Slashdot Mirror

"My definition of evidence is any data-point that indicates indicates you better have a good explanation"

Ok, but for me that definition leaves too much room for mischief.

It's a simple term. If you have any reason to believe something, you have evidence. It may not be strong evidence, but it is (by definition) evidence.

I'm not gonna gonna bother dancing around it for ten pages in case it turns out to be bullshit.

"the consultant [nature.com] who ran the software has used it to get a a previous researcher from the same University for faking evidence with copied images in the past"

Yes, and it found this too: "the 2013 Food and Nutrition Sciences paper was retracted, with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -- Nature.com

Read the links at the bottom of the article.

In December of '13 this exact computer researcher (Enrico Bucci) used this exact method to completely discredit a researcher who is only related to the GM team in that they worked at the same University. It was bad enough there was a police investigation of the guy:
http://www.nature.com/news/ima...
It's just gotten worse for poor Alfredo Fusco since then:
http://retractionwatch.com/201...

But even with those results it doesn't change the fact that the software isn't enough to go on by itself because it produces way too many false positives to be able to rely on its results alone.

"A good explanation should be fairly trivial for the article's authors to come up with (you aren't supposed to trash all the data you use to write a paper just because it's been published), if they are actually innocent"

If you read the link to La Rebublica in Nature: "according to the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Infascelli said that there is no substance to these allegations, and that an expert that he consulted about the papers had ruled out the possibility of data manipulation" (Nature.com), it appears the rector's investigating committee has consulted an expert on images and the expert said there was no evidence of any problems. Nature seems to have confused things a bit and its in fact the committee that's consulted the expert.

What I'd like to know, and what Nature doesn't tell us, is the content of the leak to the press: "details of the confidential findings of the investigation committee — composed of scientists in and outside of Naples — were leaked to the Italian press" (Nature.com).

Senator Cattaneo hired the guy who destroyed Alfredo Fusco. This piece has a much longer (and much more hostile to Infascelli) write-up:
http://www.biofortified.org/20...

Maybe the University also hired the same guy, to look into the same thing, at the same time. He would be the logical go-to-guy for all involved.

If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved. You use the things that were not built on patent royalties, let others pay extra for the things that were, and in 20 years, they're both the same anyway when the patent expires. Isn't that how the patent system is supposed to work, you develop something, recoup your costs (and heaven forbid make a profit), hopefully reinvest into new innovation, then eventually the thing falls to the public? What's wrong with that system? This isn't copyright's 'life of the universe plus 10 years' schtick.

Rather they stole them

Oh, did they download a car? What was stolen, from whom, by who, and how?

And furthermore, I like how no one ever brings this up when conventional breeding is mentioned...no one ever opposes Honeycrisp, for example, which was once patented (since expired). No one ever says 'Ah, those damned greedy apple breeders, trying to keep their apple breeding program well funded so they can go on to develop new awesome varieties like SnowSweet that otherwise might not even exist!' That alone tells me this has more to do with justifying opposition to genetic engineering than any legitimate gripe with plant patents.

driven by Big Agrochem trying to make shitloads of money,

You mean like every other conventionally bred seed they also sell? Better take a stand against conventional breeding. Or maybe you mean Golden Rice, developed by the International Rice Research Institute, or the Rainbow Payaya, developed by the University of Hawai'i, or any number of other GMOs I could mention that have bugger all to do with corporations and are developed by independent university, public, or NGO scientists (who nonetheless are likewise opposed while anti-GMO people ignore them or have the gall to accuse them of being corporate or even vandalize publicly funded GMO research).

acquire copyrights and patents on key food crops

You mean like conventional breeding already does and has been for a long time? You mean the patents that expire and are used in public domain works? By the way, do you have a fair alternative?

'bundle' their own special seeds with their own special pesticides and weedkillers.

Like conventional breeding? Also, selling two products that go together is immoral now? Really? Guess Nintendo must be absolutely abominable for selling gaming systems and the games that go with them for decades, those monsters. By the way, are you referring to the special herbicide (not insecticide as you wrongly imply) that went off patent in 2000? And furthermore, did it ever occur to you that maybe farmers have adopted the herbicide tolerant crops in such large number for a good reason?

You don't even want to take a tiny, tiny risk of killing off pollinating insects or having 'terminator' genes or antibiotic markers jump species.

The refusal to accept any risk at all is a flawed ideology. That's the kind of thought that leads people to refusing vaccines on a 'risk aversion basis.' When one considers your rational of terminator genes (never even been used) and horizontal gene transfer (common only on an evolutionary time frame, and no more or less likely to happen to a transgene than any other gene; maybe I say we ban conventional breeding because I don't want rice sd-1 to jump species hmm? What risk do you see the NPTII gene you refer to having anyway?), your argument falls apart completely.

only if you own shares in big agro (unless you think buying expensive seed and complimentary chemicals from multinationals and not being able to re-plant harvested seed is somehow going to cure third world hunger).

You forgot increased yield, decreased insecticide, safer for farmers and consumers, lower environment impact by replacing harsher herbicide and soil degrading tillage, and saving an entire industry from a devastating virus. You mean beside those benefits you conveniently neglected to mention? And even if none of that were the case, you'd still be wrong because you'd be saying that the present use of a technology is not good therefore there is no good use for it. That's completely absurd, and made all the mor

GMO is even less tested than artificial trans fats were

Incorrect. Just because a talking point has been repeated ad naseuam, doesn't make it true.
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

Untested, unproven, with insufficient research on safety.

Ignoring all this perhaps. Hey, if they are so untested, why is it that all those things currently awaiting approval listed on the APHIS site are not yet on the market? Is it our of Monsanto's altruistic concern? And why can't university labs muster up the funding to jump past the regulatory hurdles? Which is it, not tested, or Monsanto cares?

Also, GM crops have thus far failed to deliver on the higher yield claims

Note how they specify 'in the United States' with the implication that GE crops were supposed to improve yields. You do realize there is more to agriculture than yield, yes? If you are already tilling and spraying insecticides/herbicides, as is the case in developed countries, do you honestly expect insect resistant and herbicide tolerant crops to improve yields? Of course not, though if you talk to a farmer about the Round-Up/LibertyLink systems, they still prefer it (hell, there's even some evidence to indicate that sometimes they have lower yield in those systems, but railing on that makes the silly assumption that agriculture can be measured with a single number). If the UCS's report is news to you than you are pretty uninformed.

Naturally of course, they conveniently ignore the Rainbow papaya that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, which should undeniably demonstrate that GE crops can serve a purpose for yield gains, even if we assume that preventing insect damage, by some curiously unexplained phenomenon, does not reduce losses.

As for your criticisms, first off, you must be looking at a different graph that I am, second fails to point out anything of interest, and third your criticism is basically 'we might lose the benefits already provided by GE crops therefore GE crops are bad' which is pretty silly, especially considering that not all herbicides are the same, a fact Benbrook consistently ignores (sort of like a liter of wine has more mass than a line of cocaine but less impact, which is the true measure of a substance), that same scenario, and similar cases with respect to pests and pathogens, has happened with numerous crops in the past, yet it is only with GE crops that people direct criticism for basic issues of agriculture.

Initial indications are of harm from glyphosate residues and retained b.t. toxin, at least in pregnant women in the latter case.

You are referring to this study. That study doesn't even try to attempt to find out where the Bt they claim to detected came from. It could have been from organic food, which also uses Bt. Of course, since the levels of Bt they found were below the detection limit of the test they used, among other flaws, I'm not convinced they found anything but an artifact. We do know the effects, at least for the commercially approved crops, and at least as well as can be know without proving a negative. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean people won't still spread misinformation and publish the occasional shoddy paper though.

Citation needed. I haven't found any specific strains rejected as not being safe.
On the other hand.

Should include this as something that highlights the various likelihoods of unintended effects associated with crop improvement methods. Mutagenesis is at the top. Cisgenic GMOs (GMOs with genes from the same or closely related species) are toward the bottom. Note that the anti-GE movement tends to oppose them too, like these potatoes that were destroyed.

Growing carrots, sweet potatoes,mangoes, papaya, or other vitamin-A rich crops is a much more sensible answer -- unless one is devoted to the current exploitative system.

Thank God the poorest people in the world can afford that and the refrigeration and transport necessary to facility that. Stupid poor people for not thinking of hoping down to the local Walmart sooner.

Golden rice only contributes to the problem (economic and ecological) of monoculture.

