More Unintended Consequences With GMO Crops

On a positive note; my brother is an organic farmer, and told me about this over the weekend. It was developed through standard hybridization, and it rejects the GM pollen that is contaminating non-GM fields...

I'd certainly pay more for pure, non-GMO contaminated food.

It's getting impossible to find, even in the health food stores. We are getting it through almost everything we eat. I'm drinking cran-apple juice right now, and the second ingredient is high fructose corn syrup.

We made it most of our lives without ingesting it; it's the long term effects on the kids that really has me worried. If it's linked to all of these reproductive, (and other), problems in our livestock, it would be pretty silly to think that it's not affecting our children, who are ingesting glyphosate and bt toxin from the day they are born.

There is a bill in the senate right now that would at least require labeling. I suspect it will be killed.

OK now I see what's behind all this BS that you keep throwing at GM crops.....You are in fact associated with the organic cabal who are engaging in a smear campaign to further their own interests....

Independent science news, run by 2 people, is an agenda based site, against GM foods...

"Drs. Allison Wilson and Jonathan Latham initiated the Bioscience Resource Project to help remedy a perceived deficit of independent scientific analysis of genetic engineering and its risks.^[7]

In 2006 the Project published two related scientific review papers: Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety ^[8] and The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation.^[9] The Bioscience Resource Project website launched in 2007.

In 2008 the Project published a third scientific review, Transcomplementation and synergism in plants: implications for viral transgenes?,^[10] and became a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit.

In 2011, the Project launched a second website, Independent Science News."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioscience_Resource_Project

I'm not associated with anybody.

What's your deal? Are you heavily invested in GM companies?

Are Dr Huber and Perdue University to be dismissed as scare mongering conspiracy theorists?

You've managed to attack the site, which is understandable, but you haven't shown anything to dispute the findings.

Their findings are non-existent....it's speculation and innuendo, smoke and mirrors....

Huber is a quack?

Show me.

I'm going to watch this entire interview. Not only does it look really interesting, but I don't think he has anything to gain by lying...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4swW9OFmf8

"Information presented recently on the Web and in seminars across the Midwest has portrayed devastating consequences due to the widespread use of glyphosate and glyphosate resistant crops. It is important to recognize that there is little data published in refereed journals to support these claims. Data that are available have been taken greatly out of context to support the accusations. The issues and claims have been brought forward by Dr. Don Huber, retired professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University. Recently, Purdue University faculty members have responded to these claims and using peer-reviewed science, have refuted the statements made by Dr. Huber."

"Many of you may be aware of a recently released open letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack from Dr.Don Huber. Although Dr. Huber is a member of APS and is coordinating a meeting through APSon behalf of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS), Dr. Huber does notspeak as a representative of APS or the NPDRS.

We appreciate Dr. Huber bringing forth an issue that he believes is of concern, and look forward tothe availability of the data appearing in appropriate peer-reviewed outlets to support his claims sothat the breadth of the scientific community across plant, animal, and human health can fullyunderstand his concerns.

APS supports the scientific process in bringing information about new maladies and their etiologyto light and hope that the approach has been undertaken in this case. The appearance of thesupportive data in peer-reviewed outlets would certainly facilitate the engagement of the broaderscientific community in this discussion. Additionally, as scientists it is good that we engage thepublic, stakeholders, and policymakers, but please remember that our Manual of Operationsexplicitly states, "Members of the APS speak only for themselves as professional scientists whengiving opinions or making statements."

Sincerely,

John L. Sherwood APS President"

"Glyphosate's Impact on Field Crop Production and Disease Development

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's recent decision to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa renewed a debate about the safety of genetically modified crops and the use of glyphosate in the environment.

This is not a new controversy, but many statements released in recent weeks by groups opposed to the use of genetically modified (GM) crops have claimed that glyphosate use and Roundup Ready® technology will be disastrous and that glyphosate has damaged crop production by decreasing nutrient availability to plants, reducing nutrient content of food and livestock feed, and increasing plant susceptibility to disease (Zerbe, 2011). There also are claims that glyphosate is contributing to an increase in more than 40 plant diseases that may also affect human and animal health (Smith, 2011; Zerbe, 2011). However, evidence to support these claims has neither been presented to nor evaluated by the scientific community.

