Skip to main content

Apparently $34.4 million in pesticide and junk food money can’t buy the opponents of Proposition 37 their own set of facts.

Case in point: A new L.A. Times poll shows Prop 37 winning by more than a 2-to-1 margin among registered California voters. And, according to the recent Pepperdine poll the opposition's support actually dropped four points over the past two weeks.

So while their treasure trove of special interest money can pay for an endless supply of tired, discredited talking points, it can’t seem to convince consumers we don’t deserve to know what’s in the food we eat.

It’s not hard to understand why. The companies bankrolling the opposition campaign – including pesticide giants Monsanto ($7.2 million) and Dupont ($4.9 million) – will say and spend anything to prevent the kind of transparency that labeling of genetically modified foods (GMO’s) would provide. And without transparency there can be no accountability.

Here ARE a few facts: A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks, increased pesticide use, biodiversity loss, the emergence of “super bugs” and  “super weeds" and the unintentional contamination of conventional crops.

What Prop 37 will do is add a line of ink to a label -- as is currently required for 3,000 other ingredients -- so consumers know which products have been altered in a laboratory.  That’s why the vast majority of Californians support this common-sense measure, and it’s why 50 other countries already require that GMOs be labeled.

But that’s not all: This summer, Monsanto began selling its first GMO sweet corn product at Walmart. The sweet corn is engineered to withstand the herbicide Roundup and also contains an insecticide (Bt toxin) within the cells of the corn.

Are your children eating Monsanto's latest concoction? You won’t know because we don’t require labeling. In response to Walmart’s decision to undermine the will of its customers, the Yes on 37 campaign released a new ad highlighting the fact that California children are eating unlabeled GMO sweet corn without their parents knowing it.

And now, the recently published (in the highly regarded journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology), first long-term, peer-reviewed animal study involving GMO corn found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. The findings have prompted the French government to call for an investigation into GMOs, and Russia to suspend imports of GMO corn.

The study was roundly criticized by Monsanto’s band of scientists, who were out in force trying to discredit the study design – but what they failed to mention is that Monsanto’s own studies that supposedly indicate “safety” are based on the same study design: similar size study, same rats. The only real differences are the French study was free of industry influence and pressure, was more comprehensive and stringent, and was long-term rather than short.

The most shocking thing of all about the French study is that it is the first long-term feeding study on genetically engineered corn that has been on the American market for more than 15 years. So where’s the science? The reason we have been denied such critical information is that biotech companies like Monsanto have controlled and suppressed research.

We need, and deserve, more independent research in this area. In the meantime, we have a right to know and to decide for ourselves whether we want to eat Monsanto's corn. Prop 37 will give us that right.

Help our David campaign take on their Goliath, by fueling our grassroots effort and Contribute here, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  just label it! (5+ / 0-)

    then the consumer can decide what they want to eat. It's hard to argue against such a simple proposition.

    The opposition is spending 32 million to make it seem complicated and scary. Just so they don't have to honestly label their products like they already are required to do in 50 other countries.

    Californians, vote for your right to know, yes on Prop 37.

    working for a world that works for everyone ...

    by USHomeopath on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:08:37 PM PDT

  •  Yes, yes, yes! (3+ / 0-)

    I got to watch that documentary http://geneticroulettemovie.com/ Genetic Roulette for free last week and there was something in there that really shocked me about ingesting bT.

    • First they've found that some bacterias in our own gut may be replicating bT.
    • This bT can cause perforations in our small intestine.
    • Partially digested food leaks out of our small intestine and into our abdomen.
    • Our antibodies have to get rid of this food, which can cause then to attack that food all the time resulting in an allergy to that very food.

    This link can explain the huge rise in allergies to simple, normal food. Creepy.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/...

    "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

    by Crider on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:35:48 PM PDT

  •  Small list of GMO problems (4+ / 0-)

    Jill Richardson over at La Vida Locavore compiled this list. a while ago. Notice how much of it is from Europe. That's because Monsanto won't release their seeds for research here in the US (you must sign a contract with them to buy their seeds here in the US).