Bullshit. You think people want to live off rice their whole lives? They aren't going to get this and decide they want nothing else; this is to help until a more varied diet can be available to everyone. Of course Golden Rice isn't the ideal solution, but good luck changing the socioeconomic problems of global poverty before more people die.

Its purpose is to provide good PR for the biotech industry:

So the good that biotech can do is simply dismissed as PR. Nice spin. I suppose vaccinations are just good PR for big pharma and serve no other purpose.

our GM crops are largely untested for safety, and most of the studies on safety that do exist are ones we've done ourselves (trust us!)

Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

they have led to increased pesticides use

In the same sense that switching from a weekly line of coke to a weekly class of wine is an increase in drug use. Now look at the overall environmental impact of switching form less harmful herbicides and tillage to no-till systems using glyphosate and glufosinate...but of course a holistic point of view wouldn't fit the technology bad narrative.

It's not science, it's scientism in the advancement of corporatism.

Everything's a conspiracy when you're wrong.

It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.

It certainty is a bad thing, which is why millions of people protested conventional breeding when late blight overcame the conventionally bred resistances in tomato and when hessian flies overcame conventionally bred resistance in wheat. Oh wait, that never happened because it would be absolutely idiotic, yet somehow, when genetic engineering is involved, the same basic facts of population genetics are suddenly terrible and proof that the technique itself is bad. Perhaps it is because the vast vast majority of the opposition to genetic engineering is coming from those with no background in agricultural or plant science and thus due to their complete lack of context it seems reasonable to them.

Calling objection "hysteria" doesn't make it so. Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.

And most of the protesters are the agricultural equivalents to the anti-vaccine movement. And when you are doing little in the way of scientifically justifying your concerns, instead preferring to use bunk science, fearmongering, and outright vandalism on non-corporate projects and farmer's fields, you shouldn't be surprised when you get characterized poorly. Hell, there is no small opposition to even things like Golden Rice (biofortified with -carotene) and the Arctic apple (which does not oxidize when cut). I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason as to why that is, if not unscientific hysteria, because this stuff isn't looking good.

Just about everything carries risk (again for context, even conventional breeding conventional breeding carries risk), just about everything has some negatives that come with the positives, there are actual issues, and not every genetically engineered organisms will necessarily turn out to be a good thing. But to paint the anti-GMO movement as a whole as anything even remotely reasonable would be like saying young earth creationists simply have a dispute with the minor details of a few phylogenies.

And that's really the problem with GMO, testing sucks.

Not true.

Lots of short term test and tons of grandfathering in genes because they came from other organisms where they were not a problem.

What are you talking about? They didn't 'grandfather in' any of the genes inserted into crops. The genes are the various cry genes from Bt, the C4 EPSPS from Agrobacterium, the pat gene from Streptomyces hygroscopicus, the cspB gene and the NptII gene from E.coli, and the genes for coat proteins from papaya ringspot virus and cucumber moasic virus. Although I can find no cause for concern among those genes, I don't recall any grandfathering going on during the deregulation process. You are misinformed. At best you could argue that the herbicide applied to some GE crops is dangerous, but contrary to some very poor papers that attempted to make that case, that is not the case and ignores both modern weed management (surprise! It's more complected than simple talking points make it out to be) and the properties of those herbicides. And even if it were the case it would still say nothing of the rest of the GE crops.

But when it comes to comprehensive testing that could reassure the general population of the safety of GMO crops, there just isn't any.

No amount of testing is going to stop hard core denialists from spreading fear among the public. There's plenty of proof that vaccines are safe, that climate change is happening, and that evolution is real, yet those topics are still controversial. Genetic engineering is just one of those topics, unfortunately. Stuff like this is easily dismissed as part of the giant Monsanto conspiracy that controls everyone who doesn't say GE crops are poison.

Given the history we have with things like thalidomide, DDT, leaded gasoline, fen-phen, etc it is not unreasonable that people be genuinely concerned about GMO crops

And the based, emotion, belief, and politics driven bullshit doesn't help any either.

especially given how widespread they've become with such little public notice

Silly measurement. Did you know that the last apple you ate was probably a bud sport? Do you know what that is? I rest my case.

Dismissing those concerns as the equivalent of creation science is at least as bad as creationism itself because it is just another misplaced faith.

No, giving into baseless nonsense is what is bad. Do you have evidence suggesting that GE crops are, in any way, bad for you, or do you just have the same appeals to ignorance and fallacious tactics everyone else opposing scientific consensus has?

And here's plenty more showing why it is no surprise that the Pusztai and Séralini papers turned out to be rubbish. Jeepers, citing them to claim GE crops are bad is like citing Andrew Wakefield to claim that vaccines are bad.

Can you tell me how much testing is done to verify these things are safe?

A lot.

How long and how numerous are the human trials?

Why don't you tell me why they are necessary. Okay, a corn has a cspB gene, or a cotton has a Cry1Ab gene, or a soy has C4 epsps gene, or a papaya has prsv cp gene, or an apple has an antisense PPO gene. Why should that bother me, especially considering all the other mandatory testing?

I would be suspicious that anything developed in the past ten years or less is completely guaranteed to be safe for the duration of a human life.

You should be suspicious of things that you have reason to be suspicious of, not things that could potentially have an unknown unknown, which is pretty much everything. You can't prove that something won't be dangerous because you can't prove a negative, but there is neither reason to suspect that GE crops are dangerous nor is there evidence suggesting that GE crops are dangerous, unless you count Wakefield grade rubbish like the Séralini study. It irks me that when people say that some stuff about wifi or cell phones they are mocked but saying it about biotechnology is enlightened.

If you can convince me not to worry about that, I'm all ears!

Read these studies, and statements from various organizations like the WHO, FDA, EFSA, FSANZ,NAP, ANBIO, AAAS, ect. The scientific consensus on genetic engineering is pretty solid. You can hate on Monsanto all you want (although you should be aware that the business end, like the science end, is often fought with misconceptions, half truths, and downright FUD), and I'm not saying there are not nuances that should be rationally discussed (such as herbicide resistant weeds and resistance breakdown, although those are larger issues that have affected non-GE crops as well) but the science behind genetically engineered crops is solid. In many ways, the controversy over genetically engineered crops is the agricultural equivalent to the controversies surrounding evolution, climate change, and vaccines.

They're untested you say? No they aren't.

The first GMO's were things like rice that grew Vitamin A so rural Asian children wouldn't go blind. That was good.

Actually, that one isn't even on the market yet. The first GE crop was actually virus resistant tobacco, in China. the second was the Flavr Savr tomato, in the US. Do you think that Golden Rice is a good idea? Then keep in mind that, by and large, the same people opposing the other GE crops you mention are opposing Golden Rice.

But instead, we got crops that are resistant to pesticides that are applied by the tanker load

I agree that it sounds bad, but not when you consider things holistically. Those herbicide tolerant crops have increased the usage of some herbicides, but they've decreased the use of harsher herbicides and reduced the need for environmentally damaging tillage. They've actually been pretty beneficial. Note also that many of Benbrook's works have been often criticized. Obviously, spraying chemicals is never a good thing if it can be avoided, but if you've got a better way to control weeds a lot of farmers would love to hear it.

and vegetables that express their own pesticides, which, we're kinda-maybe-sure don't effect humans

They don't. It is the same protein that has been used in organic farming for years to no ill effect. We know very well how it works, and yes, there has been much study on the health effects. By the way, all plants produce pesticides. It's how they defend themselves. Even your non-GE corn is going to be full of insecticidal maysin.

its scary because no matter how hard we worked in centuries past we couldn't cross corn with a starfish, or fruit with squid

Yeah, nature could never mix aphid with fungus or sea slug with algae or witchweed and sorghum, right?

and THAT is why GMO is scary

Appeal to nature. Even if your first point weren't horribly uninformed nonsense, it still wouldn't mean that genetic engineering is bad. It times past we couldn't isolate viruses kill them and inject them right into our veins, but that doesn't mean vaccines are bad either, and fallacies are especially bad when applied to highly studied topics.

because frankly some of the shit they are coming up with can't even be truly classified as plant anymore.

So a new protein suddenly changes what kingdom something is in? That's ridiculous. I guess that makes you a virus since humans need a viral transgene to develop the placenta.

Citing Jeffrey Smith on GE is as bad as citing Andrew Wakefield on vaccines (read this, watch this). In the first link, the study he cites was widely criticized by the UFSA, FSANZ, and French HCB. In the second link, the first two studies he cites were not published in peer review journals, the third was withdrawn for flaws, and the fourth has nothing to do with GE if you actually read it except for sing a GE variety and stating that some of the chemical components of GE varieties are different than non GE varieties (duh, different lines have differences). Strangely, your links do not mention this. Wonder why?

basically, no one does ANY testing, they just trust that Monsanto says that it is safe,

You mean except for these hundreds of studies?

