Skip to main content

Election night in Jackson County Oregon. One County measure 15-119 was a measure to ban the growing of GMO crops in Jackson County. We were outspent by Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and DuPont by more than three to one. An amazing grassroots effort by citizens going door-to-door and phone banking was very successfull. Despite constant negative ads on local stations our measure passed by more than two to one. GMO crops will be banned in Jackson County, Oregon. I worked on the campaign and wrote a diary about it recently. Here is a link:http://www.dailykos.com/...

I am so happy!!!!!

Citizens with much less money beat a huge effort by multinational chemical companies. People beat big money when we do it smart and work hard.

7:27 AM PT: First ever Rec List!! Thanks Kossacks!

Originally posted to madame damnable on Tue May 20, 2014 at 11:28 PM PDT.

Also republished by Koscadia, Daily Kos Oregon, Community Rights Movement, and Sustainable Food and Agriculture.

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 (382+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bahaba, Bush Bites, Sapere aude, dewey of the desert, Toyotabob7, translatorpro, greenbird, Horace Boothroyd III, Man Oh Man, George3, HoundDog, Morgan Sandlin, pam, vahana, jan4insight, ivote2004, RiveroftheWest, camlbacker, Pluto, DRo, Executive Odor, Lensy, blueoasis, Santa Susanna Kid, rat racer, GayHillbilly, OregonWetDog, Smoh, cordgrass, maybeeso in michigan, Bill in Portland Maine, Skyye, Sandino, PeteZerria, Gardener in PA, cama2008, Yasuragi, SaraBeth, Aaa T Tudeattack, not4morewars, onionjim, dicentra, rapala, Wisper, Tinfoil Hat, ScienceMom, dewtx, Pat K California, flowerfarmer, renaissance grrrl, welso, radical simplicity, toom, sidnora, Kentucky Kid, k9disc, most peculiar mama, GwenM, howabout, Spongebob76, martini, Raggedy Ann, PsychoSavannah, celdd, Dave the Wave, disinterested spectator, northsylvania, notrouble, rk2, sodalis, mjd in florida, KrazyKitten, ratprique, HeartlandLiberal, Pinto Pony, missLotus, Lily O Lady, DSC on the Plateau, GreenMother, LSmith, suspiciousmind, avsp, leftykook, kharma, Olkate, democracy inaction, leeleedee, ginimck, Mary Mike, joanil, doroma, PhilJD, Josiah Bartlett, Oldowan, jazzizbest, sawgrass727, clutch1, Portia Elm, funluvn1, afisher, Gooserock, samanthab, emeraldmaiden, Russ Jarmusch, Caddis Fly, Damnit Janet, eagleray, wilderness voice, nosleep4u, mint julep, jayden, dotdash2u, tobendaro, MKinTN, whenwego, gchaucer2, jfromga, CA Nana, on the cusp, AnnieR, art ah zen, pioneer111, AJayne, poliwrangler, CwV, NYmom, Just Bob, Sybil Liberty, Gemina13, Glen The Plumber, smokeymonkey, mungley, awcomeon, Shahryar, alasmoses, Onomastic, zerelda, shaharazade, doingbusinessas, Merry Light, i saw an old tree today, countwebb, BadKitties, regis, Pescadero Bill, xanthippe2, Jaimas, Sherri in TX, triplepoint, Brooke In Seattle, nuclear winter solstice, buckstop, Preston S, Robynhood too, looseleaf, Crider, WisVoter, thomask, kevinpdx, kathny, AJ in Camden, DawnN, CJB, Eclectablog, NJpeach, tommymet, rb137, Debs2, sea note, JayBat, basquebob, multilee, Ckntfld, ranger995, ashowboat, bewild, gypsytoo, la urracca, Penny GC, ichibon, rocksout, reflectionsv37, poco, enhydra lutris, SouthernLiberalinMD, Librarianmom, wayoutinthestix, No one gets out alive, Got a Grip, tacet, Russgirl, science nerd, Wolf10, renska, Pilotshark, Chrislove, Ginny in CO, Audri, knitwithpurpose, Rejoinder, roycej, Pandora, wader, indres, NoMoreLies, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Gowrie Gal, Shockwave, kjoftherock, quill, zmom, Drocedus, BluejayRN, Crabby Abbey, fumie, Scioto, ninkasi23, eeff, Homer177, Terre, Words In Action, decisivemoment, LynChi, Random Brainwaves, Mayfly, dhl, boran2, scribeboy, peacestpete, blackjackal, Lusty, Grabber by the Heel, StrayCat, grape crush, old wobbly, greengemini, rickeagle, offgrid, shortgirl, seefleur, fb, goodpractice, jnhobbs, Tod, fToRrEeEsSt, martinjedlicka, x, letsgetreal, SteelerGrrl, SaintC, BachFan, 3rock, Karen Hedwig Backman, ANY THING TOO ADD, Southcoast Luna, political mutt, leonard145b, timethief, Hohenzollern, smoothnmellow, Bluesee, Future Gazer, Fiona West, Regina in a Sears Kit House, slapshoe, Jamaste, AZ Sphinx Moth, SteveLCo, confitesprit, PatConnors, marleycat, fixxit, Steveningen, CenPhx, ColoTim, tapestry, BlueMississippi, slowbutsure, winglion, ceebee7, RW, stringer bell, magnetics, protectspice, winkk, side pocket, Bmeis, Karen from Maui, GAS, tb92, mod2lib, lissablack, The Hindsight Times, occupystephanie, devis1, FarWestGirl, Brian82, degreesofgray, TAH from SLC, YsosadisticGOP, weck, RMForbes, edg, HedwigKos, blueoregon, Karl Rover, Chaddiwicker, bleeding blue, peachcreek, Laughing Vergil, legendmn, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Things Come Undone, 47songs, MJ via Chicago, Emerson, cybersaur, NonnyO, Take a Hard Left, maregug, Sun Tzu, leema, Statusquomustgo, VoteWisdom, JayC, numble, Chris Jay, IndieGuy, limulus curmudgeon, OldGrammy, lilsky, mkfarkus, kingneil, stagemom, Pam from Calif, BarackStarObama, Scathach, where4art, saxoman1, Jollie Ollie Orange, jamess, turn blue, ypochris, Mangrove Blues, lcrp, owlbear1, bluezen, Gustogirl, Lujane, Yo Bubba, todamo13, Jim P, greenchiledem, Prav duh, Colorado is the Shiznit, CharlieHipHop, JDWolverton, markdd, thanatokephaloides, Puddytat, Azubia, Chinton, LillithMc, dotsright, ladywithafan, J Orygun, joynow, rmx2630, ActivistGuy, Creosote, RichterScale, Mother Mags, NJ elitist, Hey338Too, prgsvmama26, JamieG from Md, dsteve01, mzinformed, ZhenRen, Sailorben, narwahl, alypsee1

    You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?

    by madame damnable on Tue May 20, 2014 at 11:28:43 PM PDT

  •  Good for you and your county! (73+ / 0-)

    That is awesome. Glad to hear that the local grassroots are active on this topic. Do you know about the upcoming global protest against Monsanto on May 24?

    March Against Monsanto
    The event protesting the GMO (genetically modified organisms) giant will simultaneously take place in more than 400 cities in 52 countries that span six continents. That’s up from 36 cities in 286 countries last year. Among the marches is one in St. Louis, MO, which is home to Monsanto’s headquarters.
    Here is a list of the events planned around the protest:
    May 24 MAM events

    I'm going to the one nearest to where I live in Germany. These agro-biotech-giants are buying up seed companies and infiltrating politics here, too, and we have to fight for the gains that were made years ago. GMO labeling has been required in Europe since 1997 - everyone should be given the choice of whether or not they want to buy GMO products or not. Some months ago Monsanto claimed to have given up the fight in Europe - yeah, riiiiiight, and I have a bridge in New Jersey to sell you.

    Obviously, the small triumphs will grow into bigger ones, and they will do whatever it takes to stop it. People power, yaay!

    „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

    by translatorpro on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:07:55 AM PDT

  •  Well done! (33+ / 0-)

    I understand we don't get good news from that corner of Oregon very often. Great to hear this!

    Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

    by RamblinDave on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:27:49 AM PDT

  •  Congratulation (19+ / 0-)

    And thank you for your hard work and also, thanks to the people that worked with you.
    An another outstanding Obama appointment.
    Monsanto in his organization.
    Has he even bothered to put even just one person in his cabinet that actually represents the American people?  
    Immelt, Mr GE himself who is responsible for off shoring so many US jobs.
    Change we can believe in, my ass!  
    What a con he ran on us.
    What a wasted disappointment from the Hope we all had in 08!

    "Americans don't understand that terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution. Terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism."

    by snoopydawg on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:34:28 AM PDT

  •  Congratulations and thanks to all who worked (39+ / 0-)

    so hard on this campaign. I used to live in Jackson County. This is further proof that money can't buy elections when enough people care about the food we eat and the food we grow. Thanks again!

  •  Monsanto suffered another blow, today: (82+ / 0-)
    Moscow Outlaws Monsanto. “Russia puts GMO Genie back in the Bottle”

    Russia has some of the most precious uncontaminated top soil on the planet and if it is rigorously controlled to stay GMO-free and free from chemicals its productivity would increase as Europe declines, geopolitical analyst William Engdahl told RT.

    Russian PMs have pondered a draft bill outlawing GMOs. A draft bill submitted to the Russian parliament likens GMO production and distribution to terrorism. After entering the World Trade Organization, Russia was expected to allow GM food production and distribution within its market. However, in March Russia’s President Putin said the country would stay GM-free without violating its obligations to the WTO.

    ::

    RT: What do you think about this latest bill in Russia’s parliament, which equates GM producers who flout the rules with terrorists. Is that a bit over the top?