    AgroNews. 2011. India: Signs of food toxicity in GE eggplant. Scoop.co.nz 2011-1-18. Nib, 24 Jnuary 111.

    Bellaloui, N., reddy, K.N., Zablotowicz, R.M., Abbas, H.K., and Abel, C.A. 2009. Effects of glyphosate application on seed iron and root ferric (III) reductase in soybean cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57:9569-9574.

    Bott, S., Tesfamariam, T., Kania, A., Eman, B., Aslan, N., Roemheld, V., and Neumann, G. 2011, Phytotoxicity of glyphosate soil residues re-mobilised by phosphate fertilization. Plant Soil 315:2-11. DOI 10, 1007/s11104-010-06989-3.

    Cakmak, I., Yazici, A., Tutus, Y., Ozturk, L. 2009. Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf concentrations of calcium, magnesium, manganese, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant soybean. European J. Agron. 31:114-119.

    Datnoff, L.E., elmer, W.H., and Huber, D.M. 2007. Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease. APS Press, St. Paul, Mn. 278. 278 pages.

    Eker, S., Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Erenoglu, B., Roemheld, V., and Cakmak, I. 2006. Foliar-applied glyphosate substantially reduced uptake and transport of iron and manganese in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:100019-10025.

    Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., and Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian Prairies. European J. Agon. 31:133-143.

    Johal, G.R. and Rahe, J.E. 1984. Effect of soilborne plant-pathogenic fungi on the herbicidal action of glyphosate on bean seedlings. Phytopathology 74:950-955.

    Johal, G.R. and Rahe, J.E. 1990. Role of phytoalexins in the suppression of resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris to Colletotrichum lindemuthianum by glyphosate. Canad. J. Plant Pathol. 12:225-235.

    Johal, G.R. and Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants. European J. Agron. 31:144-152.

    Kremer, R.J. and Means, N.E. 2009. Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms. European J. Agron. 31:153-161.

    Larsen, R.L., Hill, A.L., Fenwick, A., Kniss, A.R., Hanson, L.E., and Miller, S.D. 2006. Influence of glyphosate on Rhizoctonia and Fusarium root rot in sugar beet. Pest Manag. Sci. 62:1182-1192.

    Ozturk, L., Yazici, A., Eker, S., gokmen, O., roemheld, V., and Cakmak, I. 2008. Glyphosate inhibition of ferric reductase activity in iron deficient sunflower roots. New Phytol. 177:899-906.

    Schafer, J.R., Westhoven, A.M., Kruger, G.R., Davis, V.M., Hallett, S.G., and Johnson, W.G. 2009. Effect of growth media on common lambsquarter and giant ragweed biotypes response to glyphosate. Proc. Northcentral Weed Sci. Soc. 64:102.

    Schafer, J.R., Hallett, S.G., and Johnson, W.G. 2010. Role of soil-borne fungi in the response of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) biotypes to glyphosate. Proc. Northcentral Weed Sci. Soc. 65:.

    Seralini, G-E., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendomois, J.S., Cellier, D. 2011. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environ. Sci. Europe 23:10-20. http://www.enveurope.com/...

    Tesfamariam, T., Bott, S., Cakmak, I., Roemheld, V., and Neumann, G. 2009. Glyphosate in the rhizosphere - role of waiting times and different glyphosate binding forms in soils for phytoxicity to non-target plants. European J. Agron. 31:126-132.

    Yamada, T., Kremer, R.J., Camargo e Castro, P.R., and Wood, B.W. 2009. Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability? European J. Agron. 31:111-113.

    Zobiole, L.H.S., Oliveira, R.S.Jr., Huber, D.M., Constantin, J., Castro, C., Oliveira, F.A., Oliveira, A. Jr. 2010. Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Plant Soil 328:57-69.

    Zobiole, L.H.S., Oliveira, R.S. Jr., Kremer, R.J., Constantin, J., Yamada, T., Castro, C., Oliveiro, F.A., and Oliveira, A. Jr. 2010. Effect of glyposate on symbiotic N2 fixation and nickel concentration in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Applied Soil Ecol. 44:176-180.

