc. I wasn’t confused, you just didn’t fact check very well. So, there clearly aren’t even 1770, “studies” on the list.” So, the math obviously doesn’t add up.

            I can see that rather than accept that your source was spreading misinformation, you are instead defending their misinformation. That is pretty typical of the GMO fundamentalists in the comments here.

            As for your claim of, “I’m no expert but I do know which experts to trust: The
            American Medical Association, Food and Drug Administration, American Association for the Advancement of Science, World Health Organization, European Commission, The list goes on…”

            Great, so you agree with the American Medical Association when they said that GE food regulations are not adequate, correct?

            You agree with the co-sponsored WHO, FAO and UNEP report involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world which states,

            “The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety” – Global Report http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx/

            “In regions or countries that choose to produce GMOs, regulation should be based on the precautionary principle and the right of consumers to have an informed choice, for example through labeling” -translation from Spanish “En regiones o países, que elijan producir GMO, la regulación debería basarse en el principio de precaución y el derecho de los consumidores a tener una elección informada, por ejemplo a traves del etiquetado.” – LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean) Correct?http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx/

            You agree with the European Commission when they said, “labelling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. Clear labelling, irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product, meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers, facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards methods of manufacture or production.” http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf
            Correct?
            So, basically you recognize that the consensus in the medical community is that GE foods should be labeled and/or more thoroughly regulated, correct?

          • Jessie Thorpe

            Wait, football is on?! There goes my night of reality…..

          • No Gmo

            You said, “Take the Arctic Apple, it has NO DNA from an outside source. All they did was to ‘silence’ a gene”
            So, they didn’t use Agrobacterium or an ARM or 35S? PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION!
            I’ve asked Arctic Apples if I could detect tnos from their product multiple times in public forums AND THEY REFUSED TO RESPOND!

          • Caroline Yunker

            Nature causes mutations BUT if the mutation is not beneficial to the host it will not take. This mutation evolves over thousands if not millions of years. Genetically engineering is forced on us without the test of time. We are the lab rats.

          • Cairenn Day

            A mutation, whether by nature, radiation, chemical or by gene ‘tweaking’ will also not survive it it is not viable.

            Mutations do not happen over thousands of years, they happen in a single generation. It can be caused by something in the environment or it can be a simple copying error. If it is beneficial in some way, the plant/animal will survive to breed and will pass it down.

            http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

            If a company produced and sold a seed that failed, it would be a disaster for that company. Nature doesn’t care if we or animals can eat it, it wants to only survive. Many plants produce toxins in order to protect their selves from animals.

            This is where GMO differs from ALL other mutations, they are checked and tested first

            Here is the story of a conventional hybrid that was hiding an unseen problem. Had it been a GMO, it would have never been planted as a commercial crop.

            http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html

            And THEY were tested, and have extensively tested, I can give you a link to almost 1800 studies.

          • No Gmo

            M. Hellebrand, Marion Nagy, Jörg-Thomas Mörsel (1998) Determination of DNA traces in rapeseed oil Zeitschrift für Lebensmitteluntersuchung und -Forschung A April , Volume 206, Issue 4, pp 237-242 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs002170050250

      • Caroline Yunker

        You’re saying GMOs with repeated applications of Roundup is as safe and nutritious as organic food? Well, if that’s the case then you should be proud to label GMOs, right? How about this label “Made with GMOs! Just as good as organic food!”

    • Connie Kuramoto

      I kept a food diary for many months and discovered that certain things made me ill. Canola oil, non organic soy, and non organic corn really stood out. It was only much later I learned that all these were gmo, and have not been ill since I have avoided them and other gmo crops ..I know others that are exactly the same.

  • JudsonParker

    This conversation doesn’t even need to touch on the science. Water is required to be labeled as an ingredient in food products. I’m sure water is “scientifically proven to be safe” just like GMOs are. If I get to know if water is in my food, I should get to know if it may contain novel proteins, etc. The GMO label is just a simple, straightforward way of providing greater consumer information and transparency.

    • Cairenn Day

      Water is only listed when it is an ADDED ingredient, not when it part of an ingredient.

      It is a WANT not a need. Just like Kosher or Halal or free range is. It can best be served by voluntary labeling. If you want a boutique product, you can pay extra for it. I shouldn’t have to. I want the generic product

      • JudsonParker

        Novel proteins are an added ingredient. Label them.

        • Cairenn Day

          DNA is not a protein. It is just a code. It is not something novel.

          DNA carries the genetic information
          of a cell and consists of thousands of genes. Each
          gene serves as a recipe on how to build a protein
          molecule.

          • Scott3Bryan

            Ok then, novel proteins are a by-product. Label them!

          • JudsonParker

            Cairenn, DNA codes for protein. Please learn some basic science before you attempt to discuss this issue.

            Transgenic crops do indeed contain novel proteins.

  • Peter NeSmith

    What Kevin Folta DOES NOT ADDRESS is the scientific evidence of the environmental harm that the “roundup ready gene” is escaping into the environment with the potential to reek havoc on natural systems.

    GMO related health risks are one things, environmental risks are a whole other topic.

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36582/title/Escaped-GM-Wheat/

    • Kevin Folta

      Peter, thanks for the note. We had 6 minutes, can’t cover much at all. The gene is not “escaping”. Somebody planted glyphosate resistant wheat that was never commercialized. Where did they get the seeds? Who did it? Nobody has any idea.

      There are certainly cases where RR canola can be found off farms. That’s a much better example.

      In all cases, there is no “havoc” on natural systems. RR crops are no more invasive in “natural systems” than the non-GM crops themselves, unless of course you are treating them with glyphosate. I’m always glad to answer questions on this topic.

      • Peter NeSmith

        Kevin, some of our most invasive species existed in our ecosystems for decades before becoming a billion dollar problem (Chinese tallow, Sapium). I don’t think the proper studies and time has been given to ensuring this will not be a problem.