    William Engdahl: The language on Russian media blogs is [that] punishment for knowingly introducing GMO crops into Russia illegally should have a punishment comparable to that given to terrorists for knowingly hurting people. The direction of this is anything that stops, and puts the genie back in the bottle called genetic manipulation of plants and organisms is to the good for the future of the mankind. The comment about 20 percent of harvest increase in some GMOs is absolute rubbish. There is no long-term harvest gain that has been proven for GMO crops anywhere in the world because they are not modified to get harvest increases. So this is just soap bubbles that Monsanto, Syngenta and GMO giants are putting out to loll the public into thinking it is something good.

    The interview continues:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/...
    •  Ditto. Now.... Agent Orange on our food next? (13+ / 0-)

      Really... how can the EPA say they work FOR people... when they give Monsanto permission to get rid of their "extra" Agent Orange...by spraying on your food.

      Only people can change this.
      Corporations will always chase the money - until PEOPLE STAND UP!

      Congratulations!
      May the force continue to push back against the dark.

      “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

      Henry Kissinger, United States Secretary of State 1973-1976.

      http://zcomm.org/...
      ...
      If neoliberalism has taught us anything, it is that public economic policies are above and before all the result of power relationships expressed in class struggle.
      This is the reason why neoliberalism has worked so hard to debilitate and politically demobilize unions and other social organizations that may take to the streets and obligate their governments to refuse to enact and/or retract neoliberal economic reforms.
      Therefore, at best, the moment has arrived for organizations involved in discussions and networks fighting for food sovereignty and national agricultural development to take to the streets and demand that the government and political parties act in favor of food sovereignty and the interest of the people.
      •  The Agent Orange initiative should be the red flag (11+ / 0-)

        that gets the attention of even the most ardent "scientifically based" supporters of GMO foods. We KNOW from the terrible experience of Southeast Asia that applying phenoxy herbicides like 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T in the environment leads to very bad consequences such as cancers and birth defects, over the short and the long term. Yet now Monsanto is seeking permission to market crops resistant to Agent Orange so that they can use it in our fields!

        Hello! This is NOT acceptable!

        •  see below: you are simply wrong (6+ / 0-)

          Nobody is asking to use Agent Orange on anything.  Nobody.

          Nobody.

          And 2,4-D did not cause cancers, or anything else. Neither did 2,3,5-T.  It was the dioxin that did that--and dioxin is not an ingredient in 2,4-D.

          When you make "scientific arguments" like this, which are not only wrong, but trivially capable of disproof in ten seconds of Googling, all you do is make ALL anti-Monsanto activists look like morans who don't know what they are yammering about.

          So stop doing it.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:52:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dow Chemical has applied to create 2-4-D (4+ / 0-)

            resistant crops.

            Here's the link:

            USDA.gov link, DOW chem 2-4-D resistant crop application

            If you really believe that no dioxin residues will be in the 2-4-D applied in the US, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

            •  OK, so you didn't read the post below (5+ / 0-)

              1. 2,4-D is not Agent Orange.

              2. The toxin in Agent Orange was dioxin, which was an impurity in the 2,4,5-T (NOT in the 2,4-D) that was introduced during the manufacturing process.

              3. Dioxin is NOT an ingredient in 2,4-D.

              That is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of chemistry. 2,4-D is not Agent Orange, and it does not contain the dioxin found in Agent Orange.  And if you claim otherwise, you are either pig-ignorant or a goddamn liar.

              Period.  End of debate.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:31:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  2,4-D is one ingredient in Agent Orange (0+ / 0-)

                Along with the more toxic 2,4,5-T.

                2,4-D is widely used by farmers to kill broad-leafed plants.

                The dioxin in Agent Orange was a result of contamination of the 2,4,5-T by TCDD -- and the rest, as they say, is history. Dow and Monsanto were instrumental in the manufacture of Agent Orange.

                But of course, "We don't use chemical weapons"; much like "We don't torture."(tm)

                And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

                by Pale Jenova on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:55:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  all true, all already pointed out by me, and all (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  raptavio

                  beside the point.

                  2,4-D is not "Agent Orange". Dioxin, the toxin in Agent Orange, is not an ingredient in 2,4-D. And if we claim it is, we are flat-out lying to people, deliberately, intentionally and deceitfully.

                  Period.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:09:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  ps--please feel free to show us any evidence you (4+ / 0-)

              can to indicate this is true:

              If you really believe that no dioxin residues will be in the 2-4-D applied in the US
              Show us the magic crystal ball that allows you to peer into the future and see things happening that have not actually happened yet. . . .

              Or are we expected to believe this is true just because you WANT it to be true. . . . .

              (sigh)

              No wonder people think we're dumbfucks.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:43:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  2,4-D may not be (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Creosote, AaronInSanDiego

                as safe as you are insisting. Preparations of it have contained dioxins in the past. It's also associated with other health risks including epidemiological evidence of a link to some cancers.

                I don't want more of that shit doused on my food than there already is!

                Of course one of the advantages of GMOs was supposed to be that larger amounts of safer herbicides (Roundup) could be used instead of more dangerous products. Now we're just allowing even more of the more dangerous products to be used. How long before Syngenta is lobbying for atrazine-resistant crops, and we increase exposure and environmental contamination from a compound that is known to be very harmful?

                •  For more on Syngenta and atrazine (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  prgsvmama26, cville townie

                  see the comprehensive article "A Valuable Reputation: After Tyson Hayes said that a chemical was harmful, its maker pursued him," by Rachel Aviv, in the New Yorker for February 10, 2014, pp. 52-63.

                  Hayes discovered that atrazine might impede the sexual development of frogs . . ." (p. 53) [His later research proved it did]
                  Syngenta is the corporation that manufactures atrazine.
                  Atrazine is the second most widely used herbicide in the U.S., where sales are estimated at about three hundred million dollars a year. Introduced in 1958, it is cheap to produce and controls a broad range of weeds. [. . . .] A study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that without atrazine the national corn yield would fall by six percent, creating an annual loss of nearly two billion dollars. But the herbicide degrades slowly in in soil and often washes into streams and lakes, where it doesn't readily dissolve. Atrazine is one of the most common contaminants of drinking water; an estimated thirty million Americans are exposed to trace amounts of the chemical. (p. 55)
                  [I]n 2009. . . . A paper in Acta Paediatrica, reviewing national records for thirty million births, found that children conceived bweteen April and July, when the concentration of atrazine (mixed with other pesticides) in water is highest, were more likely to have genital birth defects. (p. 61)
                  The story provides precise details on Syngenta's massive, heavily funded, and ongoing efforts to discredit Hayes's work over a period of decades.

                  Here's a link to the article.

                •  2,4-D is not "Agent Orange" (0+ / 0-)

                  And people who claim it is, are either lying, or ignorant.

                  Period.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:12:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  this is a flat out dishonest distortion (11+ / 0-)

        Agent Orange is a mixture of two herbicides known as 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. The toxic component in Agent Orange was dioxin, which was an impurity introduced during the manufacturing process back in the 1960's. Agent Orange was NOT manufactured by Monsanto.

        Monsanto is currently requesting to produce 2,4-D. That is NOT "Agent Orange", and 2,4-D does NOT contain any dioxin, the toxic component of Agent Orange.  We can argue about whether 2,4-D should or should not be used, but to claim that 2,4-D is "Agent Orange" is simply not true. Period.

        To claim otherwise, as you have done, is either (1) a deliberate intentional dishonest falsehood, or (2) a sign that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:52:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I must clarify one thing: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban, wildweasels
          Agent Orange was NOT manufactured by Monsanto.
          There were NINE companies that made Agent Orange for the Pentagon. Monsanto was just one of them, and not even the largest maker of it--that would be Dow who made most of it.

          Also, those chemical companies did NOT make the formula or the manufacturing process for Agent Orange--the Defense Department did that, and required all of the companies to follow it to the letter.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 03:46:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. (39+ / 0-)

    Could you post the text of the law? We could use it as a template to do the same thing in counties all over America. This is huge news.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:04:24 AM PDT

  •  Congratulations! (22+ / 0-)
    People beat big money when we do it smart and work hard.
    There's not much more to be said, is there?

    "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

    by sidnora on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:42:30 AM PDT

  •  Much of anti-GMO campaign (36+ / 0-)

    is based on junk science. There is simply no evidence that they are a health hazard.

    Hard to argue against climate change denial when an anti-GMO diary is at the top of the rec list.

    •  Two perfectly safe items when used properly (24+ / 0-)

      Bleach and ammonia.

      When the FDA approved GMOs their logic was no different than those that would mix bleach and ammonia.

      •  I note.... (32+ / 0-)

        ....that instead of arguing against the junk science accusation, you offer an irrelevant analogy. The best comparison is not between anti-GMO and anti-global-warming but between anti-GMO and anti-vaccination -- emotional but unfounded accusations where the lack of scientific grounding is covered up by dislike of corporations that are indeed dislikable, but for their corporate practices rather than their science.

        Being anti-Monsato does not mean one is pro-truth. When Gilles-Eric Séralini published his now notorious study on GMO corn causing tumors in rats, you all fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and looked like the world's greatest suckers when it turned out that the study was scientifically worthless. Indeed, that's putting it gently. I would contend that there were so many flaws and such a vigorous effort to conceal certain details of the tests that the possibility of deliberate fraud is very real. And to no one's real surprise, people who habitually assume vested interests had a few vested interests of their own:

        The research group has long been opposed to GM crops. It claimed in 2010 to have found evidence of toxicity in tests by the GM-crops giant Monsanto of its own Roundup-resistant maize. Other toxicologists, however, said the supposedly damning data revealed only insignificant fluctuations in the physiology of normal rats....The paper is supposed to have been reviewed by other scientists before it was allowed for publication. But the team refused to allow journalists to show the paper to other scientists before the news reports were due to be published.
        If Monsato had been guilty of these faults, the anti-GMO movement would have been howling they had something to conceal, but when the conclusion seems to be going their way, they lap it up. What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, it seems.