    "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

    by Crider on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:42:19 PM PDT

  •  American shoppers deserve full info, for the "free (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, USHomeopath, Crider, KenBee

    market," that corporations and Republicans venerate, to function.

    There is NO free market if buyers are in the dark about what's in the products. There is no logic that supports withholding information from consumers.

    The only logic at work is that SOME corporations have bet on their political power to prevent consumers from finding out. Other economic interests have no dog in this fight, or stand to profit as consumers turn toward more natural and safer foods and products.

    Thanks to California for leading the way.
    VOTE YES on Prop 37!

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:43:44 PM PDT

  •  Would passage have nationwide impact? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crider, KenBee

    Given the size of the California market, would food producers make California-only labels, or would they comply with California law and just use the same labels nationwide?

    It's like when California established stronger pollution-controls on vehicles sold in the state, carmakers were faced with the proposition of making California-only cars, or making all of their cars able to meet the stricter standards of the state.

    (California resident household, with 2 people voting in favor. Another interesting point.... We belong to an organic-farm food delivery service out of Capay, Farm Fresh to You, and they are now putting pro-37 messages into the vegetable boxes they deliver. In addition, we have seen pro-37 signs up at the Whole Foods Market we shop at.)

    I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was. -- Mitt the Twit

    by Senor Unoball on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:48:20 PM PDT

    •  Maybe we'll see what happened with milk. At first (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider, KenBee

      the government supported the big milk producers who fought labeling. But as shoppers simply demanded the information and no-BGH alternatives from grocery stores, smaller producers saw an advantage. Milk suppliers (farmers) came up with a no BGH "pledge" and dairies put that on their labels instead,

      so CONSUMERS could make an informed choice of how to spend their own money.

      Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

      by Catskill Julie on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:18:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So many reasons this needs to pass (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, Crider

    First off, everything Crider and Jill cited. Watch the film Bitter Seeds, too, for an idea of the human cost of this technology.

    May I add that transgenic GE is obsolete dangerous technology. It should have never gotten into the food supply to start with. It should have been taken off about 15 years ago when research like the human genome project showed that they had totally false assumptions about the number of genes and how they and the so-called "junk dna" actually behave.

    There are much safer better ways to use genetic markers to select desirable characteristics in a plant without blasting it with viral, bacterial and foreign dna.

    The idiotic opposition ad shows this guy asking plaintively "why is my steak not labeled and my dog's food is?" Gee, ever look at the list of ingredients on pet food? You know, like soy and corn based additives and fillers? So far it's not possible for your steak to even be GE because we don't have GE cows that have been given a peppermint gene so their BS doesn't stink. Same goes for the shills at UC Davis and the Chamber of Commerce.

  •  Monsanto can go die (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, Crider

    They're also working on preventing rBST-free milk from being labelled as such.  Where is the informed consent so beloved by libertarians?  It just goes to show the alleged free market is no such thing.

  •  Ugh, no. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MoGemStone

    So much wrong in here.  I plan on putting up a full diary in response, but for starters:

    The bill has nothing to do with, and won't effect, the alleged problem of accidental seed contamination.  In fact California already has laws in place to protect small farmers against such cases.

    And if we're talking about who's bankrolling whom, it's worth pointing out that the biggest contributor to Yes on 37 is the anti-vaccer, AIDS-denying Mercola.   This entire effort isn't about "right to choose", it's about a fringe anti-science movement trying to scare people.

    Worse, the recent GMO study you're touting hasn't been rejected by "Monsanto's band of scientists", but by any scientist with half a brain to see it for what it was: an awful study specifically constructed around politics rather than science.  That this study is being promoted on this site is almost HR-worthy in itself.  We might as well be building an anti-vaccination movement while we're at it.

    This is an embarrassment.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 06:19:06 PM PDT

    •  What's wrong with labeling? If your POV is right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider

      then people will decide to buy the food and products. But if someone simply does not want to buy GMO products, for whatever reason--even a stupid reason--they have that right.

      Consumers have a right to know, in order to decide how to spend their own money.

      There is just no good reason for enforced ignorance.

      Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

      by Catskill Julie on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:08:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because it's a concession to ignorance, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MoGemStone

        not the reverse.  "GMO" on a label doesn't tell you anything at all about the product - you might as well say "contains chemicals", which is equally true and equally meaningless.  Would you support that kind of label, as stupid as it is?  Would you defend "contains chemicals" with a "right to know" argument?  It doesn't make sense.

        Some individual GM products might be worth labeling as such, but for the specific ways they diverge from non-GM versions of the same product.  That's very different than what this proposition is doing.  That's moving from "contains chemicals" to something like "contains MSG", or an equally meaningless "contains allergens" to something like "contains dairy".   The Yes on 37 movement hasn't done any of that kind of necessary work, because their goal is to scare people away from GMOs.  That's embarrassing for us, and it's sadly going to pass easily.

         

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:19:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "We know best, you don't need to bother your (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crider

          little head about it?"

          their goal is to scare people away from GMOs.
          Some people do not want GMO food. They're willing to pay more and go the extra lengths not to support that kind of "progress." That. is. their. right.

          It's indefensible for the government to force people to buy a product they do not want by preventing labeling. Enforced ignorance so some producers can sell their product? What about non-GMO producers? Why is their economic interest less valid?  

          Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

          by Catskill Julie on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:33:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is their right to be stupid. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MoGemStone

            It's not their right to write it into the state constitution.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:42:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  okay, that was a bit much. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MoGemStone

              Calmer version: the label is meaningless so the right to know issue is moot. If it's so wildly important to know, producers who don't use GMO will advertise it. Which they do. This doesn't need to be a constitutional issue in CA's already screwed up Prop system.

              Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

              by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:06:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I want to know so I can associate what has been (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Crider

            happening to me for the last few years at increasingly more painful and life threatening ways when I eat any corn product. Corn which is 90% GMO. Corn syrup, corn starch, corn meal, corn flour, corn silk, corn oil... The first time I became aware of what was potentially causing my problems was when our AC went on the blink during a heat wave. I bought talc and liberally slathered it on my skin only to develop bleeding holes whereever my sweat didn't wash it away. I looked at the label and it wasn't talc , it was corn starch...You ever eat  something and 20 minutes later your bowels open up like you just died... Then gone back to find out if it was the toast, the spread, the eggs or the bacon (none of which has given any problem before or since) and what it was cooked in only to find out they use corn oil... How about eating an ear of corn only to be in extreme pain within 30 min and continuing as it traveled through your gut only to have a 3.5" blood blister form on your lower abdomen...followed by black stools with mucus flush with raw blood.

            I want to know what I am eating so I can avoid anything that gives me freaking symptoms...I am not waiting for those vested in the science or technology to tell me "sorry we were wrong" because I doubt that I will be here. I am sick of them saying to trust them ... yeah like the scientists who defended cigarettes or some prescription drugs that have killed or injured people. Label it so I can know or I make all my own stuff and grow all my own stuff and become even more firmly in the anti-GMO camp because like with Romneys taxes I want to know what they are hiding. This associating it with anti-vaccine is bullshit and trying to humiliate people into silence and in my case potential death.  I am not a frigging feed lot animal to be fed anything and have my money taken for products they are afraid to define.

            Fuck em.. I read labels and pay attention to chemicals too... I can look them up on line which I do since I have problem with nickel, betadine (iodine) and sulfa compounds. My skin and the inside of my mouth warn me and if I ginore my gut begins shedding and bleeding. So screw this it is unscientific crap... You are not allowing people to build a data bank through knowledge which to me means you are afraid of what may be discovered and what you have unleashed. If not label it.

            How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

            by boophus on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:46:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's not GMO: (0+ / 0-)

              that's something specific to the strain of corn you were eating.  And as I said above, that's why GMO labeling doesn't help you: a consumer who has the same or a similar condition to you will have no idea what products are safe or not, because "GMO" doesn't mean anything.  'Naturally' bred strains of crops are just as likely to have dangerous side effects, if not more so, because of the enormous amount of genetic chance that comes out of 'natural' crossbreeding: that's why plants within the same close family are sometimes edible, sometimes not.   No GMO needed.  

