GMO will feed the world if we stop being Luddites .


Did you know that the tomato is a close relative to belladonna, or deadly nightshade ...one of the most toxic plants for humans ? But today the tomato is a staple food in many kitchens around the world . How did that happen ? Because tomatoes the tomatoes that we consume have been modified to be different from their precursors. This is the same for most foods humans consume . Corn was once a grass with small seed . In fact ,unless you are consuming fish ,wild berries ,and mushrooms you are eating food that has been genetically modified .

The only difference between GMO today and Gregor Mendel's hybrid experiments is that today recombinant DNA technology and the new gene-editing techniques–are far more precise and predictable than their predecessors.

Keep that in mind when chowing down on your pasta in tomato sauce ,you are eating food, like wheat ,that has gone through genetic modifications dating back to 9000 BC .

Include mushrooms in that list also. We are working on DNA modification of rice at our university. I had lunch with the lead scientist a couple of weeks ago. Making different types that can grow in various environments. While I am not 100 percent sure, but I would guess fish at some of the fish farms can be included in those lists also.

yes there are what are called frankenfish ,aka AquAdvantage ,which are farm raised salmon. But I think the government has been bowing to the pressure of the anti--GMO lobby . I mentioned the golden rice on another q .

The question isn't about improving strains of various plants but the actions of firms like Monsanto who claim rights to the very pollin the GMO plants produce as if the farmer is resonsible for the action of the wind or pollinators. Besides a number of the hybrid strains do not faithfully reproduce and are corrupting wild varieties

Courts have already found that accidental contamination does not constitute infringement. And regulations already state that incidental cross crop seeding in organic fields will not penalize organic farmers with loss of certification.No farmer has been penalized for accidentally having GM crops on his land. You can't have it both ways . Monsanto makes 2nd generation crops sterile and people complain . Then if they allow their plants to reproduce , people complain.

Oh please don't defend the indefensible because you think capitalism rules and should be defended. Fact is Monsanto will tie farmers up in courts for years even if they know they will loose. Have you been to a supermarket lately? Find a tomato or a cucumber that sis not regulation size find a strawberry that is not oversize. I didn't even start to discuss the plight of organic farmers. It isn't about having GM crops on your land it is about contamination from neighbouring lands and ownership of the seed you have grown. You are niaive Tom to think that capitalistic agriculture and chemical companies have anything but their own interests in veiw. Is corn grown for fuel? Ediable it is an interesting question

Have you been to a supermarket lately? Find a tomato or a cucumber that sis not regulation size find a strawberry that is not oversize.I didn't even start to discuss the plight of organic farmers. I have no problem with that ,and the fact that the prices of these goods are so much more affordable to the common folks than your fancy organic foods ,that are all the rave in the rich communities.

I grow veggies during the summer . I don't use chemicals . But that is my choice and if my garden gets infested with the bugs or disease and my personal crop fails ,it is not a catastrophe . I can always go to the market and buy veggies that were grown on the other side of the country ,or half way around the world ,and still eat a healthy meal.
If anything ,GMO makes local farming more sustainable because the plants can be engineered to grow on land that they were never intended to grow on. I don't care about Monsanto's profit motive .I celebrate it . Without the profit motive farmers would still be plowing their fields hitched up to oxen.

As far as ethanol goes ;it is the farmers unholy alliance with government that has caused that issue. But think about corn. Do you really think it started out as a grain you can pick off of tall grass ready to eat ? It took centuries of genetic manipulation to create an edible corn. Modern GMO streamlines the process.

Give me a break why do you grow crops that fail
But that is my choice and if my garden gets infested with the bugs or disease and my personal crop fails this is a nonsense You want to believe in science and yet you know what you do is not sustainable. Do the seed companies sustain what you are doing, no they don't

Give me a break why do you grow crops that fail this is a nonsense You want to believe in science and yet you know what you do is not sustainable. Do the seed companies sustain what you are doing, no they don't
I don't sustain myself with the small plot of land I grow my veggies in. They are good for a few meals during the summer ;a gallon or so of tomato sauce ,some frozen veggies later in the year , a couple jars of pickled cukes ,and peppers ;and a couple loaves of zucchini bread . That is why it doesn't matter if I try it organic and chemical free or not. If I needed it to survive ,you bet I'd be using the state of the art fertilizers and bug resistant seeds .