        Even when mistakes or fraud are too obvious to be concealed, they are retrospectively justified, as in this Mother Jones piece that admits the anti-GMO argument concerning harm to the Monarch butterfly is fallacious -- the harm is caused because too many of the weeds that the Monarch needs to breed have been eliminated. This might be a reason to avoid using techniques that produce such an efficient weed kill, but it is totally irrelevant to the GMO debate. The effect would have been just the same if the weeds had been pulled up by hand gardeners.

        Indeed, even the most squalid and cynical corporate publicity techniques have been blindly imitated by the anti-GMO movement. What is the difference, for instance, between Nestlé using images of smiling happy babies in Africa to promote objectively inferior baby formula over breast feeding, and an emotionally loaded coinage such as "Frankenfoods"? If trying to win support through illegitimate emotionality is wrong, then both of these examples are wrong. If you find yourself automatically assuming that the first is wrong but the second is right, it's time to review the concept of confirmation bias.

        This is the landscape that we understand, -
        And till the principle of things takes root,
        How shall examples move us from our calm?

        (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

        by sagesource on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:41:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The analogy is perfect (12+ / 0-)

          Projecting my perspective as anti science is pointless.

          •  Please (11+ / 0-)

            You are a private citizen, as am I, not the Pope. You do not have the right to assume your dicta are infallible.

            This is the landscape that we understand, -
            And till the principle of things takes root,
            How shall examples move us from our calm?

            (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

            by sagesource on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:52:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Your analogy is bullshit. (8+ / 0-)

            But thanks for casting away a very thoughtful comment with a pithy two-liner.  Way to go.

            "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

            by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:32:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  when you can't win an argument on facts (4+ / 0-)

              Start using expletives in your comment to express your tizzy.

              •  Read these facts (15+ / 0-)

                I've posted this a few times in here just now, but in case you missed it.

                10 year meta study

                The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense.
                Maybe things will come up down the line.  But as of now, no significant problems with the GMOs.  Not discounting your own experiences, but you have a self-admitted genetic condition that seems to be particularly sensitive to any non-organic foods.  How many other people have such a condition?

                Also, the "study" that linked GMOs to cancer used a strain of rat that is genetically predisposed to cancer in the first place.  It's a complete bunk piece of "science", as was pointed out above - which you dismissed.

                "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The logical fallacy of the FDA approval process (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3rock, Errol, Russgirl, thanatokephaloides

                  can not be supported by unrelated studies.

                  •  Oh, for christ's sake... (9+ / 0-)

                    Wow, do you work at an NFL stadium?  Because holy shit do you like to move goal posts...

                    Please don't tell me you're also anti-vaccine...

                    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                    by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:47:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  name calling (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      thanatokephaloides

                      before you get to your ridiculous argument that selective breeding and genetic modification are equivalent?

                      •  Ever hear of transposons? (5+ / 0-)

                        Also called transposable elements?  Extremely mobile and natural segments of DNA that can jump across the genome.

                        Discovered by the amazing scientist Barbara McClintock, a pioneer for women scientists.  Wonder what organism she discovered and studied transposable elements in?

                        Maize.

                        Just because we don't see sometime today doesn't mean it won't evolve in the future.  I mean, look at us!  If we can evolve, surely there could be a situation where corn (already known to have many mobile genetic elements) could naturally take up a resistance gene from the soil and integrate it into it's genome without pollination.  Or even evolve it naturally within it's own genome.

                        Or maybe not.  It's up to the environment and what evolved traits are advantageous.  But the hybridization and genetic engineering are not as different as you may think, especially in plants where transposable elements are majorly involved.

                        "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                        by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:25:27 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  that plants sometimes adopt genetic material (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          occupystephanie

                          from strange sources naturally does not in any way make selective breeding equivalent to deliberately inserting DNA from a completely different organism (i.e., genome) into, say, a plant that would never acquire that DNA in nature.

                          there isn't even an equivalence between jumping genes -- which move to a different part of the same chromosome within a single organism -- and the latter.

                          surely there could be a situation where corn (already known to have many mobile genetic elements) could naturally take up a resistance gene from the soil and integrate it
                          that's just not how it works.  for one thing, soil has no genes; for a plant to acquire genetic material from soil, we'd have to be talking about soil microbes or fungi or something.  for genetic material to make that kind of leap, you need a plasmid and some kind of natural relationship between the plant and the bacteria by which the plasmid could be transferred, e.g. one is a virus of the other.

                          peace

                          Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                          by Cedwyn on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:20:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  *As of now*, which is good to know since (6+ / 0-)

                  They have been legally out on the market long since. Perhaps it might have been as well to continue studying the phenomenon in laboratory conditions for a couple decades before releasing it onto the market, perhaps until "the debate" had ceased to be "intense." Spreading the stuff around willy-nilly while the debate is still intense seems like quite a dice roll to me, given that it's the world's food supply at stake. But hey, there was money to be made, so whatever.

                  Also, just to let you and Monsanto know:  the kind of political bullshit they pull, such as getting the government to pass a law that exempts them from lawsuits claiming that their genetically-engineered seeds present health risks, does not increase confidence in Monsanto or in the government's ability to regulate them.

                  There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:33:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, but this is going to be long. (17+ / 0-)

                  I've read the meta study and like other meta studies, I find the information to be questionable.  Now let me clarify that I don't think GMOs are a dangerous health hazard.  I regularly buy and eat GMO foods because I just don't care.  But that doesn't mean I support GMO or think it is as safe as current science suggests.  Safe enough?  Sure.  Safe as most people would define as "safe?"  Questionable.

                  I have a whole slew of issues with the GMO debate in general.  For one, the muddling together or all "GMO" science (ie. traditional plant breeding with more modern science with companies inserting virus and bacteria into plant DNA and/or inserting genes from other things into plants).  I think this creates a huge problem in the debate as nobody is against ALL GMO as it is currently being defined.  People are really only against a small portion of GMO.  Studies like this only blur the reasoning and logic by combining traditional methods people know and trust and support with more modern methods people don't.  This makes any GMO arguement way more complicated and at times, very disengenuous.

                  Second, the means for testing the "safety" of these products is a toxicity comparison.  All plants have some level of toxicity and typically when a GMO product is tested for safety, they say "The toxic element in our product is X ppm which is equivalent in ppm to the natural toxicity of the plant.  Since they are equal, it must be safe."   While this is the best science we currently have, I think it is a mistake to assume this is sufficient.  The study you quote even references newer testing methods which are picking up differences in GMO vs non-GMO products but writes it off as not being important.  I would argue this is very important and should be focused on for the future.  Maybe it will support current science or maybe it won't.  Such in the nature of science...sometimes somethign isn't safe forever so much as safe enough for right now.

                  Third, this study admits that GMO crops can spread to non-GMO crops.  However, they again dismiss the impact of this as not being that big a deal, and even go so far as to say it is a natural phenomenon that happens all the time in nature.  I find this highly problematic as the Supreme court in both US and Canada have both ruled that companies own the genes of these GMO products and if those genes infect your own plant/crop, YOU are at fault and YOU are in violation of patent laws.   The onus is on the victim and many farmers have already spoken out about the problems they have had when their crops are infected with neighbours GMO seed and the financial impact it ends up having.

                  Fourth, this study quickly dismisses the issues associated with pesticide resistance in weeds and pests.  There was a story not too long ago about a supposed pest resistant crop turned out to not be as "resistant" as the company claimed.  The end result was that those pests that survived quickly became immune and there was an outbreak which harmed a lot of farmers.  So while this isn't exactly a case of not being safe for people, it is an example of the problems with testing the product.  In many cases "good enough" just doesn't cut it.

                  Fifth is the situation where science declaring something as "safe"  is often different from real-world definitions.   Diacetyl (sp?) is considered safe for use in foods.  Has been for decades.  Yet we now know a number of people who work with the product have experienced significantly higher risks of cancer.  And even one person has reported negative health effects due to eating large amounts of Microwave popcorn which commonly uses the stuff.

                  Further, pesticides can be toxic to people but science tells us that these products are safe for use in producing food.  However, again, farm labourers who work with pesticides are much more likely to get cancer.  Also, science used to say that the products were safe as long as you washed your food.  Because pesticides don't persist in the food itself.  We now know that is not true.  So science then says that sure pesticides persist in the food, but in such small amounts it is safe to eat.  Except again, we now know that children who eat food with pesticides almost immediately show trace amounts of those pesticides in their urine.  I think that is problematic, especially over long term exposure.  But there is no way to prove that hypothesis is there?   It is literally impossible.   Which brings me to my next point...

                  Testing of pesticide safety, as an example, has its own limitations.  Aside from being unable to test long term health impacts in real world conditions, scientists can only test individual products.  So pesticides are only deemed safe on their own.  However, recent studies have shown that most produce contains traces of two or three different pesticides.  Some produce has shown as much as a dozen different pesticides.  Again, I see this a problematic and what is the single biggest problem when it comes to science and food safety.  

                  Science has limits and those limits are what fundamentally are at the root of this GMO debate.  And even if it turns out that all GMOs are 110% all of the time now and forever, it doesn't even touch on the issues associated with corporate control of food and seed and genes.  The GMO issue has become a much larger debate about so much more than simply whether or not eating corn is a health concern.  I am not certain any study is going to ever ease those concerns.  And by the time such a study comes out, chances are science will have advanced and new findings will reignite the debate anyway.

                  My own belief is that when it comes to pure consumerism and eating, GMO is safe enough.  Just as pesticides are safe enough.  But in my opinion, that isn't the same thing as saying it is good or right or that people shouldn't evaluate their food options.  