Nature does not insert random genes from some weird funguses or fish into corn (or other plants).

Says the organism that needs the viral transgene syncytin to reproduce. Nature does it all the time and even if it didn't that proves nothing. Nature doesn't use somaclonal variation to develop new varieties either

Sooner or later, we may just find our that our improved food is killing us and we don't know why.

Appeal to ignorance. Anti-vaxxers say the same thing about their quackery, and they're just as wrong and for the same reasons.

We have evolved to eat the food we have available, not the other way around.

Bullshit. We have evolved to consume a wide variety of things. My ancestors did not have corn, or quinoa, or tomatoes, or potatoes, or cassava, or taro, or peanuts, or lychees, or bananas, or durians, or blueberries, or loads of other edible species yet I consume these things just fine. One more protein isn't going to throw your body out of whack, and if you truly believe it will, never eat any biodiverse crop that didn't originate from wherever your great great grandparents lived, because I promise you there is a lot more new proteins and other chemicals in a new species than there are in one with a cry gene or epsps gene inserted.

We are FAR away from an understanding how our body works completely. We know the big picture, but that's it.

Appeal to ignorance. Furthermore, you could say the same thing about every other method of plant improvement (like mutagenesis and somaclonal variation, wide crosses and embryo rescue, bud sport selection, induced polyploidy, ect.), which is why the appeal to ignorance is a fallacy.

Looking voer your links, link one comes from a report by 'Coalition for GM-Free India,' which I suppose I'd have to look over, but given that those claims contradict data and those organizations with GMO Free in the title rarely have a reputation of honesty (which I know is a poor argument but giving their report a quick look over doesn't really blow me away), it isn't high on my to do list. Link two is about resistance, and that has more to do with cultivation issues, in not unique to any strain of resistant plant, GE or not, so to call it a failure is not very nuanced or accurate. Third links is the same source as the first, and the fourth mentions that there has been a downward trend from earlier years, and even mentions Bt cotton as a reason.

Huber's work was never published. He made some pretty extraordinary claims, then never published his data, so if you are calling that important research, well, that isn't good. I can't really comment on it besides pointing out some of the absurdity and inaccuracy of his claims because there is nothing but claims, no fact, to talk about. You can not disprove him because he has nothing solid to disprove. The CSMonitor link isn't too hot either, failing to consider a number of important details. The Séralini study in the next link has been widely criticized for shoddy methodology and unsupported conclusions, including by the EFSA, FSANA, and the French HCB. Citing him does not advance your position among those who closely follow this topic, nor does citing Huber.

As for the next two links, it would not hesitate to believe them. I do not mean to imply that Monsanto does no wrong, especially with some of the chemicals they have produced in the past. The EPA link looks like they made made a mistake (since companies don't normally not brand their premium products). The bribery link is bad, although hardly unique for a company, and usually is unfortunately required to do business in certain places (not that this excuses it, just that you are talking about big business, not solely Monsanto). As for the last link, biopiracy is a stupid crime designed to get money from companies, and IIRC (it would be akin to me saying that because I live in an area where mayapple naturally grows that I deserve a cut from the profits of a company using the podophyllotoxin in mayappe to produce cancer drugs), Monsanto filed the proper paperwork, and someone else made the mistake elsewhere. Not really damning. The link in you second post looks like a mix of fact, science by jury (and a French one at that), and hot air (and naturally doesn't mention them doing things like compensating farmers in South Africa for their wrongly hybridized corn seed).

So, I stand by what I said. Most of the things out there about Monsanto are baseless. If they are so bad, base the accusations on fact. Also, since you bring up biodiversity, GE is a way of improving plants, biodiversity is what you grow. Two different things, and while you could accuse companies of reducing biodiversity, that is what agri

Looking voer your links, link one comes from a report by 'Coalition for GM-Free India,' which I suppose I'd have to look over, but given that those claims contradict data and those organizations with GMO Free in the title rarely have a reputation of honesty (which I know is a poor argument but giving their report a quick look over doesn't really blow me away), it isn't high on my to do list. Link two is about resistance, and that has more to do with cultivation issues, in not unique to any strain of resistant plant, GE or not, so to call it a failure is not very nuanced or accurate. Third links is the same source as the first, and the fourth mentions that there has been a downward trend from earlier years, and even mentions Bt cotton as a reason.

Huber's work was never published. He made some pretty extraordinary claims, then never published his data, so if you are calling that important research, well, that isn't good. I can't really comment on it besides pointing out some of the absurdity and inaccuracy of his claims because there is nothing but claims, no fact, to talk about. You can not disprove him because he has nothing solid to disprove. The CSMonitor link isn't too hot either, failing to consider a number of important details. The Séralini study in the next link has been widely criticized for shoddy methodology and unsupported conclusions, including by the EFSA, FSANA, and the French HCB. Citing him does not advance your position among those who closely follow this topic, nor does citing Huber.

As for the next two links, it would not hesitate to believe them. I do not mean to imply that Monsanto does no wrong, especially with some of the chemicals they have produced in the past. The EPA link looks like they made made a mistake (since companies don't normally not brand their premium products). The bribery link is bad, although hardly unique for a company, and usually is unfortunately required to do business in certain places (not that this excuses it, just that you are talking about big business, not solely Monsanto). As for the last link, biopiracy is a stupid crime designed to get money from companies, and IIRC (it would be akin to me saying that because I live in an area where mayapple naturally grows that I deserve a cut from the profits of a company using the podophyllotoxin in mayappe to produce cancer drugs), Monsanto filed the proper paperwork, and someone else made the mistake elsewhere. Not really damning. The link in you second post looks like a mix of fact, science by jury (and a French one at that), and hot air (and naturally doesn't mention them doing things like compensating farmers in South Africa for their wrongly hybridized corn seed).

So, I stand by what I said. Most of the things out there about Monsanto are baseless. If they are so bad, base the accusations on fact. Also, since you bring up biodiversity, GE is a way of improving plants, biodiversity is what you grow. Two different things, and while you could accuse companies of reducing biodiversity, that is what agri

Looking voer your links, link one comes from a report by 'Coalition for GM-Free India,' which I suppose I'd have to look over, but given that those claims contradict data and those organizations with GMO Free in the title rarely have a reputation of honesty (which I know is a poor argument but giving their report a quick look over doesn't really blow me away), it isn't high on my to do list. Link two is about resistance, and that has more to do with cultivation issues, in not unique to any strain of resistant plant, GE or not, so to call it a failure is not very nuanced or accurate. Third links is the same source as the first, and the fourth mentions that there has been a downward trend from earlier years, and even mentions Bt cotton as a reason.

Huber's work was never published. He made some pretty extraordinary claims, then never published his data, so if you are calling that important research, well, that isn't good. I can't really comment on it besides pointing out some of the absurdity and inaccuracy of his claims because there is nothing but claims, no fact, to talk about. You can not disprove him because he has nothing solid to disprove. The CSMonitor link isn't too hot either, failing to consider a number of important details. The Séralini study in the next link has been widely criticized for shoddy methodology and unsupported conclusions, including by the EFSA, FSANA, and the French HCB. Citing him does not advance your position among those who closely follow this topic, nor does citing Huber.

As for the next two links, it would not hesitate to believe them. I do not mean to imply that Monsanto does no wrong, especially with some of the chemicals they have produced in the past. The EPA link looks like they made made a mistake (since companies don't normally not brand their premium products). The bribery link is bad, although hardly unique for a company, and usually is unfortunately required to do business in certain places (not that this excuses it, just that you are talking about big business, not solely Monsanto). As for the last link, biopiracy is a stupid crime designed to get money from companies, and IIRC (it would be akin to me saying that because I live in an area where mayapple naturally grows that I deserve a cut from the profits of a company using the podophyllotoxin in mayappe to produce cancer drugs), Monsanto filed the proper paperwork, and someone else made the mistake elsewhere. Not really damning. The link in you second post looks like a mix of fact, science by jury (and a French one at that), and hot air (and naturally doesn't mention them doing things like compensating farmers in South Africa for their wrongly hybridized corn seed).

So, I stand by what I said. Most of the things out there about Monsanto are baseless. If they are so bad, base the accusations on fact. Also, since you bring up biodiversity, GE is a way of improving plants, biodiversity is what you grow. Two different things, and while you could accuse companies of reducing biodiversity, that is what agri

Tell me then, where can I freely, and relatively easily find food products that do not contain genetically UNmodified corn or soy?