I watch people like you and I wonder what are you doing? Are your preserving rare varieties or are you preserving a myth

it's called a hobby .

This is the crux of the problem for me Tom concerning GMO products, what's in them, and I cannot take the words of a for profit company that refuses to reveal that information.

House passes anti-GMO labeling law (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/house-passes-anti-gmo-labeling-law.html)

What could they be hiding?

I'll tell you what I know about the labelling issue. We make many soy based products . For our customers who insist on their products being GMO free ,we do the testing to guarantee that there are no GMO organisms in their product ;and we make them pay for that testing .

So do you really think they absorb that cost ? Nope they are greedy for profit companies. Of course that cost gets passed on to the cost of the product . So be it ,it's their choice and how they market their product.

Now what do you think would happen if that type of expensive testing was required for all products ? Think about it .

Here's a clue for you . If the labelling says GMO free and it is not ..then there is fraud and the product should be recalled . But if the labelling doesn't say GMO free ;you should just assume that there is a possibility of GMO in the product. So go to your pantry and throw away anything that doesn't say it's GMO free . Then go to your local grocery and find products that say they are GMO free and leave the rest of us alone who think it's perfectly fine to consume GMO products .

The only trouble I have with the new techniques is that the products are not as robust as breeding techniques produce. If the new crops are successful, profit motive will produce monoculture crops. As gengineered crops become dominant, even a slight variation in a blight fungus or virus can prove catastrophic. If Ireland had used more than one breed of potato, Boston wouldn't have a St. Patrick's Day parade.

There is also the matter of unintended consequences. Does corn that produces corn worm insecticide ever kill bees? Ten generations from now? The studies aren't completed.

I'll tell you what I know about the labelling issue. We make many soy based products . For our customers who insist on their products being GMO free ,we do the testing to guarantee that there are no GMO organisms in their product ;and we make them pay for that testing .

So do you really think they absorb that cost ? Nope they are greedy for profit companies. Of course that cost gets passed on to the cost of the product . So be it ,it's their choice and how they market their product.

Now what do you think would happen if that type of expensive testing was required for all products ? Think about it .

Here's a clue for you . If the labelling says GMO free and it is not ..then there is fraud and the product should be recalled . But if the labelling doesn't say GMO free ;you should just assume that there is a possibility of GMO in the product. So go to your pantry and throw away anything that doesn't say it's GMO free . Then go to your local grocery and find products that say they are GMO free and leave the rest of us alone who think it's perfectly fine to consume GMO products .

Snarky this morning huh? Must be those GMO coffee beans you're grinding. :D

The only trouble I have with the new techniques is that the products are not as robust as breeding techniques produce. If the new crops are successful, profit motive will produce monoculture crops. As gengineered crops become dominant, even a slight variation in a blight fungus or virus can prove catastrophic. If Ireland had used more than one breed of potato, Boston wouldn't have a St. Patrick's Day parade.

There is also the matter of unintended consequences. Does corn that produces corn worm insecticide ever kill bees? Ten generations from now? The studies aren't completed.
What do we call it the yin and yang . I just contend there is more good than bad. The rapeseed was grown in Asia for centuries . But it contained chemicals that were toxic for humans . Canadian scientists were able to remove the bad chemicals from the plant and today we are able to cook with canola oil (Canadian oil ) as a result.
Plants can become invasive no matter how they were derived ,naturally occurring, or from gene manipulation. Modern methods in fact make outcomes more predictable . Farmers have used less sophisticated methods for years to produce stress tolerance and herbicide resistance crops . The pollen and seeds of these experiments have always cross bred with other crops .
And these GM plants do not do well outside of the domesticated environment . I'll take my chances with GMO over someone introducing a wild breed into an area it is not native to. I'm sure you have seen or read about the havoc that plants like kudzu have done here.

Bottom line ;we use far less acreage today to feed the world than we would use if GMO had not been introduced .