                  •  Well done (8+ / 0-)

                    The problem with GMO's I see is the difference between theory and practice: in theory, there is no problem with GMO's. In practice, the only widespread application for GMO's is to increase pesticide resistance of crops. Pesticides are routinely overapplied, get into the drinking water and kill things (like bees and butterflies) that we want to have around while other critters develop pesticide resistance. Again, this is practice, what actually happens in the world. Further, GMO seeds are patentable, which causes a whole world of new problems, such as lawsuits and farmer suicides.

                    So while GMO's may be safe in theory, I am completely opposed to them in practice.

                  •  agree with all--with one proviso . . . (6+ / 0-)

                    The very quest for absolute "safety" is, itself, a chimera.  There is no such thing. Any protein is a potential allergen, for example--and is therefore "unsafe" for a certain percentage of people. Heck, plain ole ordinary milk, and peanuts, and chocolate, kills a few hundred people per year in the US.

                    So why do some people demand perfect "safety" from GMO corn, but not from peanuts or milk or chocolate . . .? Because some people have an ideological objection to the very existence of one, but not the others.

                    In that sense, this entire "debate" is not actually about science at all--if you look at every anti-GMO argument, they ALL boil down to essentially "I hate Monsanto". Well fuck, I hate Monsanto too and have been fighting them since I worked for Greenpeace way back in the 90's--but that does not mean every anti-GMO argument is valid, or even sensible, just because it's anti-Monsanto. But alas, sadly, a certain small crackpot fringe of ideologues here (notice it's always the same ones) don't consider it "good enough" to be anti-Monsanto or anti-corporate---you have to be anti-corporate in the correct ideological way. It has now become a marker of tribal identity, in exactly the same way that global-warming or evolution denial has become a tribal identity marker among the rightwingnuts. Indeed some of our resident crackpots are quite open about declaring that "you're not really a progressive!!!" and "you are pro-corporate!!" and "you are a shill!!" unless you accept all the proffered ideological "scientific"  arguments--whether those "scientific" arguments are bullshit or not.

                    That is what the "debate" is really about. And that is why "science" or "data" or "evidence" will never settle it.  Ever. Ideological arguments are impervious to data and evidence. (shrug)

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:51:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This X1000. (5+ / 0-)

                      It's the same with with anti-Vaxers. All boils down to "I hate big pharma." That is truly all it's about.

                      Regarding the food allergy thing, the evil twin in me kinda wonders about what Louie CK says about nut allergies in children. http://youtu.be/...

                      •  Lol...and not. (3+ / 0-)

                        I have that Louie CK cd and it is hillarious...and I have a son with a number of serious allergies.  But since nobody knows why allergies are becoming more common, it is a mistake to assume "natural selection" will fix the problem.   I would fully support way more funding into allergy research to find out why the hell allergies have gone from fairly rare/uncommon to fairly commonplace.

                        But that is a separate issue.  And as I just commented (probably as you posted this), the anti-Gmo arguement is totally different from the anti-vaxers.  Anyone with common sense can see vaccines were standardized for everyone and diseases disappeared.  Now people are not vaccinating their kids and these diseases are coming back.  It's simple.  To deny that basic evidence means the anti-vaxers are just idiots.

                        How is that any way similar to the anti-GMO viewpoint?  You can make the case that people are going against science, but science is all about debate and challenging findings.  With climate chang denial and anti-vaxers, they aren't just challenging science...they are challenging reality itself.  They are ignoring their own eyes and common sense and historical reality.  

                        The same simply can be said when it comes to GMOs as there is no way to actually observe health impacts of eating all GMO foods over the long term.  That doesn't mean it is unsafe, but I think it does make it difficult to say it is as safe as the science believes.  The problem, and the reason for the debate (aside from political, environmental or socio-economic), is there is no way to measure real world health impacts over the long term for food.

                    •  I agree with one small difference (6+ / 0-)

                      I often talk about the illusion of "safety" as, as you have also pointed out, there is no such thing as absolute safety.  Yet people still make all kinds of irrational decisions under the illusion of safety.  People have given up actual rights because they believe it will make them "safe".  It's laughable.

                      However, I would argue the illusion of safety and science are two slightly different issues.   I think people fundamentally understand that putting your seatbelt on in the car makes you safer, but doesn't mean you won't get into an accident.  I think people fundamentally believe that wearing a bike helmet makes you safer but doesn't mean you won't break a leg or get hit by a car and get killed.  I think people get that.

                      What people don't get is when science puts out press releases saying pesticides are safe, or GMO foods are safe and yet we live in a world where people seem to be getting sicker.  3/4 of all people will get some form of cancer in their lifetime.  Allergies and autism are on the rise.  Bees and butterflies are dying off and nobody knows why.   We keep hearing science tell us things are safe but in reality, there is at least a perception that we are worse off.  

                      Not to say GMO or pesticides are the answer, but it again, when it comes to food safety or drug safety, etc, science has been wrong before.  It is rare, I think, but it does happen.  And the added problem is that this isn't just "science' people are questioning/doubting (like anti-vaccine people, or climate change deniers) but a larger and more complex issue by far - the issue of food and health.

                      Here is the problem as I see it.  In other aspects of life, people have a choice.   They have a choice to accept certain risks every day.  However, people need food to live and in that regard, there is no choice.  It is eat or die.  Simple as that.  However, agriculture isn't being run based what is safe or not safe so much as what will make the most money.  This goes through all levels.  And as farms get larger and larger and more corporate than "traditional" family farm, there seems to be more and more of a disconnect between farmers and the public.  

                      Let's be honest.  GMOs haven't taken over our food supply because they were deemed safe by science.  It has happened because there is big money to be made selling them and, I would assume, big money to be made in growing them.  This has happened very rapidly and generally without consumers having any say whether they want to support it or not at the store level.  They've just had to buy it.  

                      Now we are in a position where our "leaders" have to seriously hype up the safety aspect of GMO's, even if it means essentially saying consumers shouldn't have a choice.  That is pretty much the literal arguement being made by policy makers right now.  

                      So in a sense, you have a public who feels they are being treated like guinea pigs and because they need to eat, have little options.  They don't understand the "science" and even if they did, there are countless other issues tied into this that are just as questionable.  And buy not giving consumers a choice, or information to make a valid choice at the store level, they are forced to support a system they may not support for any number of reasons.

                      Unlike other areas of life, where risks are generall known and accepted because people have a choice, that has not happened with GMOs.  And the actions and behaviours of those who control the GMOs is questionable enough to shed doubt on the product even if it is the safest thing on earth.

                      But the question is what happens if 30 years from now it looks like health problems are arising due to long-term exposure from GMOs?   What happens then?  It is impossible to turn back the clock and instantly change the system.  This isn't like manufacturing where you can issue a recall and replace the part.  The entire food system from the ground up has developed as it has because of GMOs.  

                      And add to that the problem that once these products are out, if there are long-term health consequences, it would be pretty much impossible to prove.  

                      Granted, I'm throwing out a lot of hypotheticals.  But much like pesticides, where we keep hearing how safe they are but as science advances we are seeing maybe limiting exposure to pesticides in food as much as possible is better, there is never going to be a mass pesticide recall.  Ever.

                      I hope I'm making my point clear.  I personally don't see any reason not to eat GMO products, but that doesn't meant I trust it or think it is perfectly safe.  It's why I try to buy organic as much as possible to limit the risk.  I've read the reports.  I get that science says it is safe.  But I also am trained in philosophy and how to critically review texts and information and when I read many of these studies, I often have more questions than they provide answers.   Just like the recent Informahealth overview study of the last 10 years of GMO safety research.  While many advocates will hold this up as PROOF GMOs are perfectly safe, always will be and we should actually ramp up production and support, I read it and circled many parts where I felt contrary evidence was downplayed, dismissed or where hints of problems were ignored because it wasn't part of the "safety" aspect.

                      I guess, in short, while I don't feel GMOs are unsafe, I also don't feel the research saying it is "safe" is currently adequate to avoid criticism and concerns.

                      It's a complicated issue.  If I were to compare it to climate change, deniers often latch onto local weather to deny climate change.  However, I think anyone who pays attention for more than a day or two is able to see that their climate is changing which supports the scientific view.  Anti-vaccines wackos latch onto one-off fringe studies to ignore the consensus.  But again, anybody more than 25 should be old enough to see that vaccines were made mandatory and diseases disappeared...and now as anti-vaccine advocates increase in numbers those diseases are coming back.  Again, the common sense and observation support the science.  Saying pesticides or GMOs are safe is simply not the same.  Which is why I cringe any time people compare the anti-GMO crowd to the anti-vac or anti-climate change crowd.  It isn't the same.

                      •  GMOs have been eaten for 20-odd years now, by (4+ / 0-)

                        literally tens of millions of people just in the USA alone.

                        In that time, NONE of those tens of millions of people have presented any measurable abnormal health effect attributable to GMOs.

                        Of course, to people with ideological objections, that won't be enough (just as 20 years  of cellphone use are not enough to satisfy the crackpots who think cellphones cause brain cancer, or 50 years of vaccine use are not enough to satisfy the other crackpots who think vaccines are "unsafe"). Indeed, 50 years won't be enough for them either.  Or a hundred. Or a thousand. NO amount of time will be.  Ever. That is because "safety" is not actually their concern or their argument.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 03:34:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Measurable abnormal health effects. (3+ / 0-)

                          Here is my own issue, and I assume the anti-GMO crowds as well.  How would you know if there was? Honestly.  If there was some sort of health effect at this point, how could you possibly prove it and link it to GMOs?  I don't see how that would actually be possible to isolate on particular GMO product to pinpoint as the cause.  And that doesn't even address the fact that GMO use and pervasiveness has increased over the past 20 years.  It's not like GMOs were instantly in every single thing we ate 20 years ago.  I would bet even 10 years ago it was significantly less that it is now.  

