Skip to main content

The science deniers of the world, whether they deny evolution, global warming, vaccines, or GMO safety, spend their time inventing pseudoscience to support their beliefs and claims. As I wrote a few weeks ago, “Pseudoscience is easy. It doesn’t take work. It’s the lazy man’s (or woman’s) “science.” But it has no value, and because it lacks high quality evidence in support of it, it should be dismissed, and it should not be a part of the conversation.”

Alternatively, real science is really hard. And it takes time. And it’s based on high quality evidence. And it is repeated. And it is almost always published in high quality journals. As I’ve said a thousand times, real science takes hard work and is intellectually challenging. You just don’t wake up one day and say “I’m a scientist.” No, it requires college, graduate school, teaching, working in world class laboratories, publishing, defending your ideas to your peers, and one day, if you don’t stop, you will be an authority in your little field of science.

The anti-GMO crowd is mostly lazy. They have this luddite belief that all technology is bad, but have absolutely no evidence to support it. Sure, they pick out one or two poorly done articles and then shout for all the world to hear “GMO’s are dangerous to…bees, humans, babies, whales, trees” over and over and over again.  Yet what do the GMO refusers really bring to the table?

Without really trying (though it took several days to read through the articles), I found 112 peer-reviewed articles, mostly published in moderate to high impact factor journals that support the safety of GMO crops over a wide range of hypotheses: from transgenic particles in bovine milk to how non targeted insects survive (or don’t). I found several meta reviews, which, as I’ve said before, are the highest quality sources of evidence. None of this research was sponsored by corporations, and frankly, I didn’t have enough time to read all those articles in addition to the ones included here. I even went to the effort to find the 2012 Impact Factors for each of the journals, so you know the quality of the journal. Note that impact factors, though I rely on them, are an imperfect measurement, much like a batting average for a baseball player doesn’t fully explain the skills that he may or may not have.

There were hundreds of other articles I could have included. But these are the ones I judged to be the best. And if you add up all of the conclusions written, a consensus forms. And that is that GMO’s are generally safe. There will be no transgenic DNA in your glass of milk. The transgenic DNA isn’t going to be absorbed through your intestine and cause some autoimmune reaction.

BUT, if the GMO refusers want to provide real scientific evidence that something does happen, I’ll be glad to read it. But be forewarned, if it is junk science, I will call it junk science, like Gilles-Eric Séralini et al.’s paper about GMO corn causing cancer. Except it was poorly designed, utilized bad statistics, and really provided no evidence whatsoever for anything except that Séralini is an incompetent scientist.

Science has provided substantial evidence supporting the assertion that GMO’s are safe. GMO refusers have provided precious little evidence, save for Cherry Picking, Special Pleading, and a few Strawman Arguments. Oh, and the occasional Poisoning the Well with the Big Agra shill accusations. Like I said in another article, “The typical pseudoscientist will use logical fallacies to state very definitively that “it’s proven.” It’s the same whether it’s creationism (the belief that some magical being created the world some small number of years ago), alternative medicine (homeopathy, which is nothing but water, has magical properties to cure everything from cancer to male pattern baldness), or vaccine denialists. The worst problem is that in the world of the internet, if you Google these beliefs, the number of websites and hits that seem to state that they are THE TRUTH™ overwhelm those that are more skeptical or critical.”

But the most important thing is that science isn’t a vote based on the number of papers published. But when the consensus is so heavily weighted to the safety of GMO’s, it’s hard to see anything but a landslide. Now, I know that the typical GMO refuser will cherry pick a couple of poorly designed studies and try to refute all of these. Or they’ll read one or two of the articles, and pick out a sentence that might say “GMO fields showed slightly less insect activity than unused land” (while ignoring all of the other sentences).

You’re asserting that GMO’s are dangerous. Provide evidence. And it better be published in a relatively high impact journal.

See full list of citations here.

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

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    Skepticism is evaluating the quality and quantity of evidence to reach a conclusion. It is not gathering evidence to support a closed minded conclusion.

    by SkepticalRaptor on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:01:24 PM PDT

  •  Science is Science (7+ / 0-)

    Great post!