I regard GMO as the work of the sorcerer's apprentice, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Think on this for a while, the rise of obesity in the developed world has occurred in parallel with the introduction of GMO crops. You cannot protect yourself from them because even if you don't eat GMO labelled food, it is contained in the feedstock of animals, in the production processes and it is even used as fuel so the particulate is in the atmosphere

We need to define terms here. Yes, genetic modification by breeding has been going on for millennia. Genetic Engineering is fairly recent, and reports of strange if not weird results continue to crop up, especially of superbugs and superweeds that incorporate the engineered genes.

Yes I agree helping plants with selection of those with desirable characteristics is one thing, manipulating DNA another

Courts have already found that accidental contamination does not constitute infringement. And regulations already state that incidental cross crop seeding in organic fields will not penalize organic farmers with loss of certification.No farmer has been penalized for accidentally having GM crops on his land. You can't have it both ways . Monsanto makes 2nd generation crops sterile and people complain . Then if they allow their plants to reproduce , people complain.


Which court are you talking about ?


The appeals court decision was based on Monsanto’s supposed promise not to sue farmers whose crops - including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others - contained traces of the company’s biotechnology products. In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"


​Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue — RT USA (http://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/)

Legal stuff aside, GMO's like anything man invents needs time to get the "bugs" worked out.

These things should be tested exhaustively to ensure there are no bugs before being released and they should be independently certified not approved on data supplied by the company I hear roundup is being withdrawn after years of use and it is produced by the same company who gave us GMO and genetically engineered crops to tolerate it
http://www.panna.org/blog/roundup-cancer-future-food

Interesting!

Why don't they use this magic wand (by modifying or manipulating method) to make food products which are rich in those substance which helps a human body to prevent, cure, protect form deadly or common diseases. People will at least have some benefits by it, as we know health care is becoming more expensive. Instead of taking an injection I would love to eat a cucumber or mango which may give me some relief. Just a thought! Sigh!

Think on this for a while, the rise of obesity in the developed world has occurred in parallel with the introduction of GMO crops.
and there is no other reason you can think of that would cause the increase in obesity ?

and there is no other reason you can think of that would cause the increase in obesity ?

Well Tom I can think of many reasons but GMO foods are ingredients in all of them, and then there are the human traints, averice, greed, gluttony, sloth

Which court are you talking about ?


The appeals court decision was based on Monsanto’s supposed promise not to sue farmers whose crops - including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others - contained traces of the company’s biotechnology products. In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"


​Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue — RT USA (http://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/)


Monsanto has the technology to insert a gene that renders second generation plants sterile ,and people complain about that too. Monsanto has made it clear that they don't sue for incidental introduction of their seed on another field.

If anyone has a beef ,it is in the nature of patent law ;not Monsanto asserting it's right under patent law.
The organic farmers in the case above claimed that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened.

In a Canadian case Percy Schmeiser, was sued for growing Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty . Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto. But that doesn't mean he did not know they were Monsanto seed. 95% of his crop was shown to contain Monsanto seed. What he did was deliberate sprayed his field with Roundup ;and later harvested seeds from the plants that survived .Then he used those harvested seeds in the next season's planting So he had intentionally used Monsanto product . Yes Monsanto has sued when it thought farmers have used their technology without paying for it . They don't sue for incidental contamination.

Well Tom I can think of many reasons but GMO foods are ingredients in all of them, and then there are the human traints, averice, greed, gluttony, sloth
the last 2 are your prime culprits ,especially the consumption of high carbohydrate and fructose products . Any GMO is in the growing process and has no impact on the level of obesity . Had the same person eaten organically grown carbs and sugars at that level ;and lived a similar sedentary life-style ,they would weigh the same.


Yes I agree helping plants with selection of those with desirable characteristics is one thing, manipulating DNA another
it's a distinction without a difference . The only thing gained by modern techniques is time. Instead of decades and centuries ,scientists are achieving results in years .


Yes I agree helping plants with selection of those with desirable characteristics is one thing, manipulating DNA another
it's a distinction without a difference . The only thing gained by modern techniques is time. Instead of decades and centuries ,scientists are achieving results in years .

Interesting!