Overall, the claims that glyphosate is having a widespread effect on plant health are largely unsubstantiated. To date, there is limited scientific research data that suggest that plant diseases have increased in GM crops due to the use of glyphosate. Most importantly, the impact of these interactions on yield has not been demonstrated. Therefore, we maintain our recommendations of judicious glyphosate use for weed control. We encourage crop producers, agribusiness personnel, and the general public to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims instead of facts."

I could go on and on......

http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/03/02/purdue-university-discredits-own-professor-environmentalist-col-ret-don-m-huber-glyphosate-animals-and-miscarriages-no-scientific-data-fearmongering/

I love the updates at the bottom.

The tumors and death that occured in rats that were fed GM maize, mean nothing, because they did not use enough rats. Good stuff.

Smoke and mirrors? Like these GMO companies telling you that all their GM0 are okay.

I wonder how long the Paint Companies stood behind their lead base paints arguing that they didn't cause these health issues.

It also was independent research that brought that evidence to the forefront.

Independent Science News is just reporting this. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0020R.pdf

I doubt that any of the companies that produce GMO grains are.

Thanks ozzb; I couldn't find the study.

Remember when the EPA said it was safe to smoke paraquat?

"Paraquat pot"

During the late 1970s, a controversial program sponsored by the US government sprayed paraquat on cannabis fields in Mexico.^[17] Since much of this cannabis was subsequently smoked by Americans, the US government's "Paraquat Pot" program stirred much debate. Perhaps in an attempt to deter people from using cannabis, representatives of the program warned that spraying rendered the crop unsafe to smoke.

However, independent bodies have studied paraquat in this use. A 1995 study found that "no lung or other injury in cannabis users has ever been attributed to paraquat contamination".^[18] Also a United States Environmental Protection Agency manual states: "... toxic effects caused by this mechanism have been either very rare or nonexistent. Most paraquat that contaminates cannabis is pyrolyzed during smoking to dipyridyl, which is a product of combustion of the leaf material itself (including cannabis) and presents little toxic hazard."^[19]

By and large, I'd be much less worried when eating organically grown food than that GMO crap.

You seem to be quite a fan of GMO food. Any particular reason. Ending world hunger is not a valid answer. Profit maximization by giant farming companies seems to be the motivation.

Organically grown foods are a ruse....GM crops strive to reduce pesticide usage, reduce water requirements, produce more and larger individual plant yield...It's a path to more efficient farming, a path that has been followed for 100's of years....

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/torg.html

"Organically grown foods are a ruse"

Now you are beginning to sound like a marketeer for Monsanto, and the other mega-farmers.

See, I told you not to give anybody that bunk about saving the world. You can't believe that feeding the world is REALLY Monsanto's goal here. If there wasn't mega-bucks profit, they could care less about feeding anybody, but themselves.

I'm going to spend some time trying to find some more info on these livestock dying off and this "new" organism that has emerged.

If Huber has lost his mind and is pulling this stuff out of thin air, while simultaneously destroying his reputation and career, I'll try to find evidence of that too. But it won't be because someone else says so.

I don't buy organic, and I don't want to feel like I have to. I actually want SE to be correct on all counts.

But when one side of an issue is making billions, and has infiltrated government, and the other side has nothing to really gain monetarily, it should be looked into.

I don't understand SE's emotional attachment to the issue, but if Emily gets sick later in life, and I didn't bother to try to chase down answers, I'm not gonna be able to face myself.

The organic growers are trying to expand and protect their market, and billions of dollars are at stake....To that end they have formed several lobby groups that publish dubious information about the dangers of GM crops...However they have no scientific proof that GM crops are harmful, so they must take statements out of context and use words like might, possibly, could lead to, and other tools for misinformation well known to creative news groups who specialize in sensational statements and fear mongering... Here's something from the other side of the argument...

"Mark Lynas speech hosted by the International Programs - College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (50th Anniversary Celebration) , and the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, Cornell University"

"I think the controversy over GMOs represents one of the greatest science communications failures of the past half-century. Millions, possibly billions, of people have come to believe what is essentially a conspiracy theory, generating fear and misunderstanding about a whole class of technologies on an unprecedentedly global scale.

