the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

And I grew up with the Tobacco industry publishing all kinds of studies showing that their product was safe -- they were the big bad corporations before BigPharm and now BigAg.Call me unreasonably skeptical if you must, but I see the same pattern being acted out here with GMOs. Both. The increase in herbicide load is as bad - imho - as the built in pesticide. We did not evolve to eat chemicals.Personally I find there is a lot more flavor in non-GMO products so they are worth extra cost in my book on that count alone. This also includes non-GMO fed poultry etc. Not quite what I was saying: the toxins kill the gut bacteria in the pest bugs and cause their guts to become leaky. These are the same intestinal problems that some people have complained about, and which are resolved by going to non-GMO diets.Enjoy.

Worst. Science. Ever.

Why is there cause for concern to begin with?If glyphosate resistance had evolved in corn, would you say that it is safe? Glyphosate resistance did evolve naturally in other species, and those genes were moved to corn. Why do you think this poses a threat?

That was non-GMO tobacco, wasn't it?The risk of constantly inhaling a toxic smoke is quite obvious. I don't see the obvious risk with plants that we have been eating for generations. What in the world do you think plants and animals are made of? Happy thoughts and dreams? What toxins are you talking about?

I think you misunderstood my position on GMOs. I agree they are generally safe. As you pointed out, they are subject to much more scrutiny than conventionally mutated breeding lines. I am a grad student at MSU and although my lab doesn't work with transgenic plants, many others do throughout the building. They can only be grown in growth chambers (not in the greenhouses), they must be marked and destroyed when done, and I don't think they can even go in the compost bin even after being autoclaved. I didn't say they controlled scientific consensus. I said they could control Washington, just as Big Oil and Big Pharm do. My concern is not that the science will not be sound but the politics are what concern me. I didn't say Monsanto was evil - heck, I'll probably end up working for them after I graduate . I certainly don't begrudge a company making a profit. But the control that these big companies could end up having on the world's food supply is what gives me pause. Which is where legislation and regulation will come into play. Round-Up ready crops and no-till farming is one of the best improvements to farming since oxen were first hitched to a plow. Despite claims that pesticide use has gone up, the fact is that use has shifted from very toxic compounds to much, much safer ones - like glyphosate. I am less enthusiastic about 2-4D resistant crops, but it is now become necessary.The problem is that Round-Up Ready crops were thought of as a silver bullet - an end-all answer to agricultural profits. And a lot of that was based on Monsanto's conceited claims and push to increase their own bottom line. I hope we have learned our lesson by now. The management scheme of the future needs to shift towards integrated pest management (IPM) rather than rely so heavily on chemical control. I think the mechanism of resistance suggests that glyphosate is retained in the plant. When glyphosate binds the EPSP enzyme of a resistant variety, it does not deactivate it - the enzyme is able to continue operating in the chorsimate biosynthesis pathway - with the gluphosate molecule attached. As far as I know, glyphosate is not retained in a free state, and honestly I don't know if the EPSP enzyme is recycled after a period of time. But because of the resistance mechanism, it would be more appropriate to provide evidence that glyphosate is NOT retained. Yes, I know. Round-Up is the safest of the pesticides. That is part of why the shift away from herbicides like atrizine, pendimethalin, trifluralin, metolachlor, alachlor, oh, and 2-4D is such a good thing. Glyphosate is more than 100 times less toxic than any of the herbicides I listed. However, now we are losing the battle again and need to start bringing back some of the more toxic herbicides - like 2-4D. Source - (table 2)The main thing I wanted to get across to RAZD is that GMOs can't be painted with a broad brush. It is wrong to say GMOs are bad in general. They need to be evaluated on an event by event basis.HBD

I don't think it is necessarily unreasonable to be skeptical. But rather than taking the position that genetically modified food is bad as a whole, address the events themselves; each genetic modification is a unique event and needs to be considered on its own. I would be willing to bet that this "more flavor" is related to processing rather then the use of GMO products. So much of our food is highly processed. Food producers that make the effort to use non-GMO products probably take more care in processing. It was in the "Walking Dead of the Food Industry" poster you posted. There are a number of questionable (to say the least) claims on that poster, the bacteria in the gut just stuck out to me. The poster says "GMOs found to transfer genetically altered DNA into the DNA of bacteria living in the human stomach, reproducing indefinitely." And you said: A couple other really bad statements on that poster are: "Monsanto Protection Act prevents government restrictions on GMO food found to cause health risks." - not an honest assessment of what the provision stated, and "One corn GMO type threatened to wipe out Monarch butterfly larvae by contaminating milkweed." - discredited back in 2001.Anti-GMO propaganda has a lot in common with climate change deniers - bad science, exaggerated claims, and scare tactics.HBD

Funny that nicotine is approved for use in organic gardening.

quote:

---

Nicotine is extracted from tobacco or related Nicotiana species and is one of the oldest botanical insecticides in use today. It's also one of the most toxic to warm-blooded animals and it's readily absorbed through the skin. (Wear gloves when applying it, follow label directions and keep pets away from application areas.) It breaks down quickly, however, so it is legally acceptable to use on organically grown crops.