Why don't they use this magic wand (by modifying or manipulating method) to make food products which are rich in those substance which helps a human body to prevent, cure, protect form deadly or common diseases. People will at least have some benefits by it, as we know health care is becoming more expensive. Instead of taking an injection I would love to eat a cucumber or mango which may give me some relief. Just a thought! Sigh!


And of course they are . Golden Rice was specifically engineered to be used in countries that consume rice as a staple ,and where cases of vitamin A deficiency leads to blindness in a large segment of the population ;and kills 670,000 children under the age of 5 each year. It is engineered to have high levels of beta carotene , a precursor of vitamin A . Unfortunately it has met with opposition from so called environmentalists ,and anti-globalization nut jobs.

The Golden Rice Project (http://www.goldenrice.org/)

There are many other examples .....potatoes engineered to eliminate the formation of acrylamide, a naturally occurring chemical that is a potential carcinogen created when potatoes are cooked at high temperatures.
Pioneer is developing a product called Plenish ;a soy bean oil that is being designed to replace partially hydrogenated oils from our diet. Monsanto has a soy bean high in Omega 3 s . And of course making seeds resistant to pests that destroy crops means higher yields without having to spray massive amts of insecticides on crops . That makes for healthier produce. This technology is still in it's infancy and it has yet to even scratch it's potential . There are actually very few products on the market that are GMO . Corn, soybeans, cotton oil ,canola oil, squash, and papaya, sugar beets and alfalfa for animal feed .GMO versions of tomatoes, potatoes, and rice have been created and approved by government regulators, but they aren't commercially available. So all this talk of tasteless super sized strawberries is nonsense. The strawberries you find in the store were engineered for that trait ;but not through GMO.

The strawberries you find in the store were engineered for that trait ;but not through GMO.


it's a distinction without a difference .


Make up your mind

Make up your mind I am being consistent .If GM had been used ,it would've taken a shorter time to achieve the same results ....large strawberries .Commercially grown strawberries are bred through traditional hybridization and selection. The strawberries in question were selected specifically for size and yield over flavor (although they claim they have not sacrificed flavor) .


FAQs | California Giant Berry Farms (http://www.calgiant.com/faq#q2)

Expedience, a likely excuse for placing us at risk for commercial profit. Just because something can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done. I still question what purpose is served by brown tomatoes. The colour of food is produced in nature for a reason. What purpose is served by having potatoes of uniform size or any other produce for that matter. Commercial profit? I'm fed up with not being able to buy tomatoes of a size or stage of ripeness suited to my purposes

I am being consistent .If GM had been used ,it would've taken a shorter time to achieve the same results ....large strawberries .Commercially grown strawberries are bred through traditional hybridization and selection. The strawberries in question were selected specifically for size and yield over flavor (although they claim they have not sacrificed flavor) .


FAQs | California Giant Berry Farms (http://www.calgiant.com/faq#q2)
Are those the huge ones with the large white core, tasteless, and that are hard as a rock? Pa-tooey! I made the mistake of buying some. Future generations will not know what a real strawberry looks and tastes like.

Are those the huge ones with the large white core, tasteless, and that are hard as a rock? Pa-tooey! I made the mistake of buying some. Future generations will not know what a real strawberry looks and tastes like.
or they can buy organically grown local and pay a premium price for them...great if you can afford it .


Expedience, a likely excuse for placing us at risk for commercial profit. Just because something can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done. I still question what purpose is served by brown tomatoes. The colour of food is produced in nature for a reason. What purpose is served by having potatoes of uniform size or any other produce for that matter. Commercial profit? I'm fed up with not being able to buy tomatoes of a size or stage of ripeness suited to my purposes
Kumato is a hybrid ;not GMO . If it is a matter of preference the market will decide if they have value. Otherwise there is nothing nutritionally wrong with them.

How do you know there is nothing wrong with them? Show me the years of research. Gimmicks aren't food Tom, now if they could engineer the gas out of cucumber that might be useful

on hybrids ? Come on ! All they do in hybrid is cross pollination. This product was created and is grown almost exclusively in the EU . It is not the product of some hidden Frankenstein lab. Your paranoia is unbelievable . You show me anything from even the most tin foil hat sites that have an issue with this product . You do realize that the red color of ripened tomatoes are the product of years of hybrid experimentation . In it's natural form ,the tomato was poisonous .