About everywhere.

Your statement that this information is "non-essential" is strange.

No it isn't. Knowing if something has peanuts is essential. Knowing if something has gluten is essential. Knowing the details of the variety of an ingredient is not.

Roundup ready crops have been modified to be resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup. They were created basically for the purpose of selling more of Monsanto's best selling herbicide.

First, I know that, second, so what? Really, so what? Do you have any idea how agriculture works? People use herbicide with plants that can tolerate them, GMO or not, deal with it, and they've been doing this since long befor eGMOs where a thing.

Roundup is toxic, it is an endocrine disruptor, and it damages DNA. In addition is has a profound negative ecological impact.

Yeah, I'd love to see a strong source for that in the amounts of Round Up you get in your food, preferably several.

Well because direct manipulation of genetic code is very new

First GMO crop: tobacco, China, 1988. How is that new?

very radical

Any more radical than a doubled haploid four way hybrid, or something cultured from an irradiated blob of callus cells? Ok, you're binging in DNA in a new way, as opposed to more traditional methods, which do some pretty unusual things sometimes. So what?

only sparsely tested

Bull. Shit. Unless by sparely tested you mean have been studied for decades with hundreds of studies done across the world and millions of dollars spend to reach the widely held scientific consensus that they are safe.

Each of those criteria is worthy of making an exception and forcing monoplistic predatory corporations to disclose what they are feeding to the public.

No they don't, and even without getting into the Monsanto thing (which is usually overblown anyway), labeling should not be based on non-scientific things. I want to know if my food is picked by migrant farm workers laboring under abusive exploitative conditions being paid an unfair wage, but that doesn't merit a mandatory label.

When some of these crops turn out to be really bad, all of society will have to bear the medical costs.

Yeah, I'm sure that will happen right after it turns out that vaccines cause autism. I'm interested, what could possibly be the biochemical basis for how the cry genes, nptII, c4 epsps, bar, cspB, prv cp, and/or cmv cp (the transgenes used in presently approved GE crops) could possibly in any way be harmful to humans? Because for all the accusation, no one ever wants to talk biochemistry to back their musing. I wonder why? Could it be that the accusations have no scientific merit whatsoever?

Now in the case of GM foods, it is illegal for a food to be labeled as non-GMO food.

A number of people have said this, and all I can say is, do you people go to grocery stores? There are quite a number of items that say this on them. It isn't illegal, the FDA just frowns upon it because it gives the false impression that non-geneitcally engineered foods are superior, and because the term GMO is not technically accurate (as GMO means genetically modified organism, which every crop is, and the term should really be GEO).

You argue that there are way too many types of genetic manipulation for us commoners to be able to know the difference

No, I'm saying there is no meaningful argument that can be applied to one but not the others.

There should not be a presumption of safety, genetic tinkerers should bear the burden of proof before their crops are sold to the public or released into the ecosystem.

Ge crops are safe, also, see above.

Roundup-resistant crops and crops which produce their own pesticides.

You mean just like every other herbicide resistant plant on the planet? And as for producing their own pesticides, all plants do that. In fact, most of the pesticides in your diet are natural poisons.

Roundup-resistant means that astonishing quantities of Roundup were used on the crop to kill weeds.

And it also means that much harsher herbicides were replaced. Herbicides are pretty common.

Roundup which was touted as safe by your agribusiness "scientists" is turning out to be pretty bad for us. Roundup is teratogenic, and endocrine disruptor, and causes genetic damage.

I'm sure if you drank the stuff, but in the levels present in your food, not even close.

The second common type is even scarier since we know that you can't wash the pesticides off of these, they are inside!

See above. Plant physiology 101: all plants have pesticides in them, so that is not something innately worrying, and especially not when we know exactly how this pesticide works. You body treats it like any other protein, it works by binding to receptors humans just do not have, and it isn't even active in acidic environments like the mammalian gut anyway.

I usually fall on the science side of arguments (evolution, climate change, etc.) but there are currently two areas of science that have been totally corrupted by money and corporate influence: Pharmacology, and agricultural biology.

Ah, so you're liberal unscientific then. Accept the science of climate change and evolution, but reject that of medical and agricultural science. Sorry, but that's no better than rejcting evolution or climate change.

Anyone who follows this story knows that new GMO crops are invented all the time and the FDA rubberstamps them because the FDA is a captured agency.

Nonsense! It takes so long for new crops to get on the market. That is another anti-GMO talking point that falls flat. There are tons of crops in development that get stuck at the regulatory process because of how strict is is. It took years to get DroughtGard approved, and look at the rough time the AquaAdvantage salmon is having.

There is no way that the kind of large scale long-term studies have been done to validate the safety of GMO crops.

Take your pick.

So I call a hearty BS on your vilifying concerned people as being anti-science. Shame on you for resulting to name-calling.

Yeah, that's what the creationists, climate change denialists, anti-vaxxers, and every ot

Aspartame sat sidelined by the FDA because of tests showing it was a carcinogen and neurotoxin

Citation needed. Last I checked none of those concerns turned out to have any scientific merit.

Since recent studies show that you are what you eat and food RNA can effect your genes [discovermagazine.com] the entire genetic modification of base food crops is a little worrying.

Why exactly would you expect a transgenes to be more or less likely to have an effect on you than any other gene? That study made no mention of GE crops and was just used by the anti-GE nutters Read this this or this for a complete take down of the nonsense that was said about that study.

Millions of years of symbiotic evolution is being altered in ways not even fully understood yet.

Do you also oppose every other method of altering plant genetics? Even conventional breeding has produced things that could not be found in nature, like corn (broccoli, strawberries, wheat, and cabbage are other crops created by humans). . And why should it matter that plants are being altered? Farms aren't exactly natural environments. And who says they are not fully understood? They are studied quite extensively, and while it is true that there could always be an unknown unknown, appeals to ignorance are not very strong arguments for rejecting known benefits.

I'm all for scientific advances but rushing to market and forcing this down people's throats is not a good attitude.

I agree that things should not be rushed for the sake of profit, but at this point, that argument holds very little water when applied to GE crops as a whole. Maybe two decades ago that would have been a more reasonable thing to say, but not anymore.

The cutoff is when you've done enough rigorous and open testing that nobody in the professional scientific community can raise any particular concerns.

Well, good news! Fact is, scientific consensus is that GE crops are safe and effective. Don't believe me? Go to your local university's agriculture, plant biology, genetics, or molecular biology/biochemistry department, or contact your local extension office (if you are in the US, you do have one). I have, and have yet to find a single person saying otherwise. Like evolution or vaccines, his is much more a popular controversy than a scientific one (discredited papers like the Pusztai study or the Séralini study notwithstanding).

The people producing the GMO's have, for example, claimed there is no risk of their product escaping into other fields, which has been proven false over and over.

Who? When? Plants cross pollinate. Everyone knows that, and problems from cross pollination are nothing new. That's why I put cheesecloth on my flowers when I garden. I grow stable lines and I don't want the to get cross pollinated, and others who grow open pollinated (or heirloom if you will) know the importance of preventing accidental pollenation. Or think of people who grow seedless fruits. What happens if you have a seedless citrus or persimmon orchard and someone decides to plant another variety? Seeds. Or what if you grow sweet corn next to field corn? The endosperm will be affected by what pollinates the corn, so your sweet corn will be ruined. So lets not act as if GE crops are the only thing where cross pollination occurs.

Each time it happens, these assholes sue the farmers whose crops get contaminated for "illegally" using their patented product.

No, they sue if you have an unnaturally large number of the transgene present, which is to say, when someone knowingly selects for the transgene (the morality of which is somewhat debatable, but lets not act as if it simply happens by accident). Can you show me a single case where they sued someone for simple cross pollination?

Then we have some very recent evidence that the rash of Colony Collapse Disorder among honey bee populations is being caused by a somewhat new pesticide. This just so happens to be the same pesticide which is integrated into the Monsanto corn, and preliminary tests indicate it DOES affect bee populations.

Absolutely false. CCD by the way occurs in areas where GE crops are not grown. The problem may be due to farming practices (like monoculture), or certain other pesticides, but there is no evidence to suggest that Bt crops are responsible in any way.

Especially when viewed in light of the other claims Monsanto has made about their product and have been shown to be false.

Which is why farmers keep buying their seed, right? Which is why we are actually seeing problems because farmers aren't planting enough non-GMO refuge area?