    It is great to see posts supporting the science behind vaccines and climate change, etc., but to see them next to articles bashing GMOs doesn't make much sense.

    •  As I noted below (0+ / 0-)

      since many of the concerns that lead people to bash GMOs aren't scientific in nature (i.e. the concerns aren't about the safety of them, but the political, economic and legal implications of them), maybe having them next to each other might make more sense.

      Science is straight-forward.  But the issues of concern around GMOs aren't.  They are about the further industrialization of our food production and about the corporatization of same.

      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
      ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Wed May 14, 2014 at 04:32:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  False association and preposterously false (19+ / 0-)

    conclusion.  Science does not and cannot say any such thing any more than it can say all surgeries are safe. Just as there are vast numbers of unknown surgeries of unknown types under unknown conditions on unknown subjects yet to be performed n the future, the GMO industry is in its ifancy and most GMO's haven't even been envisioned yet. Their safety cannot be known whatsoever.

    Those scientists who are proponents of GMOs got together to draft a definitive statement on the safety of GMOs and all they could say, without real evidentiary basis due to the lack of meaningful long-term testing against a sufficiently broad spectrum of subjects, is that they don't believe that they ae any more dfangerous than natural hybridization.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:27:15 PM PDT

    •  And yet. (4+ / 0-)

      We're happily eating those naturally hybridized plants/animals. Why aren't anti-GMO up in arms about that?
      Also, not all GMO are the same. Gene transfer between, say, plants are essentially more controlled form of hybridization (so we can actually know what made it in, instead of playing lottery with gene). Gene transfer between plant and animal is another. Some gene modification just "shut-off" certain genes that already exist (don't know example in agriculture yet).

    •  Heh- from the diary (7+ / 0-)
      And if you add up all of the conclusions written, a consensus forms. And that is that GMO’s are generally safe.
      ...and from your comment
      Science does not and cannot say any such thing any more than it can say all surgeries are safe.
      The diarist makes no claim that all GMO foods will be safe for all people. ( That's actually something that's true of non-GMO foods- ask anybody with a peanut allergy).

      You're rebutting a claim that no-one has made.

      And to have mentioned it

      Those scientists who are proponents of GMOs got together to draft a definitive statement on the safety of GMOs
      Umm...actual science doesn't work that way. You are claiming that all of these scientists decided their position first, and then cherry-picked evidence to support. That's not how science, or scientists, work.

      That's how psuedo-science works, and I'm afraid that you've just clearly indicated which flavor of "science" you prefer.

      •  Uh, I think I wan't clear enough: (5+ / 0-)
        Umm...actual science doesn't work that way. You are claiming that all of these scientists decided their position first, and then cherry-picked evidence to support. That's not how science, or scientists, work.

        That's how psuedo-science works, and I'm afraid that you've just clearly indicated which flavor of "science" you prefer.

        I was stating a historical fact, not a preference. That actually happened, though I forget the name of the conference or the report.

        I do understand science, very well, which is why I object to preposterous bullshit like the following:

        What does science say about GMO’s–they’re safe
        A claim that you say nobody ever made even when it is the diary title, which is typical of the bait and switch arguments used to foster the myth that labelling GMO products is a bad idea.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:59:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, the general term "safe" indicates (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock, Justanothernyer

          safe for most people under most circumstances.

          Nobody ever claimed that it was impossible for anybody to hurt themselves with a GMO food.
          For instance, Teddy Bears kill about 22 people in the US every year.

          I don't think that anyone would object to the statement

          Teddy Bears are Safe
          Can we agree that, as far as the actual data-crunching done so far, that GMO foods are safer than Teddy Bears?
          I was stating a historical fact, not a preference. That actually happened, though I forget the name of the conference or the report
          I'm sure that you've seen that reported. I'm also quite sure that it's not true.

          That would be an extraordinary claim. May we see your extraordinary evidence?

          •  Just label them already. (9+ / 0-)

            What is the problem with that?

            We all get to chose the types of foods and ingredients therein that we desire and that we deem healthy for us.

            Slap that big 'Contains GMO's' label on the thing and be done with it.