        Another topic is the economic issue. The copyrighting of seeds and the cycle of dependence the large multinational seeds companies generate.

        There are several very important issues with GMO foods and the consumer deserves the right to know.

        • Kevin Folta

          Peter, you’re right, there are some big problems out there, especially from short-sighted decisions. On the other hand, for every invasive hassle there are 1000 success stories of new genetics coming in and contributing strongly to enhance plant traits. Traditional breeding does this all the time these days. I’m not aware of one becoming invasive.

          Keep in mind that patents protect plant breeders. It costs $0.5 and 5 million to breed a new plant variety, especially tree crops. Think of the orchards, labor, fuel, fertilizers… very expensive. Patents protect the rights of breeders so we can keep generating elite materials.

          The “Right to Know” is fine with me, as long as there’s a desire to learn. Look at the beating I’m taking on this thread just for wanting to communicate science… People don’t want a Right to Know– they want a Demand to Hear what they believe.

          I am always happy to talk about the science on these topics, and I’m right here in town for anyone that wants to drop by. You bet! Thanks.

  • Brandie Nadiger-Harrop

    I have spent the last few months talking to farmers and getting their take on the whole issue. One thing that speaks volumes to me is that every GMO farmer and conventional farmer I have spoken to have all said they eat only organic. They will not eat their own crops because THEY don’t feel it is safe. After several months of interviewing farmers the only farmers I can find that do eat their own crops are the organic farmers. Do the farmers know something we don’t??

    My next door neighbors whole family are GMO canola farmers in Alberta Canada. They will not eat GMO or conventional foods because they do not consider them safe to consume and only eat organic. When I was at the Ag summit in Camrose last month I talked to several Wheat farmers. They all said they decimate the crop with roundup because it is easy and gets them maximum $$ but would never eat any grain that wasn’t organic because they do not consider conventional or GMO grain safe for consumption. The cow farmer out by red deer said that yes he uses hormones and antibiotics and feeds GMO feed. Gets the cows up to weight fast and improves the $$ he gets for them. But he always keeps a small herd of about 10 cows in a separate field That are for his family to eat. They do not get any GMO to eat and they do not get any hormones or antibiotics because it makes the meat unhealthy and unsafe to eat and he doesn’t want his family eating that. The story is the same no matter what they farm. I have talked to some ranchers as well. One said he had to shut down his horse ranch because he is surrounded by GMO canola farmers and their canola would spread into his grazing fields and if the horses ate it they would become infertile for a period of time. He also said that when his neighbors brought out the planes to spray the crops he felt like taking out his shot gun. He said the over spray from the planes would hit his grazing fields and he wouldn’t be able to let his horses in there for months because of it. Again because they would become infertile for a period of time if they ate anything with the round up on it. He said all of this to me as if it was common knowledge which with most it is not. I find all of this very alarming.

    • Baker

      My sister is a small family in dairy farmer and sadly farms GMO corn which she feeds the cows in the silage. She is very saddened that they bought into the lie. They are experiencing more and more stillbirths in the cattle each year. Nothing else has changed, only what they feed. They are getting out of the business because they are beholdened to Monsanto forever but want out. Since they have been growing GMO, any future non-GMO will already be contaminated and Monsanto will come calling with their hand out for payment

      • Brandie Nadiger-Harrop

        A lot of the farmers I have talked to feel trapped not just because of what you are describing but also because of how damaged the soil is due to the round up. The one old retired farmer I was talking to at a local farmers market said there is no way they could ever get the amount of organic material together that would be required to fix the soil at this point because they are so damaged. A farmer would need to take years to repair it and could likely go bankrupt trying. I feel so bad for the farmers that do want to make the change and it is out of their reach. Or the farmers and ranchers that have just given up because they don’t want to grow food that isn’t safe but can’t do it because they are surrounded by the GMO crops on all sides. I have had quite a few farmers talk about that.

        • MikeinOntario

          I’m curious as to how soil organic matter can cure all the supposed ills of glyphosate?

          • Brandie Nadiger-Harrop

            The soil is a living thing full of bacteria fungi bugs etc. In layman terms there is a symbiotic relationship between plants and the soil with the plant depositing it’s waste products into the dirt which then feeds the bacteria making the dirt very strong and healthy. The bacteria return the favor by eating the waste products and return their waste product into the soil which becomes nutrients for the plant which then makes the plant healthy and strong with a good immune system. If we use organic matter to repair the soil then it will give the bacteria what it needs to become healthy and strong and supply the dirt with the nutrients that the plants need to become healthy in other words repair the soil to what it needs to be to sustain healthy plant life that can then fend off plant illnesses and disease. It is the same in all species. The human species has a microbial balance in the gut that needs to be maintained in order for us to be healthy and that is our symbiotic relationship. Our gut bacteria is 80% of our immune system. Plant/soil is no different. If you understand how round up works it becomes very clear. Round up it’s self is not what kills a weed. Round up is a chelator which binds to nutrients making them unavailable to the plant creating a nutrient deficiency just the same as in humans when there is a nutrient deficiency illness soon follows. So basically it damages the plants immune system. Round up is also a registered antibiotic. So once it is in the soil it kills off all the good bacteria leaving room for the bad fungi to take over and infect the plant and it is this fungi or bad microb take over that kills the plant that can no longer defend it’s self due to the weaken immune system.

          • Cairenn Day

            Let me see your EVIDENCE that soil in a GMO field is less healthy.

            I won’t hold my breathe, since you can’t produce that evidence.

          • GM Rumsey

            You might want to start with this link,,where there is no life the soil is not healthy.

            http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/11/29/166156242/cornstalks-everywhere-but-nothing-else-not-even-a-bee

          • Cairenn Day

            There is nothing there about soil health. Try again.

          • GM Rumsey

            The fact that there is nothing LIVING there should be your first clue that the soil is not healthy.

          • Cairenn Day

            No that is not true. It is the middle of a corn field where there is not a lot of food for many things.