There just hasn't been enough testing of these products.

Everyone says this, but never says what would be considered sufficient testing. I think it is so the goalpost can keep moving.

I'm sure they would never short-circuit research efforts that focus on safety of some of their GMO "stuff"; after all their own rigorous studies, much like this one have shown the "stuff" is safe, no?

Yes, they have. The willingness of fear-mongering buffoons to engage in data-manipulation is a different topic altogether. These clowns have published multiple papers making the same claim, all of which make the same kind of methodological "mistakes". The FSANZ response is particularly devastating.

The fact of the matter is that the main reason Monsanto needs to be so draconian about enforcing IP rights is because of the billions of dollars that have to be spent on testing "the stuff" and then convincing international agencies that it's safe for general use. It's hilarious - you want better testing but bitch about them trying to recoup the insanely high investment that goes into it, and even after they jump through all the hoops, you pull out half-baked "studies" to try and prove that the stuff is unsafe.

Just be honest - no matter what the data shows, no matter how much testing is done, no matter what kind of business practices are used, you'll never be satisfied because someone has convinced you that ("frankenfoods" == "double plus ungood"). Why waste time arguing the details when you're not willing to be convinced?

Anyone not aware of the risks GMO's are posing on society should really do some reading.

Anyone who bought into the fearmongering and often times outright lies of the anti-GE campaign should do some reading.

The scientists that are developing these seeds and pesticides wont even go near them because there is no long-term research on what risks they could offer 10 or 20 years from now.

Funny, I've spoken with scientists who do just that. I didn't notice them eating any differently than anyone else. I've transformed plants before. I have no problem eating genetically engineered food. I do it all the time.

And there has been long term research (unless you define long term as X+5 so you can always keep moving that goalpost). Darnedest thing is though, what hasn't been done is for someone to propose a plausible mechanism as to why GE crops would be dangerous. We know the genes inserted (cry genes, epsps, bar, nptII, PRSV/CMV coat protein genes) are safe, but for all the cries of 'what might happen' no one has explained what in GE crops allegedly hurts you, how it is produced, its mode of action, ect. I suppose GE crops could kill us all 20 years down the road, but only in the same sense that the smallpox vaccine could do the same thing, or that there could be an invisible heatless dragon in my garage waiting to eat me. After so much study has been done, you can only play the appeal to ignorance card for so long, then the burden of proof shifts to the people believing that to prove it.

Scarey shit.

What's scary is that agriculture is staring down an increasing population, global climate change, increasing energy costs, peak phosphorus, increasing pressure on fresh water resources, evolving pests and pathogens, desertification, deforestation, greater demand for animal protein, and agriculture has to take care l that without expanding the amount of land under the plow, and we've got people having not based in science blanket opposition to what will probably go down as the most significant breakthrough in plant improvement since unraveling Mendelian genetics. Now THAT is scary.

Most of the organic farmers where I live are small time operations. They don't and wouldn't have the funds necessary if a lawsuit came their way to defend themselves. It would just put them out of business.

Maybe, but I can't think of a single instance of a farmer ever being sued for that. For intentionally selecting for and mass planting a cross pollinated crop, yes, but not for just being cross pollinated.

And lets not forget that a transgene isn't the only thing that can mess up your crops. If I grow OP seeds and my neighbor grown hybrids, or if I grow seedless citrus or persimmons and my neighbor's trees of another variety cross pollinated mine, I could lose my variety if I don't take proper precautions, or my fruit could end up with seeds. This is hardly a unique phenomenon.

Well for one, I think people are worried about genetics being introduced into plants which were never there.

Which also accurately describes new mutations, and lets not forget that people have been against cisgenic and anti-sense GE crops too, so while people are concerned about it, it is a poor rational IMO. Furthermore, plants doesn't really care about that stuff. It's all code to them.

One can argue whether this is good or bad and that is exactly what the discussion is about. In the end though, after all the arguments, we can only know what will happen years after it has happened. It is this unknown and irreversibility which people find concerning.

But you could say the same thing of any other gene (though ease of reversibility depends on the crop. I notice there are no Flavr Savr tomatoes or NewLeaf potatoes around anymore).

Since we don't have long term studies, then it would seem prudent to proceed with caution, but that has not been done in this instance

Actually, the 'no long term studies' claim is part of that misinformation. There have been quite a few (you can find them listed here). That's one of this things that really gets my goat about those anti-GMO groups when they say that. If you're going to go around doing some sort of campaign one way or the other, about GE crops, maybe a basic literature review would be a good place to start? It either ignorance, laziness, or deceit on their part. Could there be problems with them? Strictly speaking, yes, I suppose, there could always be an unknown unknown, but looking at the things currently inserted: Cry1ab & other cry proteins, epsps, nptII, bar, CMV/PRSV CP, I just don't see how those are going to hurt you in any way at all. Some of them you may have already eaten from the natural sources even if you avoid GE food. We have known benefits, and zero evidence, either in theory or practice, to indicate that these, or the technique itself, is harmful. Y No one is saying we shouldn't proceed with caution, but at this point, we have more than enough evidence to move forward. The notion that we should stop something with known benefits over undescribed and unfound potential danger is the same thing that keeps the anti-vaccine movement going, and look at how well that one turned out.

From what I've seen, much of the fear over GE crops is over fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. People say they don't like them because they have pesticides built in. so does every other plant on the planet. They don't like them because they are designed to resist herbicides. These herbicides are much more benign than previously used ones and prevent the need for environmentally damaging tillage, and furthermore, non-GE crops are often bred for the same types of traits. They hear they cause organ damage. There has never been a single study that could convincingly prove that and the ones claiming such were either never published, withdrawn for their flaws, or widely criticized for shoddy methodology. Fear, ignorance, misunderstanding. What else can I ca

I'm always a pretty critical thinker and always question the source, but based on everything I've seen and read on this topic this seems to be the real deal

Then read this. 60 farmers. Not 300,000. Think critical about this: is a movement that lies to you going to give you good information about Monsanto and genetic engineering?

Is Monsanto the best company int the world? No. Are they the great Satan they're made out to be? They're not that either. The reason you see so much hate for Monsanto is because GE crops work. They work well, farmers are neither stupid nor powerless and they buy GE seed for a reason, and they're safe. If, for some reason, you dislike genetic engineering, there's only one way to reconcile these facts with you're superstitions: conspiracy. Think about how anti-vaxxers describe Merck or Pfizer, or what creationists say about evolutionary biologists. Same thing. I'm certainly not saying you should take anything Monsanto says at face value, be skeptical about them too, but 99% of what you hear about them is, quite frankly, just bullshit by the scientifically illiterate anti-GMO crowd.

I do happen to know a bit about the stuff Jeffrey Smith says. He's pretty famous for being one of the top anti-GE campaigners out there, and I recognize a few of the things he cites. Although he gets plenty of publicity, he doesn't exactly have the best reputation for honesty and scientific integrity.

First, neither Surov study nor the Ermakova study he cites (and derives many of his claims from) were ever actually published. From what information they have released, it seems that Surov as I recall only used five hamsters, and he used some weird variety with strange dietary requirements that no one uses for feeding trials, and the Ermakova study had rats dying, even in the control group, at way higher rates than they should have. I can't remember all the details without looking it up, but those studies don't mean much. The Austrian study he cites was actually withdrawn for its flaws, but that doesn't stop Smith from citing that too (and naturally leaving out the bit about its withdrawal).

And he mentions an anecdote about livestock eating GE feed and becoming sterile. If he's talking about the same instance I'm thinking of, this one actually happened. They fed livestock GE feed and they went sterile. That sounds pretty bad, but again, Smith conveniently leaves out that this feed was infected with a mold that produces sterility inducing mycotoxins, and that this while not frequent is not an unheard of occurrence in livestock, and it can happen regardless of whether the corn is GE or not. The thing that he seems to be citing claiming DNA damage, after a quick lookover, doesn't appear to actually say anything of the sort.

So, yeah, that's the best he's got. Not very impressive, and unfortunately, he's one of the biggest names in the anti-GE movement, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen claims of harm from GE crops go straight back to something he wrote. He is very fond of cherrypicking and half truths mixed up in alarmist rhetoric, and makes no mention of any of the studies showing no harm from GE crops. If you're interested, a professor from the University of Melbourne has a pretty comprehensive takedown of one of his books, and this video goes over some more of his claims. I'm not usually in the habit of linking to YouTube since they're usually pretty poor but this one actually has clips of what Smith says about something, then shows the study itself saying the exact opposite, which I find funny, and it has lots of good citations if you ever want to look them over or read a long boring FDA report.