            'How like fish we are: ready, nay, eager, to seize upon whatever new thing.......And how we rue our haste, finding the gilded morsel to contain a hook". ALDO LEOPOLD - A Sand County Almanac

            by flowerfarmer on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:29:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't have a problem with that. (2+ / 0-)

              Not sure why you'd think I would.

              My issue is with religion masquerading as science ( GMO's are eeebbbilll!!), not food labeling requirements.

              •  No, GMO's are the product (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                splashy

                of billion dollar corporations that want to control the food supply for the entire human population.
                This fact alone should scare the shit out of everyone.

                The so-called research is conducted and funded by those very same corporations, who will not allow independent testing.
                If this alone does not raise a big red flag then i don't know what it would take to convince some folks to take a step back and use caution.

                There is a network of organic farmers here in this country and all around the world who grow crops using heirloom open-pollinated seed from varieties suited to each particular regions soil and micro climate.

                We are determined to keep the germplasm of these crops as pure as possible so that we, every peasant in every off grid corner of the world, every backyard gardener and every family farmer will always have seed for food crops.

                Contamination of these essential crops by GMO pollen is a huge concern and one which is met with vigilance by the real farmers, not the corporate boardrooms full of food engineers and BigAG, who insure the future with their careful use of the land , water and pure seed.

                There is a seed bank near the north pole that stores every variety of bean seed and other important crops to insure that when/if a global catastrophe occurs, we are covered. There is no GM seed in that bank, for good reason.

                And, yes, those corporations whose name we will not speak are eeeebbbbiillll, to use your description, and craven.
                Greed and power is the goal of those entities, not an altruistic desire to feed the world.

                'How like fish we are: ready, nay, eager, to seize upon whatever new thing.......And how we rue our haste, finding the gilded morsel to contain a hook". ALDO LEOPOLD - A Sand County Almanac

                by flowerfarmer on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:36:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, so in the world of GMOs we speak a (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jan4insight, flowerfarmer

            different language? I think not, that is simply bullshit to try and sell the idea that it is guaranteed safe to the suckers and then to have a fallback when somebody points out that it is totally false.

            That there was a conference followed by a report is an "extraordinary claim", but "safe" means "may or may not be safe"? What absolute horseshit.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:37:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  diarist does indeed make that claim (4+ / 0-)

        in the title:

        What does science say about GMO’s–they’re safe
        and it is a ridiculous claim. GMO is a technology.  One might as well say "technology is safe", nevermind the particulars.
  •  A new feild of study. . . (7+ / 0-)

    . . .is epigenetics. It is the study of the genetic material that is between the cell nucleus and still within the cell wall. For decades, it was thought that this material was merely superfluous, not unlike the way an appendix used to be regarded. Today, we know the floating genetic pieces are genetic switches and also, I believe, may act as "cleaners" of environmental agents.

    The field of study is relatively new and, as far as I know the exact mechanisms is not well understood. So then, I do not know how it is possible to declare GMO's to be safe when the genetic material within the cell nucleus evolved along with those switches over a very long period of time. Today, we simply splice in new genetic material without understanding how it works in concert with the epigenetic material.

    Please, if you can explain this to me, I will be happy to learn. But thus far, I have not gotten a reasonable explanation to my (luddite?!) objections !

    •  The field of study is NOT new. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VelvetElvis, TFinSF, Justanothernyer

      Some of the first epigenetic switches that control transcription were well studied in bacteriophage lambda back in the 70's.

    •  Ah, that's science, the sole argument against (5+ / 0-)

      GMO labelling, is really marketing, it might hurt profits, so epigenetics, co-evoluton, and medicine aren't relevant.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:49:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You badly misunderstand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jodster

      what epigenetics is. It merely refers to inheritance of traits by mechanisms independent of DNA sequence. These mechanisms exist with or without introduction of new genetic material in a transgenic plant, so I'm not even sure what you are asking.

      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

      by TFinSF on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:30:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots

        They exist but they turn on and off different gene sequences in the cell. I don't see how you can introduce new genetic materials to the cell without taking into consideration how the particular "epigenetics" interacts. . .unless, of course, you are suggesting that it is the same for all cells. if that is the case, I will tell you that unequivocally, you are wrong. And, I suspect you're much more of an expert on the subject than I am, but nevertheless, the epigenetic material is not the same for all cells.