This matters enormously because these technologies - in particular the various uses of molecular biology to enhance plant breeding potential - are clearly some of our most important tools for addressing food security and future environmental change.I am a historian, and history surely offers us, from witch trials to eugenics, numerous examples of how when public misunderstanding and superstition becomes widespread on an issue, irrational policymaking is the inevitable consequence, and great damage is done to peoples' lives as a result.This is what has happened with the GMOs food scare in Europe, Africa and many other parts of the world. Allowing anti-GMO activists to dictate policymaking on biotechnology is like putting homeopaths in charge of the health service, or asking anti-vaccine campaigners to take the lead in eradicating polio.I believe the time has now come for everyone with a commitment to the primacy of the scientific method and evidence-based policy-making to decisively reject the anti-GMO conspiracy theory and to work together to begin to undo the damage that it has caused over the last decade and a half..."

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/

Tell me you're kidding.

http://www.marklynas.org/about/

This dude is all over the map.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lynas-truth-treachery-gm

I'll stick with the scientists for now. Huber has spent a lifetime in it, and seems quite rational.

See what happens when you learn the facts, instead of listening to rhetoric and incendiary propaganda....You suddenly become rational...

"they have no scientific proof that GM crops are harmful"

And, do we have any conclusive proof that GM crpos are NOT harmful?

What would you call conclusive, we've been eating them for a lifetime....On the other hand there is well documented proof that organic grown stuff has caused outbreaks of e-coli, salmonella, and other food born diseases....

"According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and "natural" foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157: H7).

This new E. coli is attacking tens of thousands of people per year, all over the world. It is causing permanent liver and kidney damage in many of its victims. The CDC recorded 2,471 confirmed cases of E. coli 0157: H7 in 1996 and estimated that it is causing at least 250 deaths per year in the United States alone.

Consumers of organic food are also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the infamous salmonella bacteria. Salmonella was America's biggest food-borne death risk until the new E. coli O157 came along.
Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer for their food crops.
Animal manure is the biggest reservoir of these nasty bacteria that are afflicting and killing so many people.Organic farmers compound the contamination problem through their reluctance to use antimicrobial preservatives, chemical washes, pasteurization, or even chlorinated water to rid their products of dangerous bacteria.
One organic grower summed up the community's attitude as follows: "Pasteurization has only been around a hundred years or so; what do they think people did before that?"
The answer is simple. They died young.
In truth, until the last few years the threat of food-borne bacteria was relatively mild in the U.S. It was prudent to refrigerate one's food and wash one's hands before preparing food or eating, and those simple procedures kept food-borne illnesses to a minimum. On occasion, neglect of these rules would cause a family to suffer severe stomach aches. And every year a few weak individuals-the very young, the very old, or those who were already quite ill-would die from exposure to food-borne bacteria.But the new E. coli attacks even the strong. It inflicts permanent damage on internal organs. It even kills healthy adults. The new salmonella is nearly as dangerous."

" ....The first consequence of a global shift to organic farming would be the plowdown of at least six-million square miles of wildlife habitat to make up for the lower yields of organic production. That is more than the total land area of the United States.Agriculture already takes up 36 percent of the world's land surface. (All the world's cities cover only 1.5 percent.) A world with a peak population of 8.5 billion affluent people in 2050 will need at least 2.5 times as much farm output as we have today.
Absent a worldwide catastrophe involving billions of human deaths, this demand is inevitable. We will not be able to count on people to change their diets and accept less protein. There is no global trend toward vegetarianism today, nor any sign of one.
In America, for example, less than 4 percent of the population is vegetarian, and 95 percent of U.S. vegetarians consume milk, cheese, eggs, and other expensive calories.
Less than 0.05 percent of the affluent people in the world give up livestock products completely.In fact, the worldwide trend is in the opposite direction.
Countries such as China, India, and South Korea are leading the biggest surge in demand for meat and milk the world has ever seen.
It is now probably too late to save wildlands by preventing people from acquiring a taste for meat and milk, and there is certainly no sign of mass conversions to vegetarianism around the globe.
If the world does not triple the yields on the high-quality land currently in farming, we will pay the price not in human famine but in forests and wild meadows cleared to produce more meat, milk, and produce."

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1196

That has nothing to do with Roundup ready crops, and nobody is calling for the entire planet to switch to strictly organic growing.

You are making the strawman argument that people can get sick from organic food, therefore, consuming glyphosate and Bt toxin is good for you.

"...people can get sick from organic food..."

No, you've been reading vaguely worded articles for so long you can't hardly make a definitive statement anymore....People are getting sick from eating organic....this can be stated as a fact.....

Nothing about Roundup ready crops can be stated as fact, because there is zero regulatory oversight. We are not allowed to know what genes are being spliced into our food crops.

Why?

The current bill that's being fought tooth and nail, is over simple labeling.

Why?