                          And what constitutes an abnormal health effect?   Cancer? Allergies?  Autism? I am being sincere in asking this because I honestly don't understand what that means.  I actually do believe people are getting sicker as all these things are becoming increasingly common and nobody has any clue as to why.  

                          I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut.  As I've said before, I have no issues eating GMO foods and trust the science as it currently stands.  I don't really have any other choice.  But I can at least understand the anti-GMO point of view (not always, but mostly I think).  

                          Again, when it comes to vaccines, the safety is obvious.  People were vaccinated and diseases went away.  People stopped getting vaccinated and now these diseases that were gone are coming back.  My own city and a measles outbreak recently.  Never in my life here have I heard of that happening before.  Last year there was an isolated case of kids getting it...this year an actual small outbreak.  reality and common sense support the science.   the same with climate change.  

                          GMOs?  I don't see the same connection.  You say, "people have been exposed for 20 years and no "measurable abnormal health effects"" but I honestly have no clue what that even means.  And even if there was, how would you find the cause as not all GMOs are the same or even close to the same.  Breeding two plants, and inserting virus/bacteria DNA into a plant to break it down and insert genes you want are two totally different things.  And inserting tomatoe DNA into a plant, for certain traits isn't the same as inserting virus DNA into a plant for certain traits even though the "toxicity comparison" may be equal and therefore declared "safe" by science.

                          Do you see what I'm getting at?  

                          •  um . . . (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mconvente, duhban, mattc129
                            Here is my own issue, and I assume the anti-GMO crowds as well.  How would you know if there was?
                            Because we'd see them. And we don't. And "we can't see them" is, in all practical terms, indistinguishable from "they're not there".

                            Saying "Well, there are more cases of X Y or Z now than there were 20 years ago, so the GMOs must be causing it!!!" is not only dumb, but simply assumes what you are supposed to be showing. SHOW us that X Y or Z is, or even COULD be, caused by GMOs.  Until someone does that, there is literally nothing to argue about. The current evidence that any human disorder is caused by GMOs is precisely the same as the evidence that flying saucers or tooth fairies cause it----none.

                            (And all of that doesn't even consider the initial question of whether there really IS any increased rate of X Y or Z disease, or whether it's just an artifact of our increased technology and ability of medical science to detect things it could not detect before.)

                            And indeed, when someone says to me "eating Bt wheat caused my stomach problems!" or "eating GMO apples caused my colitis!"--and neither Bt wheat nor GMO apples even exist at all, then it becomes apparent that whatever the assertion "GMOs are making people sick!" is based on, it's at least partially not based on reality.

                            No one has yet presented ANY data indicating that "GMO corn or soy caused my stomach tumors!!" is any more valid than "GMO apples caused my colitis!!"

                            And until someone does, the whole issue is just a castle in the air. The anti-corporate ideologues believe it to be true because they WANT to believe it to be true, even in the face of no evidence whatsoever to show that it IS true. In that sense, they are no different than the flying saucer or ESP fans---they never give any evidence at all, but they are always full of excuses as to why they can't. But they neglect the most likely excuse of all--there simply IS no evidence.(shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:23:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Perhaps the issue isn't that they aren't there... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wonmug
                            Because we'd see them. And we don't. And "we can't see them" is, in all practical terms, indistinguishable from "they're not there".
                            but that we haven't recognized them yet. After all, it took many years for the detrimental effects, on humans and the environment, of many other harmful substances to be recognized and the causes identified.
                          •  that's fine (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            duhban, mconvente, mattc129

                            But you still have the problem of demonstrating, if you can't recognize them, then , uh, how the hell do we know they are there to begin with?

                            If I tell you "there is a fleet of invisible elves in orbit around Jupiter right now, but we can't see them", would you be willing to join me in the search?  

                            After all, it took many years for the detrimental effects, on humans and the environment, of many other harmful substances to be recognized and the causes identified.
                            And again, that's fine--but how in hell do we do anything about a "detrimental effect on humans" that we not only can't see, but can't tell if it's actually there or not?

                            After all, the "cellphones cause brain cancer" crackpots make precisely the same argument----"just because we don't SEE cellphones causing brain cancer doesn't mean they're NOT--we just haven't RECOGNIZED it yet!"

                            They may indeed be right--cellphones MAY cause brain cancer and we just haven't seen it yet.  But until we DO see it, there's simply no reason to assume it to be true. (Other than the ideological assumption some of us here make because they WANT it to be true).

                            Show us it exists. Then we can talk about it. Until then, there's simply nothing to discuss.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:53:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so, to sum up, what we have so far is . . . (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            duhban, bernardpliers, mconvente, mattc129

                            "We think GMOs make people sick."

                            "What diseases do you think the GMOs cause?"

                            "We don't know."

                            "Well, how do you think the GMOs cause diseases?"

                            "We don't know."

                            "Well, how can we tell which diseases are caused by GMOs and which aren't?"

                            "We don't know."

                            "What plausible mechanisms are there for GMOs to cause any disease in humans?"

                            "We don't know."

                            "Well what particular process is it that you want us to investigate to even see if it's true?"

                            "We don't know."

                            "Geez--then how the heck can you even tell there ARE any diseases being caused by GMOs?"

                            "Because we think GMOs make people sick".

                            .

                            There's no "there" there.  (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:00:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have two basic problems with GMOs (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable

                            The first is that the companies are working very hard and spending a great deal of money to make sure there is no labeling. So we don't have a say in whether we eat them or not. That's a strong indicator that there is a problem with them, and I know you will say its because of the hysteria over the.   But if they were labelled, we would have the opportunity to see the difference. And we don't.

                            The second is that there is no way to know what secondary effects there will be. And it will take a long time to find out, especially with Monsanto crushing any opposition or negative research. You pooh-pooh the possibility of autism or cancer being caused by GMOs. But maybe it does. We shouldn't go have something out there so pervasively without knowing more.  And bear in mind, it isn't just the current genetic modifications. There will be more and more, and one of them could destroy, say, bees, and we wouldn't know until after it's out there because Monsanto is more powerful than the EPA.

                            Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Gabby Giffords.

                            by Leftleaner on Thu May 22, 2014 at 02:06:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and maybe cellphones cause brain cancer (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mconvente, mattc129

                            Or maybe vaccines cause autism.

                            And maybe flying saucers, Bigfoot and the Lost Continent of Atlantis exist.

                            Alas, though, until you show some evidence that they actually DO, all your "maybe's" are just arm-waving.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:15:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't get your point here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable

                            Whether cellphones cause cancer is still up in the air.  Almost every person who studies the issue has said people should always use a handsfree device.  Current safety studies on cellphones say they are safe so long as the phones don't esceed the "safe" level of radiation.  Phones must prove they do not exceed that safe level before they can go to market.   However, studies of individual phones have shown that phones frequently do exceed that safe level.

                            So what does that say?  

                            And the rest of your comparisons are totally invalid as well.  Anyone with common sense can look at the real world and see the reality matches the vaccine science.  Vaccines came out, diseases went away.  People stopped vaccinating and diseases are coming back.  Climate scientists have said "X" will happen due to global warming and will continue to get worse because of human behaviour...and those things are happening.   GMO safety testing is typically done by the GMo companies and is an equivalence test.  They say, "The toxicology of our product may be different from the standard plant, but its level is the same as the natural toxins in the plant people are used to so it must be safe".   But the toxins aren't the same.  So it is a logical error to just assume the safety is the same.  And again, newer testing methods are showing the equivalence is not the same but those methods are still new and more testing needs to be done to determine if it is significant or not.

                            But regardless, I do think you are right that no amount of safety testing will stop this debate because it really is about so much more than simple food safety isn't it?

                          •  (sigh) (0+ / 0-)
                            Whether cellphones cause cancer is still up in the air.
                            OK, I don't need to read any further . . . .

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:45:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I admit I haven't read any of the research. (0+ / 0-)

                            I love my cell phone.  Can't be bothered to care beyond that.  But I will look into the matter further if I am that wrong.

                          •  I can tell (0+ / 0-)

                            But now I am intensely curious, since this is an opportunity to probe into a new level of the entire pseudoscience arena . . . .

                            OK, so you have done no research and don't know the topic, Yet, you made the assertion that the matter "is still up in the air".

                            I am intensely interested in what led you to that assessment.  Upon what was it based. What, specifically, leads you to the conclusion--in the total absence of evidence--that the matter "is up in the air"?

                            Is it a general disposition towards not trusting anything corporate? "Corporations are evil, cellphones come from corporations, therefore they are evil"?

                            Is it a general disposition towards being "fair" to "both sides"? "All opinions are equally deserving of consideration and respect?"

                            Is it Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment? "We should never say anything that implies someone on our side might be wrong about anything?"

                            Or something else . . ?

                            I do realize that I am asking you to look at motivations that are very likely to be entirely unconscious, unintended and perhaps even entirely unnoticed by you. But try your best.

                            I am currently working on a diary about why people believe the things they believe and how their brain makes that decision, so I smell some interesting data points here . . .

                            We can take this to Kosmail if you prefer.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:26:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Quick update: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            occupystephanie

                            From: http://www.cancer.gov/...

                            A quick summary because I know you tend to not read full posts:   radiofrequency possibly carcinogenic to humans but evidence is limited and arguably weak so more research is necessary.  

                            How does that negate what I said?  Full text:

                            6.What do expert organizations conclude?

                            The International Agency for Research on Cancer  (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, effects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier).

                            The American Cancer Society  (ACS) states that the IARC classification means that there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.

                            The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

                            The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for regulating the safety of machines and devices that emit radiation (including cell phones), notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.

                            The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that, although some studies have raised concerns about the possible risks of cell phone use, scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

                            The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that there is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.

                            7.What studies are under way that will help further our understanding of the health effects of cell phone use?