  •  I just don't want (5+ / 0-)

    my money going to Monsanto, either directly or indirectly.

    "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100, dissenting; opinion

    by HugoDog on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:33:08 PM PDT

  •  Depends on what they're modified to do (14+ / 0-)

    Take "Roundup ready", for example.  There's likely no harm in the gene itself.  The hazard from "Roundup ready" crops comes from dousing one's fields with Roundup.  (And from Monsanto having control of your seed supply, but that's another diary.)

    Those crops that make BT toxin, OTOH -- while they might not be directly hazardous to humans, there are possible hazards to bees and other insects.  And then the pests they're meant to kill become resistant.

    Bello ne credite, Americani; quidquid id est, timeo Republicanos et securitatem ferentes.

    by Sura 109 on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:33:26 PM PDT

    •  How? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sura 109

      Bt is pretty narrow in its range.  The strain of Bt used in corn isn't toxic except to Lepidoptera.  As far as I know, no strain of Bt currently in use has any activity against bees.  That's why it's so attractive.

      Resistance is a whole different issue that we entomologists struggle with.

      I used to be disgusted. Now I try to be amused. - Elvis Costello

      by gnbhull on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:59:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  33% of the US population has allergies. (10+ / 0-)

    What happens to food when you insert an allergen like corn into wheat or sunflower or soy?

    My wife is not just allergic but disabled by sensitivities to certain chemicals and otherwise nutritious plants.

    Until a lot more research is done, GMOs will not be safe for her, and perhaps never will be safe for all people.

    So many arguments against GMO foods.

    Comments like this "The anti-GMO crowd is mostly lazy" - calling a group of people a name is not a strong argument. It is ad hominem and detracts from your entire diary.

    •  No, it's a painful observation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock, Justanothernyer

      It takes little or no effort to conflate food allergies with GMO safety.  

      It takes little or no effort to demand some minimum mass of research to declare something safe without actually specifying what that amount should be.  

      It takes little or no effort to ignore the list of citations provided by the diarist.

  •  You cant feed the world without GMO crops (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VelvetElvis, rduran, ban nock

    It cant be done.

  •  Capitalism trumps science (6+ / 0-)

    And profits trump evidence.  

  •  I have nothing in particular against GMOs. (5+ / 0-)

    I have numerous allergies to different foods, and corn is one of my safe foods, whether GMO or not.

    I tend to favor expanded labeling over not, however, just because companies can get away with so much that will cripple me. Try being allergic to any kind of spices and figuring out which products contain the ones you're allergic to, for example.

    I think companies should have to label every ingredient using regular English terminology, plus all cross-contaminants for processed foods. If people want to throw GMOs in there and it gets full and fair labeling for people like me? Fine. I'll happily eat GMOs.

    Sunflower is non-GMO. It makes me feel like I'm going to die. And it's in everything marketed as natural directly because of the anti-GMO sentiment in this country.

    •  Sooner or later, we will need expanded label (0+ / 0-)

      for GMO.
      Currently, most GMO involved have no effect (according to studies) on the people consuming it. But one can imagine that in the future, we might have GMO which contains modification to augment their nutritional contents or taste. Detailed labeling will become very important to ensure people with allergy don't accidentally eat something that introduces an allergen into a food that don't normally have it.

  •  I'm glad to see this here. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gnbhull, ban nock, wonmug

    The anti-GMO people are (mostly) just as intellectually dishonest, paranoid, and blinded by ideology as the Climate Deniers. So I recommended this diary.

    That said, there are reasons to be cautious in embracing GMO technology. To my mind the main one is that it subjects our food production systems to intellectual property laws that are profoundly broken and outdated. When bad laws prevent people from legally backing up music and movies that they have legitimately purchased, it is inconvenient and annoying. When they prevent people from growing food … that is a more serious matter.