Since the advent of Roundup ready crops, we are seeing a correlating, (across the board), increase in autism, ADHD, childhood food allergies, diabetes, illness in livestock, a decreasing life expectancy in the US, glyphosate resistant weeds...

Why?

Your friend from the other link thinks just like you. He made the statement that genetic manipulation in rice made it create vitamin K which is making people in China healthier; sounds good to me...but then he made the leap that because of that, all GMO is good. Why should I believe that?

I suspect that your relentless attacks tie back into a financial interest on your part. That's how it sounds anyway. You have presented nothing to indicate that consuming glyphosate is good.

Organic milk is pasteurized at a higher temperature than regular milk so that it doesn't spoil, as quickly. Please get your facts straight.

In the last GMO thread, I had placed some corn based puppy chow in the middle of some ant mounds. Here is the result: Not only did the ants refuse to feed on it, but they moved their mounds away from it. Seems strange. The new mound is at the top of the picture, and the old mound was at the bottom, that is now abandonded and flattened out. The puppy chow is still there, and has been untouched.

Ants are mostly carnivores...

So are dogs.

"Dogs are non-obligate carnivores. They are carnivores with opportunistic omnivorous tendencies."

The studies are on the left of the page:

http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=373&Itemid=131

I think I found your tribe.....

Not that I have given this subject enough thought to have an opinion for or against GMO crops, but something about Mr. Eagles passion for GMO crops puzzles me, don't bald eagles eat FISH???????

I have no dog in this fight....I just like to groom myself with truthiness....

You guys are scarin' the crap outta me. All these exchanges and neither of you has called the other a flaming Neanderthal idiot yet.

Very interesting discussion.

I, personally, would think that the stuff man has eaten for the last 250,000 is plenty good for me.

No one has yet convinced me that fiddling around with some mutant genes and artificially altering the genetic makeup of a system is in any way a philanthropic undertaking. If it were, the planters would be allowed to keep the seeds.

George Washington Carver altered plants by not re-using the failures.

I am not convinced that tinkering with Mother Nature is really such a good idea.

"The largest share of the GMO crops planted globally are from seed created by the United States firm Monsanto.^[42] In 2007, Monsanto's trait technologies were planted on 246 million acres (1,000,000 km²) throughout the world, a growth of 13 percent from 2006. However, patents on the first Monsanto products to enter the marketplace will begin to expire in 2014, democratizing Monsanto products. Syngenta, DuPont (especially via its Pioneer Hi-Bred subsidiary, and Bayer CropScience are also major players in the US and Europe. In addition, a 2007 report from the European Joint Research Commission predicts that by 2015, more than 40 per cent of new GM plants entering the global marketplace will have been developed in Asia.^[43]

In the corn market, Monsanto's triple-stack corn-which combines Roundup Ready 2-weed control technology with YieldGard (Bt) Corn Borer and YieldGard Rootworm insect control-is the market leader in the United States. U.S. corn farmers planted more than 32 million acres (130,000 km²) of triple-stack corn in 2008,^[44] and it is estimated the product could be planted on 56 million acres (230,000 km²) in 2014-2015. In the cotton market, Bollgard II with Roundup Ready Flex was planted on approximately 5 million acres (20,000 km²) of U.S. cotton in 2008.^[45]

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), in 2010 approximately 15 million farmers grew biotech crops in 29 countries. Over 90% of the farmers were resource-poor in developing countries.^[46] 6.5 million farmers in China and 6.3 million small farmers in India grew biotech crops (mostly Bacillus thuringiensis cotton). The Philippines, South Africa (biotech cotton, maize, and soybeans often grown by subsistence women farmers) and another twelve developing countries also grew biotech crops in 2009.^[47]10 million more small and resource-poor farmers may have been secondary beneficiaries of Bt cotton in China.

According to a review published in 2012 and based on data from the late 1990s and early 2000s, much of the GM crop grown each year is used for livestock feed, and increased demand for meat will lead to increased demand for GM crops with which to feed them.^[48] Feed grain usage as a percentage of total crop production is 70% for corn and more than 90% of oil seed meals such as soybeans. Each year, about 65 million metric tons of GM corn grains and about 70 million metric tons of soybean meals derived from GM soybean are fed to livestock each year.^[48]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops}

You have shown that GM crops are widespread...nice job.