              If your condition is linked to a specific strain of corn, that is a concern, but it has nothing to do with e.g. labeling a GMO potato that people have been eating for thirty years with no averse effects whatsoever.  

              Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

              by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:21:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Or a better example: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MoGemStone

        remember the kerfuffle in a few Southern states over the required caveat added to their science textbooks: "Evolution is only a theory".  We (rightly) attacked them for the blatantly anti-science attempt to undercut the study of evolution in their textbooks.

        They responded: "But evolution is a theory, so why are you attacking us for telling students the truth?"

        This is like that.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:24:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is such Bullshit to equate it with that... Do (0+ / 0-)

          you earn a living in GMOs since you wnat to force people to have no choice.

          How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

          by boophus on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:49:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two points: (0+ / 0-)

            1. Why is it bullshit, given that it's the same argument?
            2. You realize that, per kos himself, making that accusation is bannable?

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:22:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Face it, GMO crops aren't worth as much as (0+ / 0-)

          real crops. On an open market, buyers will prefer non-GMO corn, soy, canola, sugar, etc.

          GMO is down to feed-grade prices in a FREE market, like Europe because human beings don't want it of their own free will. Monsanto would lose tremendous market share, and they would lose sales of Round Up. They want to keep us in the dark so that their crap can sell for the same price as other food-grade commodities.

          Don't give any more crap about bad research. I've posted a whole slew of research about the harm GMOs and their companion glycosphate does to plants, animals and the environment.

          If you want to boost your food profits, grow something people want.

          "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

          by Crider on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:07:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "In an open market" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MoGemStone

            The market is open: growers can advertise non-GMO crops if they so choose.  The benefit is marginal, so they don't, unless they're organic and think they get enough out of the label to justify it.  

            There's no reason we can't be cynical in both directions here: the people behind 37 are organic farmers who know they'll benefit economically, and the people opposed are GMO farmers who know that it'll hurt them.   Except Prop 37 also has the anti-science contingent as its primary funder, because exactly the kind of proposition it is.

            I'll give a look to your research list, but I can tell you that the opening paragraph is already wrong: Monsanto has allowed open private sector research on its seeds for years now.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:33:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, the market is running on fraud (0+ / 0-)

              There's packaged food producers that advertise they're non-GMO and are doing quite will. Like Trader Joe's house brand for one. Kettle Chips in the junk food sphere.

              Proposition 37 is for the benefit of the public much more than it is for the benefit of farmers, when you look at the sheer numbers of people that would benefit from having the truth on their food labels.

              And, no, Monsanto will not allow research on their seeds. Their idiot contract isn't effective in many parts of the EU, and that's the only place research is getting done. The only research allowed by Monsanto in the US is that which will be complimentary to their GMOs and their herbicide.

              Tell me, why are you afraid of the labeling? How money will you lose if GMO products are revealed — forced to step out from under their rock?

              "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

              by Crider on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:30:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No: (0+ / 0-)
                And, no, Monsanto will not allow research on their seeds.
                This is factually incorrect.   You may not like the research it's produced, but science doesn't care about ideology.  

                How is the market "running on fraud" if companies are doing fine by advertising themselves as GMO-free?  Doesn't that make the idea of a constitutionally-required labeling regime even more moot?  

                I already outlined my problem with labeling, for the same reason I have a problem with the "evolution is only a theory" label.   It's a meaningless label at the behest of people who don't understand the basic science behind what they're asking for.  I think that's plenty embarrassing enough.

                Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:14:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why do you refuse to provide an example? (0+ / 0-)

                  And, no, Monsanto will not allow research on their seeds. Their idiot contract isn't effective in many parts of the EU, and that's the only place research is getting done. The only research allowed by Monsanto in the US is that which will be complimentary to their GMOs and their herbicide.