    I feel about the Republican Party the way Roger Ebert felt about the film "North".

    by Just Some Guy on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:06:02 PM PDT

  •  Outright lies: (13+ / 0-)
    The anti-GMO crowd is mostly lazy. They have this luddite belief that all technology is bad, but have absolutely no evidence to support it.
    Indicative of the overall value of your article that you stoop to mud slinging early on.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:10:29 PM PDT

    •  Yes, i guess that all of the European Union (8+ / 0-)

      must be wrong.

      The anti-GMO people are (mostly) just as intellectually dishonest, paranoid, and blinded by ideology as the Climate Deniers. So I recommended this diary.
      The tone in this, and many, pro GMO diaries seem to be written by people who believe that name calling is the way to win an argument.

      That is actually when you know that your opponent is fresh out of ideas..

      Better luck next time.

      'How like fish we are: ready, nay, eager, to seize upon whatever new thing.......And how we rue our haste, finding the gilded morsel to contain a hook". ALDO LEOPOLD - A Sand County Almanac

      by flowerfarmer on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:35:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

    GMO's are not inherently bad.  It is the use of them that introduces negative impacts; as with promoting the use of glyphosphate, which, at least in-vitro, shows estrogenic activity.

    It is the same way that hybridized plants could be misused - there were discussions in the past that in corn the limited hybrid disease resistance over broad swatches of American farmland put corn production at risk for a breakthrough disease.

    While I would like labeling in order to determine whether or not I want to support the use of GMO crops through my purchases, I have seen no evidence of direct harm to health.  So, call my bias as informed opinion that I do not want to support mass herbicide use as the alternative to good farming practice.

  •  Wow...this diary provides a perfect example (7+ / 0-)

    of how we can disagree while being disagreeable!

    Were the ad hominems really necessary? Not the best way to start a discusion, IMNSHO.

    Just spitballing here, but I would guess that not all people who avoid GMOs do so for the same reason. Interesting how the diarist lumped so many people into the same category (dare I say it, poisoning the well by dismissing them as the same as climate deniers while using a straw man argument?)

    In any case, it is a topic worthy of debate, but I'd suggest that this isn't necessarily the best way to start it... and as one who would be interested in such a debate (with no particular opinion at this point other than a desire to look more), I think I'll look for that type of informed discussion elsewhere...

  •  Thank you. (3+ / 0-)

    Anti-GMO activist really are the climate change deniers of the left.  Their absurd anti-science stance is why I can't get behind the Green Party or even Greenpeace any more.

    We want to build cyber magicians!

    by VelvetElvis on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:40:17 PM PDT

  •  This is getting so tiresome. (10+ / 0-)

    People want to know what's in their food.  Deal with it in some way besides calling them names and trying to hide under a false blanket of "science".

    What do we get next, "pesticides are people too"?  

    These are corporate products of Big Ag, not "science."  Eat them if you'd like, but I want to have the choice, and I want my friends and kids and everyone else to have that choice too.

  •  seems to be a pro GMO diary here every month or so (4+ / 0-)

    just sayin'

  •  Talking about pseudo science...you has it (8+ / 0-)

    And bad logic too. Yes, some GMO's may not cause negative side effects when consumed but that in no way means they are ALL SAFE. In reality the creation of these GMO food products are an attempt to monopolize our global food production for profit for the very greedy few. That on it's own would be very dangerous, far more dangerous any particular GMO product could be. Safe is only a value judgement like good or bad...it's hardly a scientific fact.

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:55:38 PM PDT

  •  Fact is.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, Justanothernyer

    you can't logically attack Republicans for being climate change deniers while being against GMOs. Tipped and Rec'd - and I don't do so often.

    TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D). Senate ratings map (as of 3/10/14)

    by Le Champignon on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:08:35 PM PDT

  •  So, here starts the Crazy Right and the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, flowerfarmer

    Naive Left.

    The poles of our political world are going to be ostracized over the next little bit.

    The Charlie Crists of the world will become good, progressive Democrats, and if you don't like it, screw you for electing Republicans. Take your Tea Party Purism somewhere else.

    This conflation of the Left and Right making clean food people out to be climate deniers is about exactly what I would expect in this juke and sharp move to the corporate center that's happened over the last 6 years or so.