                            A large prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010. This study, known as COSMOS , has enrolled approximately 290,000 cell phone users aged 18 years or older to date and will follow them for 20 to 30 years.

                            Participants in COSMOS will complete a questionnaire about their health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use. This information will be supplemented with information from health records and cell phone records.

                            The challenge of this ambitious study is to continue following the participants for a range of health effects over many decades. Researchers will need to determine whether participants who leave are somehow different from those who remain throughout the follow-up period.

                            Another study already under way is a case-control study called Mobi-Kids , which will include 2000 young people (aged 10-24 years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people. The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood brain tumors. Results are expected in 2016.

                          •  Very disingenuous (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            occupystephanie

                            ...and intentional misreading of everything I've said.  But I guess if you don't have a rational rebuttal it is easier to attack the straw man.  

                          •  glad to hear that you actually DO have answers (0+ / 0-)

                            to those questions . . . .

                            Can we hear them, please?

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:31:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What questions? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            occupystephanie

                            I didn't see any questions, just straw man arguements.   Ask a question and I will do my best to answer.

                          •  OK, I'll play your word game . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            "What diseases do you think the GMOs cause?"

                            "Well, how do you think the GMOs cause diseases?"

                            "Well, how can we tell which diseases are caused by GMOs and which aren't?"

                            "What plausible mechanisms are there for GMOs to cause any disease in humans?"

                            "Well what particular process is it that you want us to investigate to even see if it's true?"

                            Those things with question marks after them, are "questions".

                            And PLEASE try to do better than the level of "cellphones cause cancer".  (snicker)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:53:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My response. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            occupystephanie

                            1) I see no evidence at this time GMO causes any disease.  Current science says it is safe.  If I thought it did cause diseases I wouldn't buy it but I've already said I don't let GMO affect my purchasing decisions.

                            2) I never said GMO causes diseases.

                            3) You can't tell which diseases are caused by GMOs and which aren't.

                            4) Plausible mechanisms?  Some GMO technolocy uses viruses and bacteria to acheive the desireable traits.  I think long term exposure to this material could potentially have long term health consequences.  As could the possibility of something as simple as putting peanut DNA into other products for people with severe allergies.

                            5) I am simply willing to understand and accept the limitations of science when it comes to "safety".  I am a firm believer that safety is mostly an illusion as it is never 100%.  The science we have now says GMOs are safe and that is good enough for me.  But as I've said over and over again, the fact is that the testing methods are advancing.  Current science is based on "equivalance" and new techniques are starting to show less equivalence.  I support continuing to pursue these new techniques regardless of the outcome.

                            6) I understand those are questions.  But since I saw no actual connection to anything I said, and they were part of a fictional story with strawman arguements, I didn't realize they were directed at me.

                          •  glad to hear it (0+ / 0-)
                            I see no evidence at this time GMO causes any disease
                            Since most of the crackpots here DO make that claim, perhaps it would be helpful if more people on the anti-GMO side pointed out that their claim is full of shit.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:17:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I actually agree with much of that (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable, occupystephanie

                            I never made any claim that GMO is causing "x, y or z".  What I'm saying is that people seem to be getting sicker and nobody knows why.  Nobody.  That is just a fact.  And yet we are told everything is safe.  Food is safe, pesticides are safe, fracking is safe, drugs are safe, cell phones are safe.   Everything is safe but a number of health issues seem to becoming more common.  To claim that doesn't exist is ridiculous in my opinion just as it is to assume that I am saying GMO is the cause of it all.  All I am saying is that current "science" on things like food safety is limited and isn't able to take into account real world issues.  Which I've given examples of in past posts.

                            As I've said, I don't think GMOs are unsafe.  My whole point is that people are going overboard in defending GMOs with mistaken beliefs and assumptions of their own.  Science says they are safe.  Yes.  But that same science is still developing and even this latest study says that the testing for equivalence is changing and newer methods are showing less "equivalence" than the current method.  Equivalence is why current GMOs are deemend safe so if this changes, it could impact the arguement for either side.  But it is still new and more work needs to be done.  This is an indisputable fact.

                            As is the fact that not all GMO products are the same and equal.  Again, this is part of the complexity of the issue as well as the problems with the arguement.  GMO is a flawed term.  It's like saying everything with wheels and a motor is a car.  GMO bundles together traditional plant breeding with more modern DNA manipulation.  Yet people who may be against the latter, are accused of hating them all which simply isn't true.  Yet I think most GMO food is still the traditional plant breeding.

                            Mix this in with the fact we are talking about food, something people need and arguably have a right to, and you are going to get emotional arguements.  You are going to get anti-corporatism mixed in and environmental activists, etc.  It is the complex nature of the beast we are dealing with.  There is no way to remove these separate elements because they are one and the same in this situation.

                            People are simply doing a disservice when they have a knee-jerk reaction to the anti-GMO crowd and compare them to anti-vaxers and anti-climate change.  I think there is a civil discussion to be had on this issue on both sides and I think both sides honestly have valid points.  I also think both sides start acting like idiots at times and start talking out their asses which doesn't do the debate any good.  If anything, I think it only puts fuel on the fire.  

                          •  actually . . . (0+ / 0-)
                            What I'm saying is that people seem to be getting sicker and nobody knows why.  Nobody.  That is just a fact.
                            It is not a fact. There is no evidence whatever that there is actually any increase in the rate of diseases---rather, there has ion the past few decades been an enormous increase in our technology,m making us able to detect more cases of diseases, earlier, than we could a few decades ago.

                            But I do note with some interest that your argument is PRECISELY the same as that made by the anti-vaxxers: "We have more cases of autism now than ever, so vaccines must be causing it".

                            Um, no--even if it's true that we have more of disease X or Y than we used to, that doesn't mean Z caused it. Unless you can SHOW that Z causes it.  And you can't.

                            All the crackpot cackling about "GMOs are making us sick!!!" is just arm-waving.  Nothing more.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:34:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Putting words in my mouth (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable, occupystephanie

                            I never said GMOs are making people sicker.   I am simply saying that science has limits when it comes to "safety".  That is what is behind much of this debate, right or wrong, and it is a huge mistake I believe for the pro-GMO crowd to not realize this.  That doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be pro-GMO people.  It just means they should understand those limitations when discussing the benefits with anti-GMO people instead of screaming and calling them anti-vaxers.  Which isn't going to win anybody over.   And calling them anti-vaxers is ridiculous in the first place because the reality is that the anti-GMO crowd aren't all "GMOs make people sick" people.  Some are anti-corporate, some are environmentalists, some are against big agriculture, etc, etc.   If you think you can win the GMO debate by angrily calling all these people anti-vaxers who want kids to die from measles, well....good luck with that.

                            I agree that the increase in disease could very much be due to technology detecting those diseases better or earlier.   But that isn't the case with allergies which are becoming more common and the testing.  I don't think that is the case with the fact that close to 2/3 of all people will get some form of cancer in their lifetime.  We still don't know for sure what even causes cancer, let alone the increase.  Maybe it is just people getting older and living longer.  I don't know.  I would love to see way more money put into health research like this.  Then again, the cynic in me realizes that there is far greater profit potential in fighting symptoms than in curing diseases.

                            My original post (wherever that is now) is still valid.  I've read the science and this new overview of the last 10 years of crop safety research.  I've commented on what I think are questionable issues in that study.  If you want to argue those points then feel free.

                          •  oh, don't bullshit us (0+ / 0-)
                            I never said GMOs are making people sicker.
                            followed by:
                             I've read the science and this new overview of the last 10 years of crop safety research.  I've commented on what I think are questionable issues in that study.  
                            Make up your damn mind.  Are GMO causing measurable health problems in people, or aren't they.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:01:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One of us is BSing, it's not me. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            occupystephanie

                            Clearly you haven't read the actual science you claim to be supportive of and haven't read the post I am referring to.   Or any of my posts for that matter if you think I said GMOs make people sick.

          •  no it's not (7+ / 0-)

            and as a scientist and more over a chemist it's insulting to watch you try and assert that it is.

            You're not even close.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:00:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hardly pointless. (8+ / 0-)

            It's their one talking point. Designed to cover up Monsanto's genuinely amazing levels of corruption and manipulation of the political and legal systems, including preventing scientists from examining information they deem proprietary (thus hampering their research) and rushing their products to market when a sensible approach that cared about public health would suggest that longitudinal studies over at least a couple of decades, fueled by access to all available information, should have been done before going to market.

            One does not simply trifle with the global food supply.

            There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:27:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And yet there are rock-solid anti-GMO arguments (44+ / 0-)

          that are not based on dietary safety, but on the issues of land rights, contamination of unwilling farmers' land and crops, destruction of adjacent land and crop value (especially non-GMO and organic) from this cross-contamination, and the way in which many GMO crops are just a way for a small number of companies to seize control of not just our food supply, but of food itself.

          It seems to me that the anti-GMO argument is pretty airtight for people who care about national and global food security and property rights, regardless of the dietary issues (or non-issues).

          Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

          by bigtimecynic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:03:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe the technical term for this is.... (14+ / 0-)

            ...."moving the goalposts," or in cruder language, "Our first arguments were a load of manure, so let's look for others before too many people notice."

            You know, when companies do this, you aren't very pleased. Sauce for the goose?

            This is the landscape that we understand, -
            And till the principle of things takes root,
            How shall examples move us from our calm?

            (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

            by sagesource on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:06:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My goalposts haven't moved, champ. (22+ / 0-)

              I'm not making the dietary argument at all.  I am exclusively approaching it from a land rights perspective. I'm sorry if your one-dimensional defense of GMO crops can't dent my argument.  Maybe you should channel your sadness into improving your argument instead of accusing me of shifting tactics.

              Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

              by bigtimecynic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:14:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  this scientist agrees (31+ / 0-)

                As a biologist I have never believed the claims that GMOs are unhealthy to consume. I wish that people would not argue this point because it's refutable and there are bigger issues at stake that a lot more people, including conservatives, would agree on.

                The biggest problem with GMOs is as you have described: Big Ag (the same Wall Street plutocrats who own everything else) is well on its way to controlling all major food production, aggressively replacing more resilient smaller farms and genetic crop diversity with a few huge corporations growing millions of acres of ecologically destructive heavily patented monoclones that require large scale hydrocarbon based infrastructure and massive pesticide use to maintain productivity. In an age of climate disruption, increasing ecological fragility, concentration of wealth, and inevitable deregulation fuelled economic chaos, this is the worst scenario for protecting our food supply.

                "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

                by quill on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:30:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This scientist disagrees. (12+ / 0-)

                  No effect is different from beneficial. All you have to do is under-power a test and wa-la, no effect.

                  As a biologist some very basic science is left out of the discussion...that our cells incorporates snippets of DNA at times, into our genome. Think mutation. And, until that happens, NOBODY knows what these snippets might do in other organisms, including humans, but also insects that eat plants, animals that eat the insects, animals that eat the animals, etc.  You should know this. The effect could have a time-lag, and otherwise so disguised by other events, that no one can properly identify the source. No effect is very, very different from beneficial. GMOs to make plants round-up resistant? We don't need more round-up in earth. Or, agent orange, for heaven's sake.

                  Just label them, let people decide for themselves. It's not any different from other ingredients or allergens that currently have to be listed. Many people might even seek out GMOs; labeling would be free advertising.

                  •  certainty there are many potential bad effects (10+ / 0-)

                    Genetic engineering is much more radical than classic breeding, and the potential is there for some really horrific mistakes that aren't detected until after they are released into the wild. The cross-pollination issue is particularly troublesome.

                    I also absolutely don't trust the Monsantos to police themselves and share any evidence of negative impacts with the public, and with our captured government, that is exactly what we will have to put up with.

                    However, I'm also skeptical of the claimed health effects presented so far, particularly these flawed rat studies which have greatly harmed the credibility of GMO critics. Given the power of pro-GMO groups to shape opinion, it is very important to avoid arguments based on that sort of biased easily debunked science.

                    Totally agree with you about labelling. Problem is, though, just about everything on the shelf would have a GMO label at this stage.

                    "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

                    by quill on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:57:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just curious if you include "radiation breeding" (5+ / 0-)

                      in the realm of "classic breeding"?

                      Genetic engineering is much more radical than classic breeding
                      Because thousands of crops have been developed using that technique, which is MUCH more disruptive than modern "GMO" technology - all with nary a peep from the anti-science types who wrote and promote this particular diary . ..  ..  (which btw is a huge embarrasment to this site, I really don't get why this is tolerated here when real things like election fraud are not).
                      •  Ok, OK, here are links: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        quill

                        Useful Mutants, Bred With Radiation

                        Mutation breeding

                        The point remains that if anything should raise the hackles of the insanely irrational genetic purists out there, it would be this . .. . .

                      •  still not as radical as animal + vegetable (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RiveroftheWest, cville townie

                        Radiation and mutagenic chemicals have been used for many decades in breeding programs to increase genetic diversity and increase expression of desired genes (for example to force polysomy).

                        But these efforts are still based on manipulations of the existing genome of the target species - they're just speeding up the mutation process.

                        OTOH genetic engineering can be any combination of living things (and viruses). I'm not opposed to this per se - it's just a methodology, but the results of this process are unlike anything that would result from natural or artificial selection. The problem is that we have no idea how these organisms and their genes will affect and interact  with the natural environment. Obviously, that's not a big concern for corporate labs that create them.

                        "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

                        by quill on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:57:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Animal + vegetable is not radical at all (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          duhban, nicteis, Justanothernyer, kalmoth

                          throughout the time when life existed on this planet, genes were freely exchanged between the two kingdoms via viruses.

                          I don't have links at my fingertips right now, but if anyone is interested will post them in due course.

                        •  you do realize that humans and bananas share about (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          duhban, Justanothernyer

                          60% of their DNA . . .  right?

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:49:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  and we share 96% with chimps, so what? (5+ / 0-)

                            What's your point Lenny? Most of our DNA codes for molecules involved in commonly shared cellular processes that date back to our earliest common ancestors. Obviously the genes that determine whether we're animal or plant, human or chimp, are coded in the smaller proportion, as are the useful genes used to make GMOs. The gene for insulin only exists in animals and when we put it into a banana plant, we have produced an organism that would have been vanishingly improbable otherwise.

                            More to the point, when we put genes into plants that give them disease or herbicide resistance, cause them to produce insecticidal toxins, antibiotics, drugs, etc, that the species hasn't evolved and then release those organisms into the ecosystem to cross pollinate with related natural plants, we've introduced an unknown factor into the environment that could potentially do a lot of damage, and once it's out there there's no recall.

                            "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

                            by quill on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:55:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, so you don't know fourth grade biology . . . . (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            duhban

                            (sigh)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:01:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? Please educate me, Professor (0+ / 0-)

                            "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

                            by quill on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:09:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  As a biologist then... (5+ / 0-)

                    ...you'd be in the position to explain how DNA from something we eat gets incorporated into our genome. How does that work, exactly, because I'd be fascinated to see the explanation.

                    •  I'd be interested to know how GMO genes do that, (4+ / 0-)

                      but all the other billions of genes that we eat every day, don't.

                      Those GMO genes must be pretty damn smart little buggers . . . . .

                      (And I'd of course be amused and entertained beyond measure if our good scientist friend here attributes it to Dr Huber's magic microbe, that only he can see.

                      (snicker)

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:59:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I'd also like to hear how "no effect" is different (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      duhban, kalmoth

                      from . .  well . . .  no effect.

                      Because, ya know, just because it's not there, doesn't mean it's not there.

                      (snicker)

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:01:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Or The Quarter Ton Of DNA We Eat Each Year (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Roadbed Guy

                      I'm not sure the average anti-GMO activist realizes they are shoveling hundreds of pounds of foreign DNA into their pie hole every year.

                      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                      by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:08:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where's that number from? (0+ / 0-)

                        That's be over a pound of DNA a day, and I know personally that I eat less that a pound of "real" food a day in total (most of my caloric intake consists of HFCS, which has been thoroughly cleased of foreign DNA to my understanding . . .).

                        So it'd have to be ALL DNA for your values to be in the ballpark.

                        •  I Rounded Up (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Roadbed Guy

                          It was late when I wrote that but surely the number is over 100 pounds, and of course the more raw food someone eats, the more foreign DNA someone swallows whole.  DNA is a large component of food we eat.   Keep in mind the chromosomes are very very tightly packed at a molecular level.

                          Something like 15%  of our diet is the DNA of plants, animals, viruses, bacteria, insects, fungi.

                          The only way to avoid that would be to eat nothing but refined sugar and vegetable oil.

                          Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                          by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:59:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  there are of course trillions of genes in (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            every mouthful of food we eat.

                            But in terms of actual weight, I think that is negligable. DNA is only a few molecules wide. . . .

                            A quick Google shows that there is around 6 picograms of DNA (a trillionth of a gram ) per cell (though it's not clear whether that is nuclear DNA, or includes mitochondrial/chloroplast DNA).

                            That gives six grams of DNA per trillion body cells. Another Google shows there are roughly 37 trillion cells in an adult human.  That gives about 222 grams of DNA in an adult human--assuming 180 pounds average for an adult human being gives roughly 1.2 grams of DNA per pound of body weight.

                            So a Quarter-Pounder at McDonald's would have about 0.4 grams of DNA in the beef (plus whatever's in the bun and toppings).

                            Which is, of course, an awful lot of DNA molecules.

                            None of which do anything at all to us, btw . . .  ;)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If You Remove All The Water etc (0+ / 0-)

                            ....you get a crispy white mass like some sort of chunky cotton candy or crude textile fiber.  

                            But when it's wet it's a large gelatinous mass, even if the recovery tool is as primitive as a popsicle stick.

                            Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                            by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:59:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but then you are weighing the water (0+ / 0-)

                            A cube of sugar weighs half a ton, if I dissolve it in a bathtub and weigh the water with it.

                            ;)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:06:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll Ask For An 80% Discount At Safeway (0+ / 0-)

                            Next time I buy produce

                            Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                            by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:27:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  whatevs (0+ / 0-)

                            It's not a big enough deal for me to give a fuck about.  (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:49:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Clearly nt (0+ / 0-)

                            Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                            by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:30:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  30 trillion of those are RBCs that don't have (0+ / 0-)

                            nuclei (or DNA!):

                            Another Google shows there are roughly 37 trillion cells in an adult human.
                          •  ahhhh, I hadn't even thought of that. (0+ / 0-)

                            You are entirely correct.

                            :)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:52:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course, if you're trying to make the (0+ / 0-)

                            point that there is relatively little DNA present, that's good for your argument . . ..

                          •  well, I'm not trying to make any point at all-- (0+ / 0-)

                            I was just curiosity-piqued by the question of "how much DOES the DNA we eat weigh?" and did some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations to come up with an answer.  

                            Alas, I neglected the "no DNA in the blood cells" factor, so now I need a new envelope . . . .

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 01:10:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And, are you insinuating that McDonalds burgers (0+ / 0-)

                            are made out of people?  It would seem so.

                            Which is flat out wrong - I'm pretty sure "earthworms" is the correct answer for that.

                          •  Soylent Green is people !!! (0+ / 0-)

                            It's PEOPLE !!!!!

                            ;)

                            PS--I've eaten earthworms.  They're actually not that bad. They just taste sort of like mud.

                            Tarantula is lots better--it tastes sort of like shrimp.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:53:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's why people who write diaries like this (0+ / 0-)

                            one should be deeply in love with McDonalds (and their ilk) - their food is sufficiently highly processed to remove most DNA I suspect.