            Soil health is very different, the fact that you can’t seem to tell the difference is very telling.

          • Scott3Bryan

            There was a reference to fungi as a possible contaminant in the Seralini study in an earlier comment by Cairenn Day. (“or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance,”). I would hope that fungi, which thrives in a GMO environment, (and apparently is common) has been included in all of these studies that prove the safety of GMOs. Does a hormone imbalance count as harm?

          • Tom

            Round Up kills plants because of the active ingredient glyphosate, which inhibits the enzyme ESPS synthase thus preventing the plant from making the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. Since animals lack this enzyme, we are not affected by glyphosate unless you consume tens of grams of it. (Not to be confused with consuming RoundUp that also contains a surfactant, which would be like chugging wash detergent.) Any chelation effect is negligible. If chelation was such a big deal then how come weeds can become glyphosate-resistant? Give me a molecular mechanism.

            Fungi aren’t good or bad, they just are. If you took fungi away, apart from the catastrophic loss of nutrient cycling, plants would do very poorly because most of them are dependent on fungal symbionts called mycorrhizae for nutrient uptake.

            There are plenty of bacteria and fungi capable of degrading glyphosate and many more that are naturally resistant (which is where Monsanto’s original Round Up resistance trait came from). I’m happy to back that up with peer-reviewed sources if anyone wants them.

    • Chris Kelly

      There is no commercially grown GM wheat. If you are going to make up stories at least take the time to fact check to ensure you don’t get so easily caught out.

      • No Gmo

        Roundup application is used pre-harvest for wheat. Even Monsanto acknowledges this. http://www.monsanto-ag.co.uk/content.output/63/63/Roundup/Pre-harvest/Cereals.mspx

        You should probably take your own advice. Take the time to fact check before you accuse someone of making up stories, to ensure you don’t get so easily caught out.

        • Chris Kelly

          Get back to me when you can point out where i stated that roundup is not used on wheat ok?

          • No Gmo

            Why does your group have such a problem admitting your mistakes?

          • Chris Kelly

            What group would that be and where did I state roundup is not used on wheat? Demonstrate your point if you can.

          • No Gmo

            Are ou just messing with me? You can’t really be serious?

            You claimed, “If you are going to make up stories at least take the time to fact check to ensure you don’t get so easily caught out.”

            So, you accused someone of making up a story because you claimed, “There is no commercially grown GM wheat.”
            Yet, they never claimed their was GM wheat grown commercially.
            So, YOU WERE WRONG FOR ACCUSING THEM OF MAKING UP THE STORY BASED ON A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!
            Misinformation is unfortunately common amongst your group, and rather than just admit you made a mistake and in your case admit you made a false accusation against someone, you just keep defending your inaccuracy!

          • Chris Kelly

            In reply to Brandie two days ago, immediately after having my error pointed out to me.
            Me ” I now however understand that you were not refering to a RR wheat”

            You see that Noooo GMooooo? That is what is called an acknowledgement of my error, two whole days ago. All your bluff and bluster and accusations, merely hot air designed to deflect from your lack of substance.

            Now since then you have repeatedly claimed that I said roundup is not used on wheat and you have been repeatedly asked to support your claim by quoting me. This, Gmooo, you have failed to do, I do understand how difficult a task it is for you as I have never made such a statement. You see Mooooo, I’m not defending my inaccuracy, i admitted it days ago, what i am doing is pointing out that you have failed to acknowledge my mea culpa and have gone on to totally misinterpret the episode by trying to claim that i said Roundup is not sprayed on wheat. Now i admitted my error straight away but with you we have days of denial.

            You can further demonstrate what a fool you are by continuing your little charade, I am on holidays and I’m most happy to assist you in digging your own hole but really Mooo, have a modicum of self respect.

            Again, who is my group, the blokes I go fishing with? My research team? Landcare group? Golf crew?

            BTW, Is there a problem with your caps lock or are you a touch hysterical?

          • No Gmo

            I quoted exactly what you said. You just made a false accusation against me! QUOTE ME or admit you made a false accusation against me!
            I’m tired of your group and your nonsense! You have to make false accusations against me because you have no argument. Pathetic!

          • Lucy Fischetti Nickel

            Because if they do, their paychecks will be cut!

      • Brandie Nadiger-Harrop

        if you notice I said conventional. The issue the farmers have is not just with GMO’s being unsafe to consume but also conventional due to the high amount of pesticides IN the food. If it were GMO wheat it would be resistant to roundup and there for they would not be able to decimate the crop using round up. Chris Kelly do you even understand what the difference is between GMO, conventional and organic is?? From your response it doesn’t sound like you do. You might want to educate yourself a little before making comments so you can refrain from looking silly

        • Cairenn Day

          I suggest that your ‘name calling’ is because he showed up your missing knowledge. You are not allowed to make up facts to support your agenda.

          • No Gmo

            How ironic coming from someone who claimed the Royal Society of Medicine made a claim they didn’t, the EC made a claim they didn’t, made a post about an old ADA(AND) report that Ethan A. Bergman, the president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics even said, “In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy.”, etc.

          • Cairenn Day

            How IRONIC for folks that cling to widely discredited studies like Serelini, Carmen, and Putski.

            That statement is OVER a year old and they said they would present a position paper in 2013. They haven’t, it seems that they didn’t find any issues that required them to issue one. I did find evidence of bullying behavior from the antis toward them. It looked to me that they were trying to make sure that they did not present one in favor of GMOs.

            What about ALL of the OTHER statements? Do you have any STATEMENTS from a CREDITABLE organization against GMOs? Not from an already biased group. Since you discount anything coming from Monsanto or the industry, then it is reasonable to discount statements from groups that have long had a bias against GMOs.

            Why have folks like Mark Lynas and Patrick Moore (formerly of Greenpeace) come out in favor of GMOs?

            Why do you attack biofortified as biased when all they do is collect lists of studies?