In it's natural form ,the tomato was poisonous .You have to stop saying that, it's another myth.
Why the Tomato Was Feared in Europe for More Than 200 YearsHistory, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-the-tomato-was-feared-in-europe-for-more-than-200-years-863735)

I'm not wrong about this .This article makes it sound like tomatoes were discovered by Europeans. In fact the early tomato was harvested by the Aztec centuries before the European arrived . Wild tomatoes had naturally occuring toxins ;as do all foods of the nightshade family . When these plants were domesticated ,these traits were greatly reduced .

Yes like its cousin the chili

Same with mushrooms. It has nothing to do with GMO. Some species are safe while others are not, we don't have GMO to thank for that.

Tom doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good argument, he just perpetuates the north American myths current at the time of his founding heroes

I'm not wrong about this .This article makes it sound like tomatoes were discovered by Europeans. In fact the early tomato was harvested by the Aztec centuries before the European arrived . Wild tomatoes had naturally occuring toxins ;as do all foods of the nightshade family . When these plants were domesticated ,these traits were greatly reduced .
Tomatoes have never been toxic. Their leaves are, though. Tomatoes have several edible cousins in that family. And they did originate in Mexico and Central and South America.

Look potatoes are toxic under certain conditions perhaps the tomato got its reputation in the same way. I know that tomato juice can interact with certain things to cause illness

Tomatoes have never been toxic. Their leaves are, though. Tomatoes have several edible cousins in that family. And they did originate in Mexico and Central and South America.
It was once a wild plant . It was domesticated in Mexico. When it was domesticated the fruit of the plants that did not make them sick were the ones that were cultivated . The tomato did not become what it is today in the wild . It is the result of careful selection.

No different that selecting the specific mushroom varieties that aren't poisonous. People don't have issue with that at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with GMO.

The big concern has got to do with what companies like Monsanto are doing with GMO: patenting food and consolidating the control of food supply.

Efficiency is they key to production. Industrial farming means greater yield on smaller acreage .We have already cleared 35% of the Earth's ice-free land surface for agriculture. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet's ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. The challege is to feed the world on less land .
In 1940, each farmworker supplied 11 consumers.In the 21st century each worker supplies 90 consumers,and that number is increasing. In that time ,the world’s farmers doubled their output to accommodate a doubling of the world population. And they did it on a shrinking base of cropland. Agricultural productivity can continue to grow, but not by turning back the clock.
Increased yields mean that food prices drop .That is the reason you pay much more for locally grown organic produce .

The potential of GMO is to increase crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing chemical and land use . It's a win -win for humanity .

Nope, only those who can afford to buy the seeds.

Im just going to drop these here as food for thought.

Monsanto’s GMO Feed Creates Horrific Physical Ailments in Animals | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-gmo-feed-creates-horrific-physical-ailments-animals)


GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn - NaturalNews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.h tml)#

cdad - I'm with you on this but surely there has to be a better source than Natural News, that site is horrible.

Tom loves a end justifies the means argument, he doesn't see beyond those dollar signs

Im just going to drop these here as food for thought.

Monsanto’s GMO Feed Creates Horrific Physical Ailments in Animals | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-gmo-feed-creates-horrific-physical-ailments-animals)


GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn - NaturalNews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.h tml)#


snopes.com: Monsanto Corn (http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp)

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/


“The study's conclusions don't really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on 'severe' stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate. “When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.” [Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge]

"The paper by Carman and colleagues avoids rigourous analysis of whether the differences are attributable to chance. In the study there is no clear-cut hypothesis about what component(s) of the diet is different and what affect the component might have specifically on the animal.“Instead of a well formulated prior hypothesis the investigation consists of a survey of a fairly large number of parameters -18 are mentioned in one table, 17 in another, and there is no necessary statistical analysis to check for false discovery of effects because of repeated searching for differences.
“It's what some call a fishing expedition in search of a finding, and a known pitfall of animal feeding trials on whole foods…Using the standard criteria of a one in 20 chance that observed differences are randomly generated, about one or two apparent effects in this study might be a false discovery.”
[Australian geneticist David Tribe (Ph.D.) ]