So that claim, and the rest, aren't something I'd be all that concerned about.

There's lots of independent testing confirming the safety of genetic engineering. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know much about the area, or is lying.

The problem is that issues we don't know to test for (either because they are as yet undiscovered or there was no reason to believe they would happen) can have serious consequences. "Confirming the safety" is rightly treated as suspect by the public as it generally means merely "We found no known reason to believe it is unsafe". The BSE crisis in the UK is the classic example -- the change to British law that allowed the temperature rendered feed was sterilised at to be lowered was deemed to be safe by the industry and regulatory authorities. No reason they could think of to deem it unsafe -- still plenty hot enough to kill any bacteria or viruses that might be lurking in there. Until "whoops, wasn't expecting badly folded proteins (prions)" that it turned out survived the lower temperature process, jumped the species gap and left at the time an unknown quantity of people with hard-to-detect fatal variant-CJD. (About 200 dead so far, but it could have been orders of magnitude worse.)

There's lots of independent testing confirming the safety of genetic engineering. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know much about the area, or is lying. Considering that Gurian-Sherman works for the Union of Concerned Scientists as an 'expert' in this field and wrote the report Failure to Yield, which claimed that GE crops yielded less than non-GE crops, while conveniently ignoring the fact that 1) those GE crops were not designed to be intrinsically higher yielding but to have other benefits, 2) there is no real reason why GE crops would have a lower yield than non-GE crops (beyond a minor fitness penalty), and 3) their data showed an increase in yield (a gain especially large in developing countries where they did not have access to pesticides to raise their yield as developed countries do), I'm going to have to assume he's just lying.

Everyone with a soft sport for some unscientific notion says the same thing. 'I'm not anti-science, its just that every scientists is either an ideologue or part of a conspiracy.' Sounds just like the anti-vaxxers or evolution denialists. Fact is, the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields support GE crops, and they make that decision based on the scientific literature out there. Accepting that is not gullibility, and ignoring that is not critical thinking. It is indeed anti-science.

You mean Dr. Don 'No you can't see my data but you should totally believe my wacky claims' Huber? Wow. Has he released has data yet? Didn't think so. Why should I believe anyone who hides their data?

This is because most country's will not allow GMO's to be planted in their country due to their lack of long-term testing of effects on humans.

So its just a coincidence that they can't compete against countries like the US, Canada, and Brazil in terms of large agronomic crops and want to protect their own industries without breaking WTO laws? That has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. Ask any European plant biologist about GE crops. They'll say the same things American ones do.

We want to see what it does to your children's children before we'll even consider it

So, you can't find any differences between the Ge and non-GE plants (besides the epsps or cry1ab or bar or CMV coat ect) but you expect there to be some long term effect, though strangely breeding, hybridization, mutagenesis, ect is exempt from this? That's what we call magical thinking.

Actually, that's not one. Huber claims, in a nutshell, that glyphosate is making a virus sized fungus that attacks both plants and animals. The evidence he presents to support his claim? Nothing. He talks a lot about some really incredible stuff, but when it comes time to prove it, he refuses to publish his data. Monsanto might as well say they give you superpowers. But, despite the fact that the guy gives nothing to back his claims, his story is still bouncing all over the internet.

Examples: "New Study on GM crop safety contradicts previous study on GM crop safety" or just "New study on GM crop safety".

Neither or those would have really described the situation well enough though. Saying that it contradicts a previous study doesn't say much, because most studies on GE crops do. Also, it was a pretty poor study, and I don't think there's anyone credible that actually cites it as evidence for GE crops being harmful. Saying that there's a new study, again, doesn't say much either, because there's tons of those and new ones come out periodically. Note that this study is on the bottom of that list, at number 115, and that's just the independently funded ones (its #343 on their list of total studies). What made this one noteworthy was that it looked at a number of long term and multigenerational studies, and (along with the rest of the evidence) confirms the general safety of genetic engineering, at least with respect to many of the fears out there.

Look at it this way. If a study looked at various 'controversies' in evolutionary biology, and ruled each of them in favor of evolution actually occurring, would a proper headline be 'New study on evolution contradicts previous creationism study,' "New study on evolution,'.or 'New study confirms evolution is a real phenomenon?' I'd go with choice 3.

I was just making the point that lobbying interests and governments are ramming GM foods onto the market with the safety of the public being secondary

That's happening in the same sense that they're ramming vaccines into hospitals without checking their safety. Sure, Monsanto and the others are pushing their products, just like Apple pushes iPads and Toyota pushes the Prius (of course, when any other company does it, its business, but when Monsanto does it, its a conspiracy), but that doesn't mean the science isn't there. It is. We can sit here and talk about Monsanto and agribusiness all day long. That doesn't change the science.

If these foods are safe and wholesome, what is the problem with labelling them?

Nothing. It would be nice if there was a 'Biotech by choice' label. Anyone is free to label any food as containing GE ingredients, not containing them, or not labeling anything at all. They same way they're free to label or not label their produce as being produced with grafting, hybridization, somaclonal variation, sport selection, embryo rescue, chemical/radiation mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, wide crosses, marker assisted selection, ect. You might as well say if those things are so great (and they are), why aren't they labeled?

If you're talking mandatory labeling, then all of the above aren't labeled for the same reasons. It's still the same plant. For the three types of GE crop currently on the market (insect resistant, herbicide tolerant, and virus resistant), the GE plant is substantially equivalent to its non-GE isogenic counterpart. Sure, you can say that GE is different, and you'd be right, that's why we have a different word of it. But is isn't different enough, it is still just another method of changing the genes. You could say that genes don't go from species to species in nature, but then you'd both be wrong and making an irrelevant point. If anything, that would be reasoning to not label GE crops, since now you know exactly what genetic changes you make. I grew purple broccoli this year and ate a bunch of pink fleshed apples, and I don't have a damned clue what protein it had that produced those pigments, and those are just the visible phenotypes which doesn't even get into all the things you can't easily see. But if I had a GE corn that had the gene for Cry1Ab in it, I'd know exactly what produced its trait. Or compare the case of the Lenape potato with the University of Ghent's GE potatoes. Both were designed to be resistant to pests. The Lenape was produced with a wide cross to get resistance genes from wild potatoes, the GE ones had the genes directly moved. The Lenape brought the genes for producing a dangerous amount of glycoalkaloids and made people sick. The GE ones were destroyed by ecoterrorists. Yet if we mandated labeling, only the safe one would need to have to be labeled as being somehow different. That is simply idiotic. The process is not nearly as relevant as the product.

And furthermore, what purpose would such a label serve? Would you still buy it? You and I both know damn well that the only reason anti-GMO groups push for those labels is to scare people and undermine the credibility of genetic engineering. It's like the labels creationists were trying to push on science books stating 'Evolution is only a theory.' Sure, it was true enough, but all it did was undermine the credibility of evolution, which was exactly what it was supposed to do. Why did a fact undermine science? It was deceptive due to public ignorance. Same thing here. Maybe had anti-science groups like Greenpeace and vested interest groups like the Organic Consumers Association not spend the last two decades misinforming the public things might be a little dif

You know what else they don't label? Naturally mutated varieties, plant sports, food produced with hybrid seed, wide crossed varieties (member the Lenape potato?), embryo rescue, chemical mutagenesis, radiation mutagenesis, somatic variation, plants produced with tissue culture, grafted plants, polyploid plants, crops treated with colchicine, ect. Pretty inconsistent to think that inserting a single very well known and well studied protein (even one like the cry protein that people have been eating for decades) should be labeled, meanwhile give all the other things that cause a lot more genetic change a free pass. Allergies are caused by just a few proteins out of the tens of thousands you eat every day...saying that genetic engineering is any more likely to spontaneously produce one than other crop improvement techniques (with a well understood protein anyway, particularly one already in the food supply) is just magical thinking. And if allergies are you concern, I notice no one is protesting the hundreds of new proteins and compounds in biodiverse foods. Fun fact: more people have died from starfruit than GM crops (granted, not from allergic reactions, but people have had reactions to relative newcomers to mas production like kiwi). Of course, it is no coincidence that only one of these things is well known by the public (although when hybrid seed first became big, people said the same thing about it, hell, there people who were against grafting...both things are now ubiquitous in grain/vegetable and fruit production respectively). And because there is not a shred of evidence to suggest the GM food is in any way different than non-GM food, it is no different than mandatory labeling for Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, ect. dietary laws. Of course, you could say that there is no proof that they're not causing allergies, but you could say the same thing about everything else I listed, or pretty much anything, including invisible pink unicorns.