    You can expect a bunch more of these attacks to come. I'm not looking forward to being called a Tea Partier of the Left for the next decade as we let corporate sponsored pols destroy our future.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:18:16 PM PDT

  •  Record yeilds -non GMO (5+ / 0-)
    In a village in India's poorest state, Bihar, farmers are growing world record amounts of rice – with no GM, and no herbicide. Is this one solution to world food shortages?
    And Kumar was not alone in attaining agricultural glory. Nitish Kumar, a friend of the rice king, broke the world’s record for potatoes by harvesting 72.9 tons per hectare last March. His mark, however, was surpassed a few months later when Rakesh Kumar, from another Nalanda village, grew 108.8 tons. Ravindra Kumar, from a nearby field, took India’s record for wheat.
    None of there records were with GMO.

    GMO plants produce protiens that are different from non-GMO of the same variety, otherwise there would be no point in doing GMO. The fact alone that they are different should require labelling.

    The GMO crowd had better prove that GMO crops are as safe as non-GMO, over very large sample groups, and still indivuduals should be given the choice.

    GMO will not make up for the fact that mono-genetic crops are on the edge of failure. We practive a very dangerous art of agriculture by constantly selecting for minimum genetic variety. When that super insect, virus, bacteria or mold shows up the crop failure cost in human lives will be horrendous. The last thing that we need are singular DNA crops modified by some big agribusiness.

  •  "Safe" to what? Humans, animals, insects? (6+ / 0-)

     As the child of a plant geneticist, I was a human guinea pig for certain types of "GMOs" that were modified for flavor.  But that was in the days of "manual" hybridization, not hi-tech mass produced gene splicing.
     What legitimate testing's been done on the long-term effects of pesticide resistant gene manipulation on insects, birds, and non-human animals that feed on those crops?

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:20:49 PM PDT

  •  Actually it takes a farmer (7+ / 0-)

    to know what will work in the real world. Scientists and such know little about the real world of farming.

    What works in the lab is not necessarily great in the real world. There are many unintended consequences related to releasing things into the wild that were not created by nature.

    As a long time farmer I tend to trust nature more than humans.
    I will not plant GMOs because they offer nothing in the way of improvement unless you use pesticides and I do not.

    It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

    by PSWaterspirit on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:40:36 PM PDT

  •  A false claim, followed by ad hominem, (11+ / 0-)

    followed by an appeal to ignorance.  A trifecta of bogus argumentation.  A pseudo-logical attack on purported pseudo-science.  Truly impressive!

    "Science" does not say of GMO's "They're safe!"  Nor does your list of 112 papers, taken together, support that claim.

    Just for fun, I looked at the titles and/or abstracts of the first 66 papers in your list of 112 that you contend stand for science saying GMO crops are safe.  Fully 27 of the first 66 have nothing to do with safety in either the sense that GMO crops are safe for human consumption or safe for the environment.  Rather, they test efficacy--whether the genetic modification had the intended effect, or nutrition, or purport to prove that the genetic variation in GMO crop is less than "natural" or breeding-induced variation in comparitives, which begs the question whether particular modifications make a difference as to safety.

    The remainder address one or another aspect of safety, but the of these, 14 (#2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 24, 35, 49, 64) only test to see whether a change that might be assumed to be caused by GMO consumption shows up in the way predicted in animals, and two in humans.  These are good science, but cannot "prove" lack of harm.  They show that the given experiment failed to turn up evidence that the modified genes turn up in a particular way in the animal tested.  At most they eliminate a particular vector that may have been suspected to contribute to harm.

    Very few of the papers actually test health effects of GMO consumption.  Nine looked at animals (29, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 53, 57, 65.)  One looked at whether feeding rats a non-GMO diet can reverse changes in rats' liver function caused by a GMO diet. (66.)  (The previous paper by the same authors which found changes in liver function caused by a GMO diet does not appear to be listed in the first 66 papers.)  Only two papers two looked at health effects on humans.  (20, 32.)

    As to environmental safety, four papers looked at effects of GMO crops on biodiversity.  (37, 39, 45, 48.)  Two looked at the effects of GMO crops on pesticide use and the resultant effect on biodiversity and crop yield.  (17, 55.)  One looked at mitigating development of GMO resistance in crop pests by using a particular strategy.  (50.)