A co-author of the study, Howard Vlieger is president and co-founder of Verity Farms, a US 'natural foods' outfit which markets non-GMO grain.He would have a very clear commercial interest in scaring people about GMOs in order to drum up business of his GMO-free products.Verity Farms also funded the study ,along with Dr Judy Carman's non-profit IHER (Institute of Health and Environmental Research Inc) an organization entirely dedicated to anti-GMO activism.

Here is what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says :

The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

Ah so that's what causes my IBS, GMO and no wonder Monsanto wouldn't want this to get out, think of the law suits, all that lovely compensation. Tom don't use snoopes as an authoritative sourse.. I don't trust these research organisations they all have a vested interest in keeping their grants and so can be selective regarding what data they publish

don't use snoopes as an authoritative sourse.. I don't trust these research organisations they all have a vested interest in keeping their grants and so can be selective regarding what data they publishWhat? What grants?
snopes.com: About the people behind snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp)

The grants scientists get for doing research, you don't think they just get to do it for nothing do you?

Are you still talking about the Snopes website? If so what grants are you talking about?

Also, who keeps rating comments on a discussion board where we aren't supposed to have the ability to rate comments?

Also, who keeps rating comments on a discussion board where we aren't supposed to have the ability to rate comments?
It is an annoyance .
BTW I cited other sources besides Snopes . Why don't you post disclaimers when other commenters use them as a source ?


The grants scientists get for doing research, you don't think they just get to do it for nothing do you?



Do you think these organizations have a bias too ?

Here is what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says :

The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20..._statement.pdf (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf)

BTW I cited other sources besides Snopes . Why don't you post disclaimers when other commenters use them as a sourceYour beef is with paraclete, I'm OK with Snopes and agree with your link.

Your beef is with paraclete, I'm OK with Snopes and agree with your link.

sorry about that. I need to get another cup of coffee before continuing .

http://www.gbfestivalen.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/facebook-like-icon1.png

More ducking and weaving, Tom if it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

The whole point is GMO is a risk, a risk most of us would rather not take. We can all remember a number of plans involving chemicals and companies like monsanto which have had bad outcomes. I wonder what union carbide is doing these days

like I said ;Luddites . What's really amazing about this is that most of the opposition comes from the same crowd that treats science like a religion.

Science isn't a religion of course it's based on observable facts and verification by repeatable experiments. Having said that not all new discoveries are beneficial to mankind. As well the patenting and control of new discoveries is part of the problem here, not science.

as if GM seeds were to only seeds with patent protection. Those ugly brown tomatoes that Clete was complaining about ....they are non-GM and the seeds are patent ,and the company vigorously protects it's rights . The plant science industry is one of the world’s most research and development intensive sectors. And as you know ,R & D is a major investment . Why shouldn't the inventors get patent protection.
I guess in a world where folks routinely plunder artist's rights under the guise of "free " music ,it doesn't suprise me that attitude would extend to other industries.

Yeah Monsanto is that greedy company that feeds the world poison. What non-sense ! I've already discussed their golden rice and it's benefits. It has also helped other developing counties with their drought resistant corn. And when their patent for Round up resistant soy bean expired ;they allowed it to enter the public domain. I expect that will be their practice with other patented seed. Wait until you see how many farmers adopt it into their crop rotation now !

Tom let me bring you back to roundup, a monsanto product, which they modified plants so they wouldn't be affected by it, turns out it is being withdrawn because it is carcinogenic, when such a thing happens the patients should be dropped and the company fined billions. If the pollutors of the gulf could be fined billions so should monsanto

Round UP was not recalled or withdrawn . There is a fringe movement that want it withdrawn . They do that despite the evidence against their argument that it is cancer causing .

Roundup® a Carcinogen? Never Mind the Science… | The Innovation Files (http://www.innovationfiles.org/roundup-a-carcinogen-never-mind-the-science/)

We will see, it's another agent orange moment