                  "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

                  by Crider on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 08:07:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Two points: (0+ / 0-)

                    1. What do you want an example of?  Research on their products?  Or only research on their products that specifically makes their products look bad as 'evidence' that they're not controlling it?  That doesn't make any sense.  But if you want, run the search terms through Google Scholar and just try to sift through all the studies that are being done on GM and transgenic crops.   I have no idea how, e.g., the University of Illinois is running studies on insect resistance to Bt in GM corn if Monsanto is allegedly blocking them from doing so.  That was literally hit 1 out of some 12,000.

                    What you haven't shown is that Monsanto blocks any non-complimentary research, which I haven't been able to find outside of a few editorials by interest groups, which, fine, but that's not exactly strong evidence.  Meanwhile I'm looking for concrete examples of how research has been 'blocked', and... Who do I find at the top of the list?  Seralini.  The guy who wrote the atrocious study mentioned in this diary.  I certainly hope he's not your source for anything.

                    2. "The only real research" = "Only true Scotsmen".  

                    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                    by pico on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 10:21:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That was a positive study you showed (0+ / 0-)
                      Our results showed that Bt-pollen drift has little impact on the evolution of Bt resistance in O. nubilalis.
                      Isn't that wonderful? Let's buy some Bt seed!

                      By the way, that atrocious study was pilloried with crude ad homonyms and little else.

                      And, from the LA Times:

                      This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how.

                      . . .

                      Whatever the reasons, the results are clear: Public sector research has been blocked. In 2009, 26 university entomologists -- bug scientists -- wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency protesting restricted access to seeds. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops," they wrote.

                      Christian Krupke, a Purdue University entomologist who signed the letter, put it more succinctly to a reporter for a scientific journal. "Industry is completely driving the bus," he said.

                      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

                      by Crider on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 11:29:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  *sigh* (0+ / 0-)

                        What you found wrong with the study is that the results weren't sufficiently negative for your approval? (It actually dealt with different rates of pesticide immunity, assuming you bothered with it.)  That's it, then.  You have no interest in this topic: you wearing confirmation bias proudly on your sleeve.  I can't believe you actually wrote this:

                        By the way, that atrocious study was pilloried with crude ad homonyms and little else.
                        Which only tells me that you haven't bothered with it.  And in return, you post an editorial whose only concrete complaint comes from before Monsanto changed its policies and allowed groups, like university entomologists, to publish studies on entomology like the one from 2012 that I linked above.  From university entomologists.  Who no longer have the problem they had in three years ago.  Because of the policy change you say isn't sufficient.  Argh.

                        Seriously.  This is farce.  I'm done with this conversation, because you're not interested in actually having one.

                        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                        by pico on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 11:39:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Here, by the way, (0+ / 0-)

                        is the "little else" that Seralini's study was pilloried with:

                        - no outside comment;
                        - unusually small control group;
                        - too many parameters to avoid random chance positives;
                        - statistical analysis based on a unique in-house (rather than widely-used or accepted) model;
                        - no confidence intervals reported for mortality data;
                        - no power analysis for experimental parameters;
                        - no blinding of any kind (!!!);
                        - not all data reported

                        There's even more than that in Orac's post, but any two or three of that list alone should cause little red alarms to go off.   And that's not even getting into the more extensive, technical criticisms he links here, here, and here, for starters.

                        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                        by pico on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 11:54:22 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Because the defenders have a vested interest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crider

        and don't want to allow people to begin associating problems with products. Far better to let them die in ignorance because the defenders who I knew would show up and claim knowing what you are eating is anti-science... See if they're not watching blooming bleeding sores open up on thier skin or eat  some thing and crap blood for 3 weeks then we mustn't interfer by demanding labels because we are all unscientifdic as them... Whats a few deaths if they keep thier jobs and investments flowing?

        How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

        by boophus on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:26:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          goobop

          why pour all this money into this? If it were so innocuous, there would be no need for Monsanto, etc., to even be concerned. This is a case of they protest too much. There is most certainly something going on with GMO crops and it isn't good.

          "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

          by azureblue on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:36:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's because it drives away low-information (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MoGemStone

            consumers.   The corporations are looking at their profit margins and deciding that enough people will choose not to buy their product because of the scary label that they don't understand.  That's a perfectly innocuous reason to oppose it.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:25:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thank You .... (0+ / 0-)

    may I re-publish to my local Democratic Club website?