    At least one paper (#66) of the first 66 seems to suggest there may be harmful effects connected to consumption.   And one appears to similarly look at how to reverse or mitigate harmful effects of pests developing resistance to GMO crops or associated pesticides.  (#50.)

    In short, while there is evidence in your citations to support safety, it is hardly overwhelming.  GMO crops only go back 20 years.  The evidence is not all in, even as to the GMO's in current use.

    And it is undeniable that the safety of a given GMO will depend on the modification.  The science is in its infancy.  The potential power of genetic modification is nearly unfathomable.  You have a long way to go before you can fairly compare the scientific consensus re. GMO safety to that of climate change.

    You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

    by Simian on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:41:03 PM PDT

  •  Except.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, elmo, maregug

    You want a peer reviewed study of a proprietary corporate product?

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:41:39 PM PDT

  •  I actually know and have read little about GMOs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justanothernyer

    I simply reflexively reject the way anti GMO folks peddle their claims. It seems based on the "we are good, they are bad" type thinking that drives me round the bend. I'd be half or more of the climate deniers are simply reacting to the way it's presented rather than the science.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:05:51 PM PDT

    •  To use your phrase, I would say (5+ / 0-)

      that proponents of GMA, at this point in time, are  peddling their claims of 'safety' with sketchy and short term research.

      Feel free to seed your family all of the GMA foods you like and allow those of us with health issues to avoid those unknowns.
      You have no idea how quickly one can spiral down when food and chemical allergies kick in.
      Life can suck big time in a short time

      'How like fish we are: ready, nay, eager, to seize upon whatever new thing.......And how we rue our haste, finding the gilded morsel to contain a hook". ALDO LEOPOLD - A Sand County Almanac

      by flowerfarmer on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:16:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How can anyone could call themselves (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sunspots, jan4insight, Eddie107

    an environmentalist or conservationist or ecologist .... and support GMO crops.

    That's the primary reason I want them labelled, better gone. To avoid doing the harm to the environment that they do.

    This isn't news, and doesn't need me arguing it here for scientific validity.

  •  We really need something like Godwin's (4+ / 0-)

    Law to deal with folks who throw accusations of Ludditism at anyone who isn't rejecting technology, but arguing for what they see as appropriate use of tech, or limits on tech. You call someone who isn't by any stretch a Luddite, a Luddite, and you lose the argument. Of course, you  do already, but this crap is so common around here that formalizing the notion could be useful.

  •  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (4+ / 0-)

    (science...)  even if there really were no evidence of harm, but there is, and not only to creatures eating GMO crops.  

    When a gene is moved with a virus, it doesn't necessarily stay there - contamination of the wild gene pool and of non-GMO crops is a big problem already.  American farmers are having crops rejected for export because of it, and suffering substantial financial losses.

    Farmers in India are committing suicide because they got suckered into planting expensive GMO crops which failed.

    Feel free to be a lab rat for Monsanto yourself, but let the rest of us choose - with labelling.  

  •  My concern with GMOs isn't their safety (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flowerfarmer, coquiero

    it's about the general principle of patenting nature and letting corporations own them.

    Science doesn't speak to those issues, the law and the economy do, neither of which is as straight-forward as science.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Wed May 14, 2014 at 04:29:53 AM PDT

  •  Worst article on here EVER! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy

    The "science" behind GMO safety is very often corrupt, and designed to have the results that the corporations are looking for. Real science admits that putting foreign proteins in our bodies are dangerous, and if anyone matches the allergic reactions, and the statistics of health rates of Americans since the introduction, it is absolutely conclusive that GMOs are reeking havoc on our bodies.

  •  If it's so harmless (0+ / 0-)

    Label it, and let us choose.

    Why hide it in our food, with no way to know?

    Let the poor be able to pick and choose the least expensive choices, and decide for themselves if they want non-GMO foods.

    The wealthy can go with organic if they don't want GMOs, while the poor are being experimented on, along with getting higher and higher doses of pesticides because the plants are engineered to take more without dying, or have them incorporated into their tissues.



    Women create the entire labor force.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:11:06 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site