          • No Gmo

            So, you believe spreading misinformation is OK? Hmm…
            Why won’t you accept my deal? Is it because you won’t be able to post that misinformation again?

          • Cairenn Day

            I want you to show evidence that Biofortified is not independent.

            Diane I know who you are and that you are known for trying to bully other posters. I am not going to play your little game.

            I didn’t like bullies when I 6 years old, I like them even less now that I a 62. I have seen plenty evidence of your attacks already.

            I hope that Kellogs will end up suing you for your actions.

            I didn’t post any misinformation, some may not have been as complete as it should have been, but YOU have posted lies, attacks and misinformation.

          • No Gmo

            More slander from you. You state, “I didn’t post any misinformation, some may not have been as complete as it should have been, but YOU have posted lies, attacks and misinformation.”

            What have I posted that was a lie? Please, quote me or stop slandering me! You posted a quote you claimed was by the Royal Society of Medicine, but they NEVER MADE THAT QUOTE! That is just one example of you spreading misinformation.

            I’m going to ask you again to stop spreading misinformation and do a much better job fact checking before you post. It is becoming very time consuming to correct misinformation quotes, etc. Just like I have been asking Biofortified to correct the many duplicates on their list.

            Evidence? Have you not fact checked? Pam Ronald is on the board of directors, besides being involved herself with genetic engineering(obvious professional conflict of interest) Pam Ronald is also involved with JBEI who are involved with Monsanto and several other biotech companies. http://www.jbei.org/industry/iac/

            When I asked Biofortified about this tie to biotech companies, they replied, “It is not a requirement that a member of our board have absolutely no ties whatsoever, nor no direct ties either”

        • Chris Kelly

          Hard to notice something that isn’t there. I now however understand that you were not refering to a RR wheat. Fair enough but this discussion is about GM cropping and foods not about pesticides which is a separate issue, an issue that many organic supporters seem to not fully understand as pesticides are also allowed in organic production.

          You can forgive the readers for treating your anecdotes about people willing to grow and sell products that they believe to be poisonous and unhealthywhile avoiding consuming it themselves with more than a little scepticism. I for one don’t believe a word of it. Your little story about infertile horses is hilarious.

          • Brandie Nadiger-Harrop

            well since I see that there is no adult reasonable discussion to be had here only bullying by people who are determined to behave like spoiled children I will excuse myself. My original post was to share the information I have gathered from real farmers about an issue that I am tring to find the truth about. If you can not have an adult discussion about findings a person has had and was willing to share while trying to find the truth about GMO’s and pesticides then I guess I am wasting my time.

          • Chris Kelly

            Good luck with your research, as has been suggested elsewhere in the comments Biology Fortified is a valuable source of information. http://www.biofortified.org/

          • No Gmo

            I think it was mentioned that biofortified is a terrible source. You know, the whole 43 duplicates thing. Anyone referencing biofortified is grasping at straws, you might as well reference the National Inquirer.

          • Chris Kelly

            Yes mentioned by someone who does not recognise that GENERA has the most comprehensive catalogue of studies on GM foods on the internet that demonstrates impartiality by including the handful of studies that have claimed to show harm.

          • No Gmo

            I have no idea what you are talking about.

            GENERA has 43 duplicates on their list and,
            MOST RELEVANT LONG TERM STUDIES ON THAT LIST SUGGEST UNINTENDED POTENTIALLY ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS WERE OBSERVED FOR THE GE FED SUBJECTS COMPARED TO THE CONTROLS!

            Don’t take my word for it, try actually reading it yourself. Then when you are done, read the references on this list ( http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are/gmo-science/ ) and you will see GENERA conveniently excluded a lot of studies from their list that suggest problems. So, your claim of, “impartiality by including the handful of studies that have claimed to show harm.” appears to be based on you having not actually read many studies on the subject.

          • Chris Kelly

            Yes Moooo, calm down, relax, read my comment again. You see where i said they demonstrate their impartiality by listing studies that also show harm? Thank you for underlining my point with your example.

            If you are aware of any studies that should be on their site but are not, then please forward to them, they are more than happy to list all relevant studies no matter the conclusions.

            Deep breaths Moooo, deep breaths, relaaaaaaaax.

          • No Gmo

            I have tried to get Biofortified to correct the 43 duplicates on their list for over a year. Don’t be so shocked to see that those 43 duplicates are still there.
            You avoided responding to my comment because you have not read the Biofortified list. If you did, you would be embarrassed to reference the Biofortifed list..

          • Chris Kelly

            I responded to your caps lock screaming as it appeared that it was what you are getting your knickers in a twist about. I am aware of duplications and so are the peeps at biofortified who readily state that there are duplications which they are working to resolve.

            If Biofortified are not about presenting an unbiased list of studies on GM, why do you think they list the handful that have claimed to cause harm?

          • No Gmo

            Why does it take them a year to fix the duplicates(43 is a lot to have in the first place) when I gave them a list of the duplicates?

            I can easily edit a website by erasing 43 lines, in at most a couple of hours. How long do you think it should take to highlight a duplicate and press delete? Certainly not a year!

            If they were presenting an unbiased list, they would not have excluded so many studies which do suggest problems. They seem to have included only a handful, to give the impression that only a handful exist. You should have recognized this when I gave you 1000 references that suggest some problems or potential problems. I’ll give it to you again since you don’t seem to have looked at it. http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are/gmo-science/

          • Chris Kelly

            Feel free to submit any study you think fits the criteria. Don’t mope around claiming injustice and bias with no evidence otherwise, you guessed it, you just look silly!

            http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

          • No Gmo

            They only seem to post what they like. So, unless I give them duplicates I don’t expect the studies I already sent them to ever make the list.

          • Chris Kelly

            I tell you what Mooooo, you cite the studies that you are talking about right here and we will work together to get them included if they fit the peer review criteria OK?