Lets have some human trials on Monsanto's executives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html

GM became widespread in 1996 in the US. We were promised that they would decrease the use of chemical pesticides. Please explain:

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/figures/fig7.htm

I don't even think it's the GM itself, I think it's the increased use of chemicals that GMO brings...

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

We have lowered our immune system 's ability to keep us healthy with too much dependence on Antibiotics and other bacteria killers- somehow I see the same parallel with GMO- some time ago some crop educators indicated the world could be fed with an growing area the size of Pennsylvania,- while these numbers obviously changed with population growth please do not try to scare us with more land need arguments.

if it ain't broke don't fix it!

I am not a fan of Monsanto and I would choose non-GMO foods over GMO, however I believe that too much conspiracy theory has been thrown into the mix.

Here in California, the voters turned down the proposition to force food companies to label GMO products. Why am I against this proposition? I don't want my food prices to increase due to a small minority who feel GMO is bad. The proponents of this proposition claim that they have a right to know if the product they are buying has any GMO inside. They claim that the GMO producers are purposely keeping non-GMO labels off the foods and they want GMO products to be marked. I find this upsetting for two reasons. 1. Tobacco products are marked as dangerous to health, due to the proven fact that they are. A label warning people of the dangers of tobacco makes sense and the user is taking a known risk when using the product. 2. If the market is so strong for non-GMO products, then why don't the non-GMO producers mark their products to reflect this so called benefit? Why should I have to pay for special packaging that reflects the GMO content of what I'm buying? The producer will simply pass the cost of conformance on to the end user. Remember that special California GMO labels will need to be placed on all foods that contain GMO content, however since the rest of the country doesn't have this requirement, we here in California will need special labeling.

All things being equal, I would choose non-GMO over GMO. Sure, the effects are unknown and we could be creating un-fixable damage to the genetic makeup of our crops, however there are benefits to GMO crops and we all have to agree that we've done one heck of a job overpopulating our world.

I don't have a problem with the concept of GMO at all. I think it has the potential to make our food supply safer and more healthy.

I do have a problem with GMO being used to create plants that are capable of absorbing ever increasing amounts of glyphosate, without killing them; the fact that the same company that makes the seed, is selling millions of pounds of glyphosate to be sprayed on the fields; and that the government is in bed with them, and refuses to do any meaningful testing on these products. GMO is free from the constraints of government regulation...organic is not, and must be certified, which is expensive.

I like the idea of having producers be able to label their products GMO free, but the FDA has forbidden the practice:

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

Their reasoning is that GMO is in everything. I suppose it doesn't make much sense to label GMO food either, since it is in just about everything we eat...and completely unregulated.

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/product-faq/gmos

Meanwhile, America continues to get "inexplicably" sicker. Don't worry though...the government is on the case.

Good info, though I'm not a chemist or biotech engineer, so I'm commenting as a consumer and businessman. I did look at the two articles you posted.

The first one is from 2001, so I don't think it's up to date. It states that the FDA forbids the use of GMO free on labels, but I know I've seen labels like this at the store.

The second one states that Whole Foods is labeling their foods as non-GMO. Since this is more current, I think the FDA will allow non-GMO labels.

So, if Whole Foods is labeling their foods non-GMO, they must think there is a market for their product. I am of the belief that they will be successful with the non-GMO products and other companies who are non-GMO will follow suit.

If it gives the niche market what they want, I think it's a good thing. To assume that others care is another issue. I believe that the majority don't care and to force companies to label their foods GMO will just incur extra costs, which will be passed to the end user, us.

My final observation is that many foods have been cross pollinated and there is much more GMO foods than we think. I believe the bigger issue we have is the depletion of minerals and nutrients in our soil. I heard someone say that the current day spinach has 57% less nutrients than the 1950's spinach had.

Unfortunately, the non-GMO project verification seal is a slight workaround, and they do their best to insure that GMO is below 9%.

Do to the utter failure of our government and the FDA to any testing at all, there is no telling the extent of cross contamination. All that is known, is that it is pervasive to the point, that labelling any product "GMO Free" is not allowed.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/

Yes, fruits and vegetables are losing nutritional value; both through GE and traditional breeding techniques.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880145,00.html

We are seeing soil depletion, as well as negative results from glyphosate runoff, which we are having to use in ever greater quantities due to rapidly developing weed resistance.

Another area of concern that is being looked into, is the effect that Bt toxin and glyphosate is having on the beneficial microbes that live in our guts, and it's not looking good.

What can we do about it? Not much.