And yes, the term frankenfoods is just an overly emotional appeal, just like calling resistant weeds 'superweeds'' or calling cross pollination 'genetic contamination.'. Fearmongering. Anyone who knows anything about crop domestication knows everything we eat is already 'frankenfoods.' Of course, that's natural, so it's totally different. By the way, the Rainbow papaya isn't labeled either. It was produced by the University of Hawaii. So, what was that about evil corporations again? Here's an idea. Maybe if people want a specific thing labeled, they should stop lying about it. Of course, telling lies to scare people into buying fancy overpriced organic food is somehow morally superior to making people do 15 seconds of looking it up

Yes. This times a hundred. Times a million. Pseudoscience at best, dishonest at worst. I too am really glad he gives genetic engineering it's props, because anti-GMO really is the new anti-vax. Just because you can't be bothered to listen to a valid source doesn't mean that the people who know what the hell they're talking about are in some grand Monsanto/Shadow Government conspiracy to be evil. The scientific evidence is in. It's been it. The idea that they are inherently dangerous to human health is laughable (and growing even less plausible every day), they are a benefit for farmers, and they are a net positive to the environment. Deputing these facts without adequate information to go against them, which is what pretty much every anti-GMO group on the planet does, is not insightful or thought provoking, it's denialism, plain and simple. The modern controversy surrounding GMOs is is no longer a scientific debate, it's a popular one, largely with biologist, horticulturists, botanists, microbiologists, zoologists, toxicologists, geneticists, biochemists, and farmers on one hand, and people who think that an appeal to nature is a valid argument on the other, and even that doesn't make sense considering that we selectively breed crops for various mutations for thousands of years (as anyone who has even a passing understanding of corn genetics will tell you) and that the odds are pretty darn good that every plant we eat has picked viral, bacterial, and fungal DNA at some point, probably insect DNA too. Human DNA is at least 3% virus. We are, in a sense, genetically modified organisms ourselves.

Here's a good example: A few weeks ago, some anti-science arsonist assholes burned down a GMO grape test field in France. They were government developed, so the claim that they're against corporations doesn't apply. They were virus resistant, so the claim that they're against chemicals was out. They were rootstocks, and since roots don't produce flowers, their claim that they're afraid of cross pollination and wild GMOs is out. The health concerns, even if they had any merit to begin with, are also out, because again, the GMO part was only the root, not the grape. Why are they against them? Because they're GMO. They're against genetic engineering because it's genetic engineering. They've decided that genetic engineering is bad, and base everything else on that decision. They start with the conclusion, and make everything else fit that. Hundreds of studies showing they're wrong is part of the conspiracy, scientific consensus is part of the conspiracy, and every relevant expert who knows what they're talking about is in on it too, and therefore, anything that disagrees with their premise is easily dismissed, knowledge because a vice, ignorance a virtue.

This topic deserves more publicity than it gets, it really does. I think that this is a truly fascinating area (as a look at my comment history will reveal). I love plants and horticultural science, and I think it is just amazing what we can do with them now, what we might be able to do in the future. We are living in interesting and exciting times. We can increase output, decrease need for inputs, help preserve the soil and the environment. We can help the people who need it most grow more nutritious food. We can lessen or eliminate the problems caused by pests and diseases. Someday I might have a mango or cashew or cacao or coffee or lychee tree here in the northeast US. This is what people are really working on. This isn't sci-fi, it's real, and it is just a shame that we have people with all the intellectual integrity of your average homeopath attacking it and generally trying to influence the general population with cheap scare tactics. And it's almost funny, these people think they're being insightful when all they're going is displaying their own ignorance. It would be like someone claiming that the moon must be hollo

I think we're generally on the same page, but I just want to get out that there really are good people out there who genuinely want to use this technology to help people, like the Rainbow papaya guys, who encourage people to save and plant their GMO seeds. Just because there are corporate creeps out there shouldn't take away from those people's work, because often times the people who dislike Monsanto oppose everyone else who works with genetic engineering, and that's not right.

Although about Monsanto's donation, since I often find myself in the awkward position of defending them for the sake of accuracy, that's not actually true. Monsanto was donating normal hybrid seeds. Not patented GMOs. I honestly don't know if they tried to give GMOs, I guess it wouldn't surprise me, but they didn't donate them.

Also, just so you know, NaturalNews is well known for lying. If they said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to make sure. We're talking about a site that promotes homeopathy, germ theory of disease denialism, the idea that vaccines do not work and cause autism, the idea that chemotherapy doesn't work and cancer can be cured by the snakeoils they conveniently sell, and of course, the idea that GMOs are dangerous...every type of quackery and crankery imaginable, a very anti-science site. Read more here. Just thought you should know, linking to NaturalNews

I think we're generally on the same page, but I just want to get out that there really are good people out there who genuinely want to use this technology to help people, like the Rainbow papaya guys, who encourage people to save and plant their GMO seeds. Just because there are corporate creeps out there shouldn't take away from those people's work, because often times the people who dislike Monsanto oppose everyone else who works with genetic engineering, and that's not right.

Although about Monsanto's donation, since I often find myself in the awkward position of defending them for the sake of accuracy, that's not actually true. Monsanto was donating normal hybrid seeds. Not patented GMOs. I honestly don't know if they tried to give GMOs, I guess it wouldn't surprise me, but they didn't donate them.

Also, just so you know, NaturalNews is well known for lying. If they said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to make sure. We're talking about a site that promotes homeopathy, germ theory of disease denialism, the idea that vaccines do not work and cause autism, the idea that chemotherapy doesn't work and cancer can be cured by the snakeoils they conveniently sell, and of course, the idea that GMOs are dangerous...every type of quackery and crankery imaginable, a very anti-science site. Read more here. Just thought you should know, linking to NaturalNews

Having said that, we really don't know enough to be certain of the long-term effects. Much more research needs to be done, but companies like Monsanto are forging ahead now, and from what I can tell, with little regard for consequence.

I gotta disagree with that one, because there has been quite a lot of research on GMO crops that have found no significant difference between them and normal crops. They are not known to produce any compounds that they're not supposed to, and the idea that the gene itself will hurt you (which is an argument I have actually seen) is just silly, considering that normal breeding and mutagenesis produces far more altered genes than GM, and besides, your body can handle everything from kepel fruit to kangaroo, and that's a lot more new genes than simple genetic modification. One could make the argument that the Bt protein used in insect resistant GMOs (also used in organic farming) is harmful, but I've never seen a shred of evidence to indicate it.

Could there be long term consequences of eating GMOs? Absolutely. They could kill us all tomorrow for all I know. I can't disprove the possibility that there is some sort of complex interaction via presently unknown mechanisms that will ultimately hurt us. But as Stephen Gould said, 'Apples may start rising tomorrow but such a possibility doesn't merit equal time in physics classrooms.' The smallpox vaccine might have some sort of sort of long term effect, so could cell phone and wifi radiation, but, like GMOs, we have no evidence to indicate that they do, and until there is, I wouldn't really worry about it. Yeah, there have been those 'smoking gun' type studies, they always turn out to be baloney. And keep in mind, when you reject scientific consensus to hastily over a single study, bad things can happen (remember the Wakefield study?). And of course, there is no reason to assume that all GMOs are good, they can be pretty complex when you're running a gene that produces a certain compound in one plant through entirely different pathways, as this potentially harmful GMO demonstrates, but notice that the problem was found and explained. No one has ever found, let alone provided a science based reason for the existence of, and causative agent for the harm that GMOs are occasionally claimed to cause.

Now, had you said ecological long term consequences, that is a much more complex issue, but there, if we use GURTs, genetic use restriction technology, which we are not currently using due to protests from the anti-GMO crowd, that can be kept to a minimum. And of course, there they do not need to be perfect, only a net positive over agriculture without them. For example, they currently provide known ecological benefits, so in the case of this escaped canola, it is not a matter of 'How bad is the canola' but of 'Is this worse than the damage that would be caused to the soil and water and local flora/fauna without GMOs.' I think we still come out ahead, as it isn't like this canola is some sort of 'superweed' or whatever just because it has an extra human inserted gene.

I agree with your first paragraph, just pointing out that human health is one of the least likely areas for GMOs to come back and bite us in the rear.