          • No Gmo

            I gave you a list of over 1000 references. The huge majority of that list is peer reviewed. Biofortified has not erased the 43 duplicates on their list, a year later. Are you really so naïve that you believe biofortified is going to add the hundreds of studies I gave them, when they haven’t even erased 43 duplicates I told them about a year ago? Here is the list again. http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are/gmo-science/

          • Cairenn Day

            Really, you consider your name calling and implied insults to be adult behavior? It isnt’ . Neither is making up a story to fit your agenda, that is like the child that makes up a story as to how the window got broken.

  • jete100

    Total nonsense… so we all wake up every morning and say, “Gee, I can’t wait to eat some more GMOs”. Ha! We are onto you, Folta. “The University
    of Florida Agriculture Department receives a 1.2 million dollars in an annual Chairman’s Grant from Monsanto. Who is the chairman of that department? And who is paid by Monsanto?? Please, keep your WUFT “news” centered on facts.

    • Kevin Folta

      Hi Jete, I can tell you who doesn’t see that money! There are maybe 2-3 labs that have deals with them. It’s all public record. I checked, my dept in general, my lab, etc didn’t get a penny of it. Sorry. When I google “Monsanto Chairman’s Grant” and “university of Florida” I don’t see anything.

      Can you give me more details? Perhaps I have a check sitting somewhere nobody told me about. We could use it. Greenhouses are falling apart, autoclaves don’t work, we could use $1.2 M, I don’t care who it is from! Please let me know what you know on this, okay?

      I’m just having fun. I’ve never received a dime from them, in fact, they refused to help us with a graduate student travel grant once (only $1500) and also declined to partner in grad student training in plant breeding.

      Of course, we’re all transparent and public record. Anyone can do a quick google search and find that your point holds no merit. Thanks.

      • Kevin Folta

        Jete… and if you are in town and want to come by for a tour, please let me know. We can go over to our fiscal office and we can ask the experts to print out all of my grant dollars and I can show you where every cent went to and came from for the last 11 years.

        If you find one cent from Monsanto to Folta I’ll buy you lunch. If you can’t find it you buy me lunch. Deal?

  • Kevin Folta

    It has been fun to communicate science with this thread. There are a few things I’d like the casual comment reader to notice. First, If you are in Gainesville, I’d be glad to give you a tour of what we do, what my department does and how we work with farmers statewide. I’d be glad to take you to our fiscal people that can open the books and tell you how much Monsanto or anyone else has granted us (none).

    It also is good to note the “up arrow” and “down arrow” numbers here. Please note that when I offer information, tours, time, evidence… these messages are voted down by activists. However, those that bring pointy accusations, vitriol and bad information get high marks.

    This is really important because it encapsulates what the anti-GM, anti-scientific movement does. Instead of elevating a discussion, they seek to harm scientists and science, and attempt to influence public opinion by giving the illusion that nonsense thoughts are accepted, and that science is bogus.

    They’d like you to believe that scientists like me get our paychecks from BigAg and would fabricate information for them. Nothing further from the truth. I’ve been in this business 30 years. It is my hobby, my passion and my life. I enjoy science, learning of the great things we can do, and then sharing that with the public, especially children. I would never falsify information for some company. My integrity goes a long way in this business.

    But you get to see what we are up against as scientists. A well-coordinated smear campaign of allegations (like the Chair’s monsanto fund etc, below) and other such nonsense seeks to harm us, soil our reputations. Check out what activists did to those climate change scientists. Same thing here.

    I’ve been threatened, had my emails hacked, been libeled and hassled. It is all about communicating science. if you’d like to learn more about what I do, what my lab does, and the great things my department and university do, please don’t hesitate to stop by. I’d be glad to give you a tour and show you the science and impacts.

    Okay everybody, go ahead. Tell the world how awful I am and how I am a puppet for big ag company.

    Objective eyeballs looking for the truth… please read below. I’m always happy to discuss the science behind this topic. Thanks.

    • Connie Kuramoto

      I know most research survives on very little money. You know how tight research dollars are. That is why it is unlikely that researchers who do not support gmo get any money at all. This is also the problem with universities. Everyone knows very few dollars are going into education and educational research so most research is sponsored by some company’s dollars. If you check the background of any pro gmo scientist you can find that in the greatest percentage of times they have attended a university that has gotten major funding from a gmo company in some way, shape or form. Do you think they would continue to receive funding if they promoted an anti gmo line? Probably not. Bio tech companies have bought education basically, to train people to be pro gmo. Isn’t this frightening to you? it is to me!

      • Cairenn Day

        What about the research funded by the EU on GMOs? They did not find any problem either.

      • KKBurson

        I am a research scientist and I want everyone to understand what that means. I went to school for a long time and I owe a lot of money to do something that I am passionate about because I believe that I can make a difference in this world. I have done research at Monsanto and I am currently doing research at Medimmune. I studied microorganisms collected from hot springs in Yellowstone and I had an intimate couple of years with a plant pathogenic fungus as an undergrad. It doesn’t matter what I am working on or who I am working for, I do not have an agenda. I love it all and I don’t give a thought to where my paycheck comes from when I generate the data, do the analysis, and present the results. The experiments turn out however they turn out, for better or for worse. If they aren’t what was expected, then I optimize and repeat and optimize and repeat again and all while making sure to observe lab superstitions (use that special pipette, hold my breath while walking to the PCR machine, stand on my head…whatever) in order to cover all of my bases. At the end of the day, though, if the results don’t change, I shrug my shoulders and deliver the bad news. That is what happens at least 90% of the time…negative results. It’s not easy work and the breakthroughs are few and far between. IF something that I am working on now makes it to market, I will most likely be working somewhere else or retired by that time. My pay comes from successes that came a long time before I got here.

        So, when I read over and over how researchers can’t be trusted and are too biased to be considered expert sources IN THEIR OWN FIELD, frankly, it pisses me off. It is insulting to be judged and dismissed because someone doesn’t want to believe the science and, instead of learning about what we do and how we do it, chooses to remain ignorant to the process. Ask questions. Learn about how research is done. Don’t automatically assume that all scientists think they are superior. Accept that they know more about a subject that they have studied for years than someone who uses Google to find out what ‘PCR’ stands for.

