Slashdot Mirror

So says the blind Zealot.
http://responsibletechnology.o...

http://responsibletechnology.o...

Acromegalic rice?
With twisted proteins that will only be accidentally discovered. With less energy devoted to health and nutrition.
Based on the company's private safety evaluation that the FDA's revolving door personnel rubber-stamped.
With technology that is suspected of greatly increasing allergies in the last quarter of a century?

What could go wrong?

.

Their is plenty of evidence that GMO's are very harmful, like being deficient in trace minerals. The World Health Organization has declared Roundup to be a likely carcinogen

Worse yet our insanely stupid farmers/Monsanto have found an even more dangerous way to poison us by using roundup on NON-GMO crops as a preharvest drying agent

.

Here ya go...

Not really, that's just one guy who wrote a self published book full of misrepresentations and distortions. Read what actual scientists have to say about it here. The went through and did a comprehensive take down of that guy's nonsense. Alternatively, this is a fun well cited video. My favorite bit: he claims that transgenes are taken up by gut flora and continue to function, meaning that they could be producing the Bt protein that kills insects (which is totally harmless to humans anyway, but whatever). He cites Netherwood 2004 as proof. That paper's abstract ends with "we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment." So they guy who wrote that site either does not bother to even look at the papers he cites, or he flat out lies. He is also one of the leaders in the anti-GE movement, and is very highly respected and often cited among those who espouse anti-GE sentiment. So what should that tell you?

But either way, if there is nothing wrong then there should be no reason against the labeling.

If there's nothing wrong why should the be labeled? There's tons of things we do to plants that are not dangerous that most people have never heard of, like mutagenesis and doubled haploid hybridization and selection of bud sport mutants. I don't think GE should be singled out. That is just using people's ignorance to scare them about genetic engineering by making it stand out as something different and unique.

If I have a choice between a gmo product that hasn't been in the food supply long enough to know if its okay or not and one that isnt a gmo product, I'd be happy to have the information to make my own informed choices.

That is easy to do already and I'll tell you how. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. Eight species have been genetically engineered in the US. Due to the way they are processed, anything containing them that is not labeled as organic or non-GMO contains genetically engineered crops. Now you know how to avoid them if you want, and you can do it without a label. However, they have been in the food supply for a long time, and tested even longer, and there is no reason whatsoever to think they pose any more of a health risk than any other crop.

That having been said, since Dr. Oz recommends avoiding GMO foods

That interview was horribly edited by the way. And somehow, those of us who support genetic engineering are the deceitful ones.

Eh, I just took the first google result on the topic to show that 'zero' may be an inaccurate assessment. I'm afraid I have to take a 50,000 foot view of the situation in order to see that most nutritional studies get it wrong the first, second and third times. I also see many nutritional studies that omit data or game their acceptance criteria to get the result they really wanted in the first place.

Remember when butter and lard and coconut oil would kill you, so we should use transfats, hydrogenated fats and margarine? I suspect that maneuver killed millions. Eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad again? Salt is bad for you if you remove the 50% of the study participants that showed no effects from eating salt, like Intersalt did. The lipid theory that 'proved' that saturated fats are bad for you had to eliminate 17 countries out of 22 to get that result. The truth in re-reading the study shows that patients who live in countries that eat high calorie, high energy, heavily processed and packaged foods had heart trouble

Not really, that's just one guy who wrote a self published book full of misrepresentations and distortions. Read what actual scientists have to say about it here. The went through and did a comprehensive take down of that guy's nonsense. Alternatively, this is a fun well cited video. My favorite bit: he claims that transgenes are taken up by gut flora and continue to function, meaning that they could be producing the Bt protein that kills insects (which is totally harmless to humans anyway, but whatever). He cites Netherwood 2004 as proof. That paper's abstract ends with "we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment." So they guy who wrote that site either does not bother to even look at the papers he cites, or he flat out lies. He is also one of the leaders in the anti-GE movement, and is very highly respected and often cited among those who espouse anti-GE sentiment. So what should that tell you?

But either way, if there is nothing wrong then there should be no reason against the labeling.

If there's nothing wrong why should the be labeled? There's tons of things we do to plants that are not dangerous that most people have never heard of, like mutagenesis and doubled haploid hybridization and selection of bud sport mutants. I don't think GE should be singled out. That is just using people's ignorance to scare them about genetic engineering by making it stand out as something different and unique.

If I have a choice between a gmo product that hasn't been in the food supply long enough to know if its okay or not and one that isnt a gmo product, I'd be happy to have the information to make my own informed choices.

That is easy to do already and I'll tell you how. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. Eight species have been genetically engineered in the US. Due to the way they are processed, anything containing them that is not labeled as organic or non-GMO contains genetically engineered crops. Now you know how to avoid them if you want, and you can do it without a label. However, they have been in the food supply for a long time, and tested even longer, and there is no reason whatsoever to think they pose any more of a health risk than any other crop.

That having been said, since Dr. Oz recommends avoiding GMO foods

That interview was horribly edited by the way. And somehow, those of us who support genetic engineering are the deceitful ones.

Because there is zero evidence that consuming GMO foods causes any harm whatsoever.

Putting a label on it only serves to reinforce people's existing prejudices.

Eh, theres a bit more than zero.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks

But either way, if there is nothing wrong then there should be no reason against the labeling. If I have a choice between a gmo product that hasn't been in the food supply long enough to know if its okay or not and one that isnt a gmo product, I'd be happy to have the information to make my own informed choices.

That having been said, since Dr. Oz recommends avoiding GMO foods, I'd say about 95% of women won't be buying them...

And do you know who are you quoting? Here's a subtle hint: their home page has "GMFree" as a part of the URL. Painting "Institute for Responsible Technology" on the side of their building doesn't mean they are actually performing responsible scientific studies.

Their front page is filled with alarmist rhetoric like "Everything you HAVE TO KNOW about Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods" and "Expert Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the #1 GMO bestseller Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette, presents shocking evidence why genetically modified crops may lead to health and environmental catastrophes, and what we can do about it." Does a responsible scientific organization use "Dangerous", "shocking", and "catastrophe" to frame the debate?

Every single paragraph on their site is devoted to anti-GMO propaganda such as "No GMOs" and "Healthy Eating Begins with Non GMO food!"

They're every bit as neutral on the subject as Monsanto. You can bet that any study they quote has been cherry picked to support their position, and that no studies that might show contrary evidence are supported.

These guys ARE the radical greens who hate GMOs because "they're not natural", not because they understand it.

And just to be clear, I'm not employed in the agri-business, but my wife is. She works for an organic grain wholesaler, so I've learned a bit about the industry, and about the people who work in it. Their entire business model is built upon making sure people freak out when they hear the letters "GMO".