IF you are concerned about safety, FDA or no, there has been extensive research on it. Very many studies demonstrate no difference between GMOs and non-GM crops, and as a result, the general scientific consensus is that they're safe. Even if we assume Monsanto is influencing the FDA, I doubt they exert the same influence over countless relevant experts. Heck, even countries like Iran and China have developed their own homegrown strains of GMO. Iran made the worlds first Bt rice. Is Monsanto bribing off what one of most anti-US countries in the world?

Those who claim that GMOs are dangerous haven't done a very good job of proving their claims, either. For something to be dangerous, I think we can all agree it must have a reason, yes? Just being GMO is not a valid reason, it must have some sort of chemical compount, not present in the unmodified counterpart, that is dangerous. To date, no such compound from a commercially approved GMO has been identified. No genetic reasoning, no chemical pathways given for the production, and no proven cases of people actually hurt by them. No reason in theory, no evidence in practice. Starfruit and kiwi have presented more problems than GMOs, yet no one protests them. And of course, GMOs must be reviewed on a case by case basis, maybe someday the FDA royally screws up and one that kills people is released , but if it is, there'll be a reason for it. And since there is neither a known reason as to why any of the commercial GMOs would hurt anyone nor evidence that it happens, I guess the FDA just puts them in a catagory similar to Generally Recognized As Safe after the testing has been done.

As for the weeds, that is a very real problem. The thing there is, everyone saw that coming. Even Monsanto said it would happen. The problem was that there are only two traits for herbicide resistance, Starlink and Round-Up Ready, and only Round-Up Ready was extensively used. The problem wasn't overuse, but over-reliance. If there were more approved traits, and people used multiple herbicides, it would much more difficult for a weed to develop resistance. Even if it were to acquire the resistance through horizontal gene transfer, if there were multiple genes confirming resistance to multiple compounds, it is still very unlikely. These weeds aren't really 'superweeds' by the way, just regular weeds that are resistant to the most popular herbicide, so they can still be taken out by other chemicals and methods, but still, this never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. I don't know why it wasn't done, why those traits weren't pushed out there, maybe the FDA was lax in approving them, maybe activists protested, maybe the companies just didn't care, whatever, but yes, someone screwed the pooch on that one.

Academics Review is a great site. Have you ever been to Biofortified or Tomorrow's Table? I like this one too. I guess you've been to GMO Pundit, since he's one of the guys who wrote Academics Review. They're some great sites for science based info on genetic engineering.

Here are some. Now, is there any credible (key word) evidence that GMOs do cause harm? And if so, why? What is the causative agent, the novel protein produced in the GMO, but not in the conventional crop? What is the chemical pathway taken to produce that compound? What is the genetic reason for it being produced like that? Why does it only happen in man made GMOs, and not in natural, uncontrolled horizontal gene transfers? Not a single one of those very critical questions have been answered for a single commercially approved crop by the any of the anti-GMO guys. There's something to be said for requiring something be shown reasonably safe, but there's also something to be said for perpetual goalpost shifting (one more study and a few more years!) requiring that a negative be proven (prove they aren't dangerous) and falsifiability (prove that they will never ever, via any presently unknown mechanisms, be dangerous).

It's funny that you mention that, because I've always figured it would go quite a ways to proving creationism if organisms had a built in anti-tampering device, that if altering the genes directly always produced something that was a dangerous. I don't know how you're post got modded troll, because it is spot on. Monsanto pricks? Sure. GMO ecologically damaging? Potentially. That's a very complex area, and you've also got to consider the differences in damage between an escaped gene and the amount of damage that they can prevent. Agriculture is very damaging to the environment. If, say, a nitrogen use efficiency, or pest resistance, or increased output trait can offset any other harm GMOs cause, it might be worth it. GMOs dangerous to your health? There is more evidence to indicate that Elvis is still alive. Genetic engineering, like any applied biology, is complicated. For example, in China, the adopted a GMO strain of cotton, stopped spraying pesticides, which improved insect biodiversity, which meant a once minor pest became a major one. These are certainty interesting times with thins technology, and times they are a' changin. And one thing we don't need is demonizing them based on unscientific fearmongering. The claims of GMOs causing health problems have no merit whatsoever, and it doesn't do any good for any one to make shit up. It is a problem that so many people are letting their strange ideology trump science and critical skeptical thinking.

Actually, the thing that showed up on /. a while back alleging organ damage from GMOs is what was debunked. The people who 'debunk' the 'myth' that genetic engineering doesn't give you [insert disease here] are usually the same people who, in their next post, wax about the virtues of homeopathy. As far as science is concerned, no horticulturist or biologist I've ever met could find a shred of evidence that GMOs posses any health risks. Plenty suggesting otherwise though. People claim that Monsanto is covering up all the proof that GMOs are dangerous. Conspiracies are not an arguments, they're a denialism tactic, an ultimate defense against evidence. What, I'm supposed to believe that Monsanto is bribing off the vast majority of relevant horticulturists, botanists, agronomists, microbiologists, geneticists, zoologists, ect in the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Egypt, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zeland, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, ect.? Bullshit. Heck, scientists in Iran and China, the last places an American company is going to take over, have developed their own strains of GMO.

Really, I'm sad to see tripe like this on Slashdot. Anti-vaccine=anti-science. Anti-GW=anti-science. Anti-evolution=anti-science. Anti-Genetic engineering=oh so enlightened and wise. I can't believe that so many people have fallen for the agricultural equivalent of vaccine denialism. It's a little disheartening.

And sure, let's be fair, there's always the possibility that a GMO could be harmful. Here's one that was. But that does not imply that they are all harmful. In that case, they found the compound, the harm's causative agent, that was potentially harmful, the chemical pathways that produced that protein, they found the problem, and moved on. How many anti-GMO cranks can name a single causative agent for harm in an commercial GMO? Zero. Never happened. Not once. So, they fall back on vague appeals to long term health, although never say when we will have enough proof for them. Sound familiar? Like people who only want 'one more' transitional fossil? You can make these vague claims about anything, I could claim that the smallpox vaccine has some sort of crazy complex intergenerational side effect that will kill us all in a few years, and you can't disprove that (ain't non falsifiability grand?), but we have no evidence to suggest that is the case. Same with GMOs. I can't disprove that they'll kill us all, but that burden of proof doesn't rest on me. It is like saying that pork should be banned until we know that it won't cause eternal damnation. It's not a very rational position.

We really need to do for science based agriculture what was done for other areas that skeptics espouse, like science based medicine. Sure, Monsanto can be pricks, but I don't care if the CEO eats a bowl of kittens for breakfast everyday, that says nothing of the science behind GMOs, and one company does not own an entire branch of science. More people need to learn about the science, not the weaselly fearmongering you see from NGOs like the Union of Concerned Scientists [sic] or Greenpeace or the Organic Consumer's Union. The actual scientists have done the research, the evidence is in, GMOs are safe, they are effective, and they are the next big thing in agriculture. We need more people to be more aware, more scientifically literate, less magically thinking, about plant science, and to me as a one who studies horticultural, seeing so many poeple, on this site o

Not even close. Don't know if you know this or not, but there was no genetic engineering involved in the Cavendish. Genetic engineering is not a way of life, it's a tool for altering a plant, and like breeding (which brought you things like the 70's corn failure), you can use it well or poorly. Some people want to use genetic engineering to improve biodiversity. For example, introducing ripening delaying traits to heirloom tomatoes and other crops that just don't ship well, or widening the growing range of crops to enable them to be grown in more areas. Yeah, no doubt Monsanto doesn't care about polyculture (although, to be fair, given the choice between a strange, I don't know, White Tomesol tomato, and perfectly round red hybrid #385, what one are consumers going to choose?), but Monsanto does not own GE tech any more than Merck owns pharmacology or the principles of vaccinations. Some people advocate locally developed GMOs. Problem is, thanks to all the scientifically illiterate anti-technology (and yes, it anti-GMO is anti-science, I used to give them much more credit until I really started to grasp the issue) opposition going against GMOs, only companies like Monsanto (and Sygentia, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, ect) have the resources to get them approved. It would be like if you hated McDonald's so much you wouldn't let any other restaurants open. Anti-GMO sentiment is the best thing that ever happened to Monsanto.

You seem smart enough to get that GMOs aren't going to hurt you (and considering everything has likely had horizontal gene transfer at one point it it's evolutionary history, humans included, it would be surprising if they were inherently dangerous), but understand that monoculture is not the way it has to be. Instead of opposing genetic engineering in general on those grounds, it would be far more constructive to support a better use of the technology. Genetic engineering should be an enabler of polyculture, right now it is more or less just a complement to monoculture systems that have existed before GMOs were a part of the food supply (but of course, so are tractors).