        • Scott3Bryan

          I like to think that your dedication and pride is typical for most scientists. My mistrust is for the employers that take your findings and decide if they will see the light of day or not depending on how it fits their needs. Have you ever been pissed off or insulted by the way your work has been used?

          • Cairenn Day
          • No Gmo

            I think we already went through how seriously flawed biofortified is, referencing biofortified is a pretty sure way to lose an argument.

          • Cairenn Day

            Why don’t you LOOK at the studies, instead of choosing to dismiss them because you don’t like who collected them into one location?

            They didn’t do the studies, they just collected them. To ignore them is like refusing to use the library in a town because you don’t agree with Mayor’s politics.

            The studies there are PEER Reviewed and have been published in journals that accepted by researchers.

            Your attitude seems to be “I have MY FACTS, and I don’t want to seen any other facts.” That is the sort of nonsense that caused the Catholic Church to reject Galileo.

            I believe that you have done your own cause a great disservice by treating it like a religion.

            Science doesn’t have biases, it deals with facts. To choose to ignore those and to belittle and to attack scientists is the action of those with an agenda that is not grounded on facts, but one on emotion and beliefs. That is religion, not reality.

          • No Gmo

            My attitude is that unlike you, I have read their list and the studies on it,

            MOST OF THE RELEVANT LONG TERM STUDIES ON THEIR LIST SUGGEST UNINTENDED POTENTIALLY ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS WERE OBSERVED FOR THE GE FED SUBJECTS COMPARED TO THE CONTROLS!

            You want facts, that is a FACT! I already showed you this multiple times in comments on multiple articles, here is one of the more recent articles where I went through every study on their not so independent list. http://www.kelownacapnews.com/opinion/letters/233650961.html
            You completely ignore the FACTS and continue to spread misinformation like a religious zealot too focused on your little fantasy to deal with reality.
            YOU NEED TO FACT CHECK BEFORE YOU POST!
            I caught you multiple times spreading misinformation, like your little pathetic claim bout the Royal Society of Medicine, etc. in the comments here!
            You are so in denial that you don’t even realize YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED! The FACT that you are repeating misinformation only shows you how absurd your anti-science movement is!

          • KKBurson

            The science says what it says. If my employers use my results to support a project, then it is because it supports the project. If it doesn’t, then I guarantee that my results won’t be the only negative ones generated and the project will end up being stopped or the issue will be addressed and resolved. I’ve only been pissed off by a co-worker taking my data for a presentation and misinterpreting the results. I told my direct manager, the data was removed from the presentation, I presented it with the correct interpretation at a later date, and my co-worker is no longer my co-worker. So, yes, I have, but I was more than satisfied with how it was handled. Furthermore, I have never had reason to be concerned that my employers’ are/were unethical either with the science or in business. I would go elsewhere if I thought that was true. Why do people think that a company would knowingly sell a product that will make people sick or dead? It would be a horrible business model. Why don’t they trust scientists? We go to school for a long time to learn what we know and the vast majority of managers at my company are also scientists. My pride and dedication is typical in our field. Why do people assume that we are all corrupt, amoral, and easily manipulated? How do we go about changing that perception? I don’t think lay people would Google how to defend themselves in a criminal trial, but they seem to think they can become experts in science that way. Hell, if I could have done that, I wouldn’t have wasted all that time and money!

  • Ness Lum

    Kevin, I applaud your efforts to have a conversation about this topic. It’s a hot button issue in Hawaii too.

  • Trish Posthaste

    Genetic Modification is an imperfect science. There are not enough studies showing it is safe or effective. Quite the contrary, GMO crops are failing across the globe, in animal studies we’re seeing infertility, tumors, organ disruption, Insulin response, allergies etc., the only benefit of GMO citrus is for the biotech companies that produce the seeds, which is why they have paid millions in attack ads, lies, in CA and WA. Giving Gov’t & University pay offs in order to push their agenda to have a patient on a seed to get royalties from farmers and make seed saving a thing of the past.

    We have the right to know what is in our food. 64+ countries either ban, or label. Why not here in the US? If it’s GMO we definitely gotta know!

    • Cairenn Day

      And many of those countries also ban homosexuality and marijuana. You don’t do something because ‘all the cool kids are doing it’.

      Seed saving was a thing of the past over 50 years ago in the developed world.

      Folks do not go into science to make huge amounts of money, They go into science to make discoveries and to help folks. Your insult of them is the mark of someone that has not facts to back them up, so they resort to attacking the messengers

      How many studies are enough? 1800, or 18,000 or 18 million?

      what a Gish Gallop of fallacies

      How many farmers plant GM worldwide?

      A record 17.3 million farmers grew GM crops in 2012, up from 16.7 million farmers in 2011.
      Worldwide, 170.3 million hectares were planted with GM crops in 28 countries – an 100-fold increase since they were introduced in 1996. This is about the same size as the territories of Spain, Germany, France and the UK combined.

      Resources

      Commercialized GMOs in the world (UN)
      Global area of GM crops (ISAAA)
      CERA’s database of safety information
      Biotechnologies in Developing Countries (FAO-BioDec database)
      United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website (USDA)

      http://www.europabio.org/how-many-farmers-plant-gm-worldwide

      http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/gmo_planting/257.global_gm_planting_2009.html

      • No Gmo

        How many farmers plant tobacco worldwide? You think tobacco farmers care how many people they kill? Nazis were against informed consent for humans too…

        • Cairenn Day

          We are not discussing tobacco here. are we?

          What is your fascination with the Nazis? Is it because they were big supporters of organic farming and moving more folks to the farms, so they could breed more ‘peasant soldiers’ ?

          This was a thread on the growth of GMO crops. Is there a GMO tobacco ? Not that I have heard about.