When our government abandons it's responsibilities to the people and partners with specific companies to boost their bottom lines, there is no place else for us to turn to.

Like lead paint, DDT, asbestos, and a host of other nasty things, all we can do is hope that public awareness, followed by outrage, will get our government to do the right thing; they are incapable of doing it on their own.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch unfold. The symbiotic relationship that we have developed with our intestinal microbes and bacteria, has taken tens of thousands of years. Just as we are fast tracking the evolution of of weeds and bugs, so it will go with humans. It's notable, that in the process of the development of resistant weeds and bugs, millions died.

If we don't know which food we buy contains GMO then any harmful effects can not be traced back to GMO.

Why are Monsanto executives working for the FDA?

What happens where there is a disease that wipes out our crops because they are all the same with no diversity?

Someone within the communication line above suggested "solving world hunger" was not a legitimate reason to pursue GMO. Wow! Have they never been hungry?

What it is about is certainly the risk/reward discussion. If the risk is truly minimal, which is what we are talking about here if you get deep enough within the literature and references, and look then at the potential upsides, it becomes a "no brainer" to go that route!

Relative to labeling products, I would submit that the food industry label all products much like they do the allergen issue. Say there "may" be GMO ingredients within this package.

I think GMO affords some real opportunities to help solve the world hunger problem, with increased drought tolerance, increased nutritional value, etc.

I also think that there should be complete transparency in what genes are being spliced into our food crops, and why. Also, regardless of the presumed benefits, I think we are flirting with disaster, by creating GMO crops that can cross pollinate with non GMO crops of the same species.

Right now, GMO is being primarily used to enable plants to absorb poison, which just happens to be manufactured and sold by the same people that are making the GMO seeds. There is no justification for that. With patent protection, there is also no justification for not telling us exactly what we are eating.

For our government to be complicit in this scheme, (across multiple administrations), is deplorable; particularly while they pretend not to know the reasons behind a nation that is becoming increasingly sicker.

What I said was that ending world hunger had nothing to do with Monsanto's decision to begin experimanting with GMO.

They're in it for the money.

They could not care less about starving children in the world. They care about PROFIT!

Feeding more poor people is just a consequence of the market they entered.

Correct. Except we are not feeding more poor people with GMO.

It's interesting that Lynn.Wallace mentioned evolution. Other than being a hugely profitable epic failure, GMO is managing to speed up the evolutionary process in both weeds and insects, which, (not surprisingly), requires more and stronger chemicals to try to control. These rapid evolutionary changes would not have occured without GMO; nor can we reverse them. These new "super weeds" and insects are here to stay.

http://www.emfacts.com/2011/10/super-weeds-coming-soon-to-a-gmo-field-near-you/

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051466/Rise-GM-foods-creating-crop-spray-resistant-superweeds-scientists-warn.html#ixzz2S3gPjvkq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8

GMO bears absolutely no resemblance to the natural process of evolution. Thus my reference to George Washington Carver earlier.

I still maintain that money/avarice is the motivator here. Nothing noble about maximization of profits today, without any regard for human well being tomorrow.

Indeed, I'm sure Monsanto, et al purchased many votes in Congress to allow GMO to move forward, sans careful oversight and regulation.

Anybody feels differently, please raise your hand and hold it up until I've finished counting.

All in all, it's a pretty remarkable story of crony capitalism run amok.

As mountains of circumstantial evidence continue to build, and people and animals get sicker, the only people that are allowed to evaluate the data are the GMO companies themselves; they also present the only studies available, to the government, to prove that GMO is safe.

It's this wonderful system of checks and balances, that enable people like SolarEagle to sit on their sanctimonious perches, and claim that there is no proof that GMO is harmful, and that anyone that says otherwise is a fringe conspiracy kook.

In principle, everything we eat is genetically modified, via evolution.

The real, relatively non-controversial problems with all these GMO foods have to do with the ecosystem they create and modify. Stomping out variety in vast areas of farmland (as in, no weeds and/or more widespread use of otherwise un-aerable land) also stomps out the various non-plant species that rely on the non-crops. Bees are having a hard enough time dealing with all the monocultures they face. Moncarch butterfly populations are crashing; they feed on milkweed which is being successfully eradicated from fields across the US.

Making it more economical to dump tons of fertilizer or pesticide on vast areas of farmland makes it more economical to dump all those chemical concoctions into the soil and water.

I'm sure someone's working on RoundUp resistant catfish right now. In a way, we're all already working on RoundUp resistant humans. It'll just take a few generations.