    JON

    "Upward, not Northward" - Flatland, by EA Abbott

    by linkage on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 06:30:50 PM PDT

  •  Just a touch of reality (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico

    This post contradicts itself, and important claims are bogus.

    The link 'discredited talking points', debunking special interests advocating Prop37, contrasts with the link 'peer-reviewed animal study', which cites:

    "Long term toxicity of a Roundup..." - Seralini, et al.

    - itself an exercise in special interest manipulation. Slate has this characterization: "Seralini and his co-authors manipulated some members of the media to prevent outside scrutiny of their study." Subsequent links are more specific:

    "...to provide advance copies of the study, which purported to find that a large increase in tumors in the GMO-crop and herbicide exposed rodents ... journalists would sign an agreement not to show the paper to any other scientists for comment."

    Slate also noted, "Within 24 hours, the study's credibility was shredded by scores of scientists. The consensus judgment was swift and damning: The study was riddled with errors—serious, blatantly obvious flaws... Many critics pointed out that the researchers chose a strain of rodents extremely prone to tumors."

    Labeling would be especially useful if consumers understood genetics and biochemistry. The public knows so very little about genetic modification, and much of what it reads uses that to leverage fear. The fact is that EVERY food is genetically modified. Even human DNA has a significant portion derived from bacteria. The very specific and selective modifications introduced intentionally are far less concern than the natural random modifications by a number of different mechanisms.

    The corn which people are so concerned about for its genetic modification did not even look like corn many hundreds of years ago. People have been genetically modifying it for a very long time.

    I advocate complete openness of research, consumer labeling, etc. - by ALL parties. Until then, scare tactics and secrecy will serve the public interest poorly.

    -bent tube, one arm of which was the size of a pipe-stem and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. -discussion equalizes fools and wise men in the same way, and the fools know it. OW Holmes

    by MoGemStone on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:43:10 PM PDT

    •  The claim we have been genetically modifying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider

      plants for thousands of years is disingenuous at the least. I grew up on farms and we did not insert frog genes or genes to produce chemicals into the genetic material. We selected plants that exhibited certain characterisitcs and grew them. If two plants had a characteristic we liked we tried crossbreeding them... I never went out and fucked a hog.  

      This reminds me of all the research and trick slearned once we discovered radiation and created the bomb... It was going to change the world and those who could earn a living or make a killing jumped in and got defensive of the tech. Didn't want people to know because they might panic having nuclear test upwind of thier home being such ignorant unscientific types.

      How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

      by boophus on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:56:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is a good example ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pico

        ... of how poor is the public's comprehension of genetics. It is also a good example of careless reading. My comments were not about farmers breeding of plants & animals. It certainly wasn't about the very intimate cross-breeding that boophus thought of. We did not get bacteria DNA by such means. And teosintes became maize by rather more intense genetic modifications than just breeding.

        -bent tube, one arm of which was the size of a pipe-stem and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. -discussion equalizes fools and wise men in the same way, and the fools know it. OW Holmes

        by MoGemStone on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:09:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re-read pico 'Ugh, no.' (0+ / 0-)

    He provides a detailed link discussing the science involved in this discussion.

    A subsequent link identifies the likely agent of rat pathology - the researchers' careless exposure of rat subjects to BPA, a well-established pathogenic agent.

    The particular rats used as subjects have a special susceptibility to BPA.

    This is EXACTLY the vetting that peer-review would have (routinely does) offer. The data practically screamed that something was amiss. This study should never again be cited by GM food opponents. Any validity which they can offer to public dialogue is damaged by association with this low-quality research.

    -bent tube, one arm of which was the size of a pipe-stem and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. -discussion equalizes fools and wise men in the same way, and the fools know it. OW Holmes

    by MoGemStone on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:36:46 PM PDT

  •  Watch: Maher and Maddow Support Labeling (0+ / 0-)

    This is greaof Mt! Check out this fantastic footage of Maher and Maddow making the case for labeling:

    http://www.youtube.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site