          • No Gmo

            You said, “Is there a GMO tobacco ? Not that I have heard about.” That is because you know very little about this subject!
            THERE IS GMO TOBACCO GROWN COMMERCIALLY IN THE U.S.!

            This was a thread about GMO labeling. YOU turned it into growing GMO. This is pretty typical of you to try to change the subject when you have no argument.

            Nazis were against allowing humans to have informed consent. That is exactly what you appear to be advocating by being against GE labeling. Not surprisingly some of the same companies who make GMOs made poison the Nazis used to kill millions of Jews.

            These are the type of companies YOU are supporting!

  • Anthony Mellard

    Dear Mr. Folta, You have examined nothing. You own stock in GMO companies. Anyone defending GMOs is a fool and an idiot. Stop splitting hairs. This freak science is a money grapping sham and a hideous joke being played on all of us. Here’s what they think. These stupid f#cking people have been duped by our phony money for a hundred years now. Watch this; now we will create absolute sh% t stuff, we will call food, and they will eat it. Thats how damned stupid they are. Well you bought it with your empty educated vacuous outlook. A five year old would spot this hideous aggrevance to the human experience in a second. THERE IS NO DEBATE HERE. It isn’t even about food. It’s about unadulterated greed and control. The town fool could see it.

  • Connie Kuramoto

    There are a lot of scientists and farmers who are rejecting gmo technology because 1) it does not perform as promised, and 2) it has dangers far beyond us eating in in the contamination of non gmo crops and 3) since the human geome project we now know that one gene produces more than one protein, the assumption that gmo technology is based on. So gmo technology is based on OUTDATED science, and needs to be reviewed in that light.

  • Tonyas Mom

    It is the opinion of over 800 scientists that GMOs are not a good thing, for quite
    a variety of reasons, not the least of which is Item #23: “Recent research
    in gene therapy and nucleic acid (both DNA and RNA) vaccines leaves little
    doubt that naked/free nucleic acids can be taken up, and in some cases,
    incorporated into the genome of all mammalian cells including those of human
    beings. Adverse effects already observed include acute toxic shock, delayed
    immunological reactions and autoimmune reactions.

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

    • GMOSF

      Hi there, GMO Skepti-Forum completely debunked this petition. Those are fake names. You can see for yourself.
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/280492318756692/permalink/306106039528653/

      Number one is: 1 Dr. Dennis Smith poopy den s Afghanistan

      118 Dr. M. Murphy Pediatrician NAMBLA Canada

      39 Tim Osborn Web Development Australia

      85
      John A Brown watchdog on growing power of corporacy in our world and
      the world s governments lack of will stop it Education Canada

      146
      Dr. Ye Hua over 20 000 pieces hand painted oil painting and picture
      frames in stock for sale at lowest prices http www art98 com China

      244 Prof. Julissa Martin Ph.D student i do not know what your talking abou t idk Hong Kong

      298 Prof. Thomas Tharayil Ph.D tiuiruiuiuiuiruriy India

      717 Panatey I Like Your Site Company inc USA

      758 Panatey Nice To See Your Site Is Being Updated Company inc USA

      797 Colleen Sheppard Wholistic Energy Therapist USA

      754
      Najeeba Naja Ph.D THE QURAN IS TRUE MANKIND ARE U DEAF DUMB BIND WERE U
      OR WERE U NOT A DROP OF SPERN ISNT THE ONE WHO GIV E LIFE able to GIVE
      LIFE TO THE dead THE HUMAN RACE I ISLAM IS TRUE USA

  • Tonyas Mom

    On November 25, 2013, new research was released, refuting Biotech Claims: “It
    is reasonable to assume that the synonymous mutations may have created proteins
    with adverse phenotypes and contributed to the deterioration in public health,
    and this must now be thoroughly investigated together with mandatory labeling
    of GM products.”

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Synonymous_Mutations_Built_Into_GM_Crops.php

  • Tonyas Mom

    The Truth/Myth link addresses topics such as studies which demonstrate no- till
    fields do not store carbon more effectively than ploughed fields. In fact, when
    deeper levels of soil are measured, claims that no-till with GM crops offers a
    solution to climate change are thrown into question as are claims of less
    pesticide and higher yield.

    https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fearthopensource.org%2Ffiles%2Fpdfs%2FGMO_Myths_and_Truths%2FGMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf&h=-AQGJ__iQ&enc=AZMwxZDouB_Ru9R9Lx0AOhOoAg6c-D4ps6kiKxt1EjzUgZOVBxJKUUCEy8N-65wuQzciw-bObXPGfLkjhSpLtINpGEukCvkDRDmVTvYF4hLpmHUNdNnLYr7wd9a1Xw60fc254_-cbTmdRhe3jLgPKA8e&s=1

  • Tonyas Mom

    This ENSSER document demonstrates that though BioTech agencies would have you believe
    that there is consensus with regard to the GM Safety Debate, this “does
    not exist”. The frequently cited claim published on the internet is that
    several hundred studies “document the general safety and nutritional
    wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”. While examination of the studies
    “reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM food safety and, in fact,
    some provide evidence of a lack of safety”

    http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

  • Tonyas Mom

    The Royal Report details how the Canadian Government has successfully gagged
    science with regard to GM technology and, in fact, uses the Canadian Food
    Inspection Agency, Environment Canada and Health Canada to promote Corporate
    advancement with no regard to their own scientists warnings of human risk.

    http://rsc-src.ca/en/expert-panels/rsc-reports/elements-precaution-recommendations-for-regulation-food-biotechnology-in

  • Richard Green

    800 scientists? Interesting.
    Even on Wikipedia the ISIS has a reputation for pseudoscience.

    I think Kevin said earlier in the thread, you could find “scientists” to say global warming is a myth, or that the moon landing was faked.