Good observations, except, in all of Nature's evolution, fish genes have never been crossed with tomato plants. Nature's "GMO" methods can't be equated with man's. And, considering the emerging view of epigenetics, they are more complex than imagined. Are fish genes in tomatoes dangerous to us in any way? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. But the result would have never happened in Nature, unless you could get a fish to mate with a tomato plant somehow, or pollinate it.

You're right about the Round Up resistant humans, too. While we wait (and hope) for the adaptation (if there is any--proponents would say it is benign to humans), do we say that the possibility of deleterious effects are just the price our species has to pay to "advance?" Do we just grimace and bear it, that intervening generations might experience suffering that might have been avoidable?

The fact that there are trade-offs in almost any activity man engages in can be demonstrated in the controversy of building dams and reservoirs. We gain something but also give some things up, too. The question is, did the gains outweigh the losses? And is activity a necessity? These debates could go on until we die, and will.

Please do not misconstrue my comments. Your comments triggered these reactive thoughts in me. Your concerns are very valid, to me.

As I have also said before, pinning a single cause on the differing effects that are happening (increase in obesity, diabetes, for instance) is difficult because eliminating other factors that contribute is, likely, impossible from a practical point of view. That fact provides cover for continuing activities (producing and eating highly processed foods, for example) that are very likely contributing factors to the overall degraded health outcomes.

My comments were intentionally provocative.

Though my sister has a thriving career with Monsanto, I look down my nose at the company. They seem to be aggressive in protecting their interests, and are winning. The conceivable outcome of their efforts doesn't match a healthy, messy, diversified world as I see it. I personally don't wish Monsanto any particular level of success.

Other threads here evoke an appreciation for natural diversity among the curmudgeons on this site. (Seemingly none of the major participants likes lawns, for example.) I figured I could maybe divert the discussion from the vague debate about direct health risks into something that's better defined, more easily measurable and has more common ground: monocultures are not healthy. Especially those induced by chemicals.

Would I find a plethora of GMO products in your sister's refrigerator and pantry?

I'd pay money to have a peek at what the executives are eating and feeding their families.

Remember two rules:

1) In the absence of data, assume it's harmless.

2) Get congress to pre-approve zero-liability legislation in case it's not.

2) Get congress to pre-approve zero-liability legislation in case it's not

Unless I'm mistaken, this was recently passed by our congress...Monsanto being one of the bennificiaries.

Correct:

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079#

Exactly my point. Maybe I should have added a wink emoticon?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but, it seems to me, an essential concern regarding certain GMO crops is the increased tolerance to spraying/treating them with certain pesticides, implying an increased use of the pesticides. This is aside from possible epigenetic effects, which, due to the field being somewhat in its infancy, harder to prove or even understand fully.

Speaking of data, I found a couple of articles that, if true, (does anyone have a copy of the agreement?) are troubling. It is stated that Monsanto, as part of the end-user agreement any farmer signs, prohibits using the seed for any kind of independent research. WHAT? This is scientific? I would cite cold fusion as an example. If there really are no concerns found in the research endorsed by Monsanto, then why the preclusion of independent research? Something is amiss here. Under these circumstances, the jury will remain permanently out. Reminds me of tobacco companies. Does Monsanto really want to be in that kind of company? I would hope not. But their actions speak otherwise. Let independent research be as available and open as possible.

Just the potential of increased pesticide use is of concern. A book about the increased sensitivity of children to pesticides should raise concerns. It is available online here at the university, but probably not otherwise. The executive summary is here. As per the variability mentioned below, this (children's differing physiology) might explain the sudden (?) appearance of diabetes in young people.

In addition, an examination of toxicological methods, reveals the variance in response across the population. Toxic sensitivity is also species specific. What is safe in rats may or may not be in humans. A good introduction to the subject is the book "A Small Dose of Toxicology: The Health Effects of Common Chemicals." The threshold LD₅₀ is also somewhat arbitrary and as stated in the Wiki article, also unreliable, due to the number of variables, as explained. When I first looked into the "science" of toxicology, I understood that the variability which tempers the stated levels should also apply to most human biological measurements. If done so, one can see how nutritional requirements have to be taken with a grain of salt. RDA's might be meaningful for some but others not. And yet, RDA's are stated as bible truth for everyone. It is discontinuous logic. A double standard. O.K. for toxicology, but ignored for nutrition/health. It is ignoring the science, where variables are acknowledged and keep levels of toxicity (or effectiveness, in nutritional research) indeterminate for a portion of the population.