---

SourceHBD

Any evidence for any of this?The last three time I forgot my sunglasses at home it became very sunny later in the day. Therefore, I should conclude that leaving my sunglasses at home causes clouds to go away and the sun to shine.I know a woman who swears that chiropractic manipulation has gotten here acid reflux under control. She just takes the pills to help, but it is the chiropractor that is really responsible for it being better. Only one variable that you know of. Lies? No, but correlation is not causation.

You are correct on the ad hominem, but how about you do not rely on YouTube videos but actual controlled laboratory experiments. What variables did Jeffrey Smith control for, how are we sure that outside influences had no effect. As we always ask Creationists, where is the peer reviewed scientific literature showing these same results? How do we know that is the only varible changed in Jeffrey Smith's video? Could the individuals have made other lifestyle changes as well, such as increased exercise or reduction in the amount of sodium or the fact that removing GMOs removes a large portion of processed foods from the diet? Would replacing GMO processed foods with non-GMO processed foods still show the same effect? Where is the research paper that shows these results in a controlled study? If it works for you, more power to you. I am not aiming to remove organic or conventional agriculture to go full on GMO. GMO is a tool that serves specific purposes, it is not a hammer in a world full of nails. The question would be, how are you unable to find products that do not contain the GMOs with the current system of voluntary labeling? Are the organic and Project GMO-Free labels not enough?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Let's forget what the tobacco companies said...What did the science in the peer reviewed journals say at that time?

I did slightly misunderstand your position and my apologies for that. An interesting aside that someone got me thinking of on this specific point last night. Big Ag is controlling the industry, but not through the means that any of us expect or that most anti-GMO groups claim. When trangenics were introduced, it was Big Agriculture (Monsanto, DuPont, et al) that requested they be regulated under the FDA. Since then, they have actually requested more strict scrutiny because it decreases competition in the industry...currently, it costs approximately 120 million dollars and ten years to get from R&D through regulation. This minimizes the amount of smaller companies that can come in and compete with the big dogs. I am finally starting to hear for scientifically based and trait based regulations, similar to what Canada does, but as long as the cost is this high to find success, start-ups will have a difficult time competing in the industry with the Big 6. Lies, Damn Lies and Genetic Engineering

I think this is one of the most important points brought up in this thread so far! Even as a staunch GM supporter, I see the benefits that organic agricultural practices have brought about also. I think our best plan would be to integrate the two systems and use the portions that work the best in each area....call it the modern synthesis of farming, if you will....Crop rotation, IPM, specified built-in resistance, among many other options! If only there weren't such fervor based in pseudoscience on the topic.Awesome that you may end up working for Monsanto, from my understanding they were just voted the eighth best multinational corporation to work for in the world. I'm actually considering going there and applying for operations as from my understanding they are willing to cross train employees in biotechnology as well.

Tempe 12ft writes: I have no idea how you got "mandatory" out of my suggestion. In fact, it is exactly parallel to labeling foods Kosher or Organic.You let the consumer decide. Free market and all.

I think my misunderstanding of you is the fault of the current demands for mandatory labeling of products. I think the current system that allows voluntary labeling of organic (which cannot use Genetic Engineering) and Project GMO-Free is sufficient for consumers to make an informed choice. I have not seen any instance where an Anti-GMO individual was okay with voluntary labeling and I am trying to figure out why. Are you content with the current voluntary system?The Project GMO-Free label was approved, IIRC, earlier this year and there are still some kinks to work out in the verification process, but it seems to solve the issue that mandatory labeling is trying to solve without changing the reason we use mandatory labels, for nutritional differences.Are you saying, GMO companies should voluntarily label their foods "Contains GMOs"? I would agree if it wasn't for the misinformation campaign by the organic industry. However, choosing to do so now would risk the technology being abandoned, which risks the advancements that could be made to safe lives around the world. If people can properly educate themselves on the topic and learn the actual benefits and risks, then the label would lose its negative connotation. However, the organic movement leaders have admitted the only reason they fight for labeling is so they can organize people to not purchase the products. It is a means to end the industry of transgenics.

You do realize he said that they should just label the non-GMO stuff, right?