    I would answer, but Dr. Tribe does a much better job. Here is his response to the 800 signatories business.

    http://gmoanswers.com/ask/are-these-scientists-all-wrong-there-are-over-800-scientists-who-all-believe-gmos-are-bad-idea

  • Scott3Bryan

    “More consumers are accepting of controversial genetically modified food,
    according to a new study by University of Florida’s IFAS Extension on consumer attitudes towards genetically modified food.” Excuse my inability to read and find the support for the statement above. Is FE934 really supposed to be the document that supports it? I can find…. “…. it is also fair to note that public opinion is moving slowly toward acceptance of biotech foods.” and I have to wonder if that is based on “Recent studies have shown that consumers are willing to accept biotech
    foods when provided with additional information on the safety of such
    products” since ” ….the information presented in this document relies exclusively on secondary sources obtained through desk research.” it would be nice to know how accurate and recent the ‘additional’ information was that convinced the ‘public opinion’ to shift that way.

    • Scott3Bryan

      “More consumers are accepting of….”
      I still haven’t found how Kevin Folta could make such a statement in this article. The “study??” that is referenced and linked doesn’t state that. The author’s conclusions in FE934 do note that public opinion is moving slowly towards acceptance. In coming to that conclusion, you would have to ignore all of the examples I read except the following one.
      “Of interest was the finding that Americans were willing to change their
      opinions once provided with additional information about biotech food
      products being produced or manufactured using biotechnology”
      Who is providing this information?
      A better conclusion may have been that ignorance results in acceptance.
      “The low level of awareness toward biotech food may be one of the reasons behind the relatively high acceptance of it in China.”

    • Scott3Bryan

      It got awful quiet here all of a sudden! I now realize that I was wrong and that it wasn’t Kevin Folta writing the statement that I am questioning.
      Heather van Blokland, can you please cite your sources. Where is this new study by University of Florida’s IFAS Extension…??

      • Kevin Folta

        Just quiet because there is a point where trying to help teach the unteachable is sometimes not a great use of time.

        Statements made were from a new report from the PIE Center. Check it out, I’m gald to answer questions via email. This interface is not useful at this point. Thanks.

        • Scott3Bryan

          I agree, this isn’t time well spent. And yes, unteachable is a fair assessment. I am not easily persuaded to ignore gut feelings.
          My gut feeling that the opening statement in this article is an exaggeration or a fabrication hasn’t changed after browsing through the PIE Center page. Of course, if someone can connect the dots for me, it could satisfy me that I was wrong. My gut feeling that institutions that promote GE/GMO foods as completely safe do not have the best interests of consumers in mind is actually being reenforced.

  • kittura

    Most consumers are “accepting” of modified foods because they are not labeled. That is the whole point of the millions being spent to fight labeling efforts is this completely contrary practice of not allowing consumers to make choices and to evaluate effects for themselves.

    If this argument were true then it should be no problem in labeling GMO foods. All the “accepting masses” highlighted in this study will continue to buy GMO food and those of us who don’t want to buy them will be the minority that does not support them — leading to the demise of organic food.

    If it were true then whoever advises all these corporations spending millions to fight labeling efforts is an really bad financial advisor. Money is being wasted to the tune of millions. JUST LABEL IT and prove the hypothesis is correct.

    That is how labeling works in the market place now. Go to a gas station. There are labels for low, medium and higher octane.

    And so far that seems to work for those who appreciate the choice.

    • Scott3Bryan

      I’m still looking for the study that concludes that more consumers are accepting of GMO foods. I have culled some statements from the linked article (above) and a study that I found in the PIE center that aren’t so supportive.
      “The low level of awareness toward biotech food may be one of the reasons behind the relatively high acceptance of it in China.”
      “Despite a high level of awareness toward biotechnology, support for biotech-derived food products in Japan is also low”
      “Floridians are generally uncertain about genetically modified foods,
      according to a UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education study.”

      • kittura

        The “acceptance” is based on the ignorance of the truth… the “lie” of omission. My saying that GMO is “accepted” is not based on consumers having made an informed decision. On the contrary. The belief of consumer acceptance is based on a wide lack of understanding….

 

More Stories in Florida

Photos of the "Incredible Flying Cars," made by ITEC.

The Men Behind the Flying Car That Crashed in Marion County

A flying car crashed on Tuesday in Marion County after going on an orientation flight. Two passengers suffered minor injuries but are currently safe.


Gov. Scott Announced Funding For Final Phase Of Restoration Projects

Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced funding for the third and largest phase of early restoration projects to combat the Deepwater Horizon (BP) Oil Spill of 2010 on Oct. 7. Although $100 million was allocated to Florida by the Deepwater Horizon [...]


Florida bay scallops typically reach a shell height of three inches and have a life expectancy of one year. They have tiny blue eyes that help detect movement, and they can swim backward by opening and closing the two shells.

Scallop Researchers to Start Underwater Surveying

Now that the harvesting season is over, researchers are starting underwater studies to determine the state of scallop populations at 10 sites along the west coast of Florida.


At the initial hiring event in Orlando, Fla., 55 veterans and military personnel were in attendance. About 150 veterans have applied to work with the Department of Corrections since the initiative was launched on Jun. 26.

DOC Partners with National Guard, Hires Military Personnel

The Florida Department of Corrections partnered with the Florida National Guard to hire veterans and military personnel who are unemployed. These specialty hiring events last all day and are open to all branches in the Florida National Guard and Reserves.


photo

‘Pot Predicament’ Forum Fuels Amendment 2 Debate

A panel of four met to discuss Amendment 2 and medical marijuana at a Tuesday night forum on the University of Florida Campus. Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell and former Florida House Speaker John Mills dominated the forum as they debated each other about legislation language and the need for medical marijuana.


Thank you for your support

WUFT depends on the support of our community — people like you — to help us continue to provide quality programming to North Central Florida.
Become a Sustainer
I want to support FM 89.1/NPR
I want to support Florida's 5/PBS
Donate a Vehicle
Day Sponsorship Payments
Underwriting Payments