Complicating matters is the multiplicity of factors in our environment that affect us. Just to mention one group -- excitotixins. The number of factors probably hurting human health is large. It is the sheer number of fires that are likely to burn us that makes the effort to put any out sobering. Should I also say, depressing?

With the recently signed, "Monsanto Protection Act", as it has been called, along with Monsanto's signed contracts with farmers, they have pretty much completely insulated themselves from any liability. Nice place to be...if you're them. But why would they go to so much trouble to cover their butts, with such a wonderful array of products?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/59:monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to-farmers

Here's a short write up on Monsanto's tech agreement.

http://www.worc.org/userfiles/Understanding%20Monsanto's%20Technology%20Use%20Agreement%202-06.pdf

Whether it's good or bad, GMO is here until the end of time, due to cross pollination with conventional crops. We will only be able to observe what happens, now that these genes have become part of our "natural" ecosystem.

As far as conventional producers not being allowed to label their produce "GMO free", the FDA is absolutely correct; due to their gross incompetence in allowing the pollen drift of viable GM spores across the country, nobody can guarantee that anything is GMO free. They are protecting the consumer from false advertising...Bless their hearts.

"We're from the government, and we are here to help."

Yes, I agree. As I have said before, that cat is out of the bag, for better or worse. But investigating the real long term effects can only be done in an environment of "openness." That can only be provided by Monsanto or demanded by the government. It is akin to Microsoft's true beta testing -- release the product and see what users discover. (And how many bugs does/did Microsoft know about at the time of release?)

This is not to paint everyone working in the industry with an unfairly broad brush. I'm sure there are many scientists working with GMO science who see it as very humanitarian. I don't disagree with that potential. Intentions are noble in many corners of industry. The over-exuberance of promise and profits, though, do often cloud, what should be, the attendant virtue of prudence and caution. I would liken it to the many good and decent people working in the banking industries, vs. the few at the top that abuse the power and privilege they have. I would expect there are people working for Monsanto who dislike the policies and demeanor of their employer but feel helpless to change it.

"Whether it's good or bad, GMO is here until the end of time, due to cross pollination with conventional crops."

I think this is fact. If GMO cannot be avoided, what can we do? Sure, we can have conversations like this, but nothing can be done.

Do you think your congressman will do anything if you write him/her a letter? You know the answer - I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but you have to be honest with yourself.

Can you stop Monsanto? If you write a letter to the CEO, will it change anything? A letter to the newspaper? How about the local evening news?

Bottom line is that consumers have spoken and they want quantity, not quality. They want cheaper goods, including foods. They want ease of use and instant gratification. Maybe not all of us, but this is what the masses want. Wal Mart, Costco, Home Depot, Amazon.com, etc. Our society has made it's bed ... We sold out our local businesses for the big corporations and now we're paying the price. It will get worse, before it gets better (may never get better).

DMSO is an industrial chemical. I used it in the plastics industry 40 years ago. We'd have guys come in asking us for free samples to see if it worked for their sore muscles.

Finally had to tell them no more, we were giving it all away, instead of using it for our products.

Based on what I know about it I'd say don't let it come in contact with ANY PART of your body.

MSDS for Dimethyl sulfoxide - ScienceLab.com, Inc.

I never rant...ask anyone.

You're not going to like this. Our government is not only for sale to the GM companies, but big pharma, as well. This is off topic, but the FDA is actively seeking to put the natural supplement makers out of business...not just the phonies, which deserve it. This would include vitimins, minerals, and everything in between.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032567_FDA_supplement_companies.html

I'd still like to find out more about this "new" organism. The implications are huge; and now that Huber has been largely discredited, I can't find much about it.

I also wasn't aware that we were reseeding our wildlife refuges with GM plants.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/06/monsantos-pesticides-and-gmo.aspx

The CDC is completely flummoxed over massive increases in childhood allergies and skin conditions that have been steadily increasing since the 1990s. Although GMO went into widespread use in 1996, and colony collapse disorder emerged in 1997, the fact that children are consuming glyphosate, is not even considered to be a possible factor.

Anyone that says that feeding poison to children is bad, is in complete denial of the facts that have been supplied by Monsanto.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=180452544

More independent research:

http://www.sott.net/article/242467-Un-Earthed-Is-Monsantos-Glyphosate-Destroying-The-Soil