                            In any event this is a good cautionary tale about (NOT!) eating raw food.  Especially salad, which not only has unprocessed foreign DNA that is for all intents and purposes still "alive" but also a frightening dose of chlorophyll.   I mean really, who needs that shit?  Not me for sure.

            •  I believe the technical term for your and (6+ / 0-)

              charlie2's argument is:

              Sowing doubt.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:14:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Due to my genetic condition (11+ / 0-)

            my system is as sensitive as an infants. I can't eat a GMO apple without getting colitis. Non GMO organic apples do fine. Only an analogy but I reiterate I'm a canary in a coal mine.

          •  absolutely (13+ / 0-)

            My gripes with GMO have always been social, economic and political. Monsanto uses them to maintain a vertical monopoly that places an entire sector of the economy into a semi-feudal relationship, and uses its corporate power to not only control the information that is available about its product, but forces people to use its product in only ways Monsanto approves of. And I don't think ANYONE has any right to patent a natural product for private profit.

            BUT

            Most of the "scientific arguments" made by the anti-science  fringers in the anti-GMO movement are, quite frankly, nonsense. Wrong. Incorrect. Factually challenged. Baloney. Bullshit. However one wants to put it.

            Using "science" arguments that are simply baloney, does not help us.  It HURTS us, by making every anti-Monsanto activist look like an uneducated buffoon who flunked fourth grade science.

            So we shouldn't do it.

            There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Monsanto and its use of GMOs. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:56:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly. Thank you. (6+ / 0-)

              The sale of seeds that produce crops that can't reproduce should be particularly offensive!

              But the crops themselves are safe and we look like fools for saying otherwise.

              If the Rethugs ever realize that climate change is real and that we have to do something on it, they will finally have the cred to destroy us on this.

              •  Then how are GMO crops contaminating (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Russgirl

                non GMO crops?

                Keep the talking points coming.

              •  a hearty agreement to this: (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Errol, Russgirl, wildweasels, duhban
                The sale of seeds that produce crops that can't reproduce should be particularly offensive!
                Monsanto's forcing farmers to not save seed crops for next year is intolerable.

                When a consumer buys a product, that product becomes theirs, to do with as they please. Monsanto has no more right to tell farmers they can't keep seed stocks than WalMart does to tell me I can't watch CSPAN on the TV they sold me.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That isn't a GMO issue. (6+ / 0-)

                  Sterile hybrid crop seed is a completely seperate issue from Genetically Modified Organisms.

                  Not that you could tell that from the pseudoscience and woo that froths up around here at the mention of GMO's.

                  There are, and have been for decades, sterile high yield hybrid crop seeds that various seed companies, such as Monsanto, have sold to farmers.  

                  Modern farming isn't "storing seeds for next year", not on any significant commercial scale.  

                  This isn't the 1800's.

                  Modern farmers buy new seedstock each year.  Why?  Not because "Monsanto forced them!".  But because the high yeild, drought resistant, hybrid crop seeds perform so much better and are so much more profitable for farmers that it makes business sense to use them.

                  And none of this has anything to do with Genetic Engineering.

                  So when I see someone say they are against GMO's because of "land use" and such, I know they are conflating sterile seed and GMO, which, AGAIN, are two different issues.

                  "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party (quip courtesy of Nada Lemming and lotlizard)

                  by Rick Aucoin on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:35:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I didn't say it was (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wildweasels, duhban, wonmug

                    In fact, if you read my comments, you'd already know that.

                    This isn't the 1800's.
                    So what. In the 2010's, companies still have zero right to tell people what they can or can't do with the products they have purchased.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:38:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yes, actually, they do. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Justanothernyer

                      Just like Microsoft, or Apple, has a right to do a lot with your operating system that you "bought".

                      But you didn't buy it, you licensed it for use.

                      Just like a lot of seed is licensed for use, not "bought".

                      In the modern world of agriculture you don't generally "buy" seed stock.  You license it for use, just like you license your computer's operating system.

                      I assure you you do NOT own your copy of Windows Whatever or MacOSXXX or Android you are using to post on this site.

                      And farmers generally don't own their seed stock in these situations.

                      I assure you the company you signed a license agreement with DOES have the right to enforce that license agreement.

                      Which is why Monsanto has a perfect record in its court cases against activists who've tried to force the issue in court.

                      "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party (quip courtesy of Nada Lemming and lotlizard)

                      by Rick Aucoin on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:19:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  no, actually they don't (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Chris Jay, wildweasels, duhban, wonmug

                        "You signed the agreement" doesn't legitimize the tactic. Any more than it would if I sign an agreement granting Monsanto my firstborn, or promising I'll never eat non-Monsanto products, or pledging to wear a "I (heart) Monsanto" t-shirt every day. They have no right to that.

                        Would you be OK with McDonald's making you sign a contract to buy its Big Mac Meal in which you agreed that you won't take your french fry leftovers home with you and reheat them later, or that you won't give any french fries to your neighbor's kid?

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:28:45 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Dude, you sign license agreements. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Justanothernyer, Roadbed Guy

                          Did you not click "I agree" when you installed your web browser or upgraded your operating system?

                          People do not OWN any of the software on their computers.  It's the same with seed stock these days.  It's not even NEW.  And licensing hybrid sterile seed stock has nothing to do with GMO's.

                          And yes, "you signed the license agreement" does mean "you don't own the product".  It means you have the legal rights to use the product according to the license.

                          Which is why Monsanto has a perfect track record in court no matter how many activists try to break their license agreements and accuse Monsanto of "cross pollination" and various other schemes.

                          Across many states, even many countries, so far they've not lost ONE of these license to use cases.

                          And that's not because they've bought every judge in every state in every country.  

                          Seriously, come on.  This isn't new.  License to use is not some newfangled deviltry.  It's how business is done.

                          "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party (quip courtesy of Nada Lemming and lotlizard)

                          by Rick Aucoin on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:37:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't sign any license agreement for my TV (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wildweasels, Justanothernyer

                            set, making me agree not to ever watch MSNBC on it.

                            I didn't sign any license agreement for my car, agreeing that I'd never travel to destinations X, Y and Z with it.

                            I didn't sign any license agreement for my Big Mac agreeing that I'd never vote Democratic.

                            And I should not have to sign a license agreement telling me when and where I can plant the goddamn seeds that I just paid money for. (When I buy seeds from the Home Depot Garden Shop, they don't make me sign anything that tells me where and when I can plant them.)

                            No company has any right to tell a customer that they cannot do X Y or Z with a product once they buy it. Once I but it, I can do whatever the hell I want with it that is legal. Period.  And no company has any moral right (and should have no legal right) to tell me otherwise..

                            That is simply intolerable.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:45:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You did sign a license with the cable company (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rick Aucoin

                            That essentially said you wouldn't "reproduce" your cable by running an extra line across the yard to let the neighbor watch too.

                            The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

                            by catwho on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:56:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is a very interesting issue (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wonmug

                            I tend to viscerally agree with you, but I'd want to think about this further.

                          •  Lenny for someone who.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            occupystephanie

                            ...claims to know a lot about this issue you are being deliberately obtuse on this point.  What is legal is different from what you find morally justifiable.  While I agree with your point about what should be allowed is not what is legally allowed.

                            Rick is correct on the law.  And if tv makers started licensing thier tvs with conditions and they all did it and people still bought them under those conditions I suspect it would be legal.  Just like it is with software, constructive notice be damned.

                            And how do I know this.  My brother is one of the nations premier intellectual property lawyers and has directly worked with cargil on its IP cases involving GMO crops.  Amoung other cases.

                            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                            by delver rootnose on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:36:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and for someone who claims to be literate (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't know how you can possibly have missed this:

                            oh, I perfectly recognize that I am wrong LEGALLY (0+ / 0-)
                            But then, LEGALLY, the anti-slavery abolitionists and the civil rights opponents of Jim Crow were utterly absolutely completely wrong too.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:16:39 PM EDT

                            and this:
                             oh, I perfectly recognize Monsanto's LEGAL (3+ / 0-)
                            right to it. Just as Monsanto has the perfectly LEGAL right to require anyone who buys its seeds to stand on their right foot and whistle "Dixie" three times at sunset while waving the flag of the Confederacy.

                            But they have zero MORAL right to to tell a customer what that customer can or can't do with the product they just bought, and it should not be tolerated in a democracy.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:40:08 PM EDT

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:18:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps---soybean and corn seeds are not software /nt (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Russgirl, wildweasels, wonmug

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:46:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fortunately for us here in Jackson County, we (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RiveroftheWest, madame damnable

                            don't have to deal with GMO arguments or Monsanto's legal bullying or their general corporate dickishness.  

                            We got together and kicked their asses out of OUR county, because they wouldn't leave when we asked nice.

                        •  Sorry, but you are wrong. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Lenny Flank, wonmug

                          It is unfortunate but you are totally wrong.  I wish you weren't, but you are.   It is what I believe a major abuse of any modern intellectual property law whether it be copyright, trademarks or patents.  The COURT will typically protect the rights or the the rights holder no matter how abusive or ridiculous or severe you think the system is.

                          When you buy a book, you have no right or ownership to the actual contents of the book.  You buy a book, technically you are simply buying the right to read the story...not ownership of the content.   Same as when you buy a movie or CD.  You don't own the content on the disc, you have simply bought a license to view the product.

                          The main difference is one of time and consumer expectation.  Books and music and movies have been around for and purchased by the public for a long time.  So there is an established expectation that they can buy and sell the product as they please after the fact.  But make no mistake, companies have tried in the past to use the law to shut down secondary markets.  Used music has been a big target for years.  And used videogames is a new area under attack with companies arguing that if you sell a videogame you bought to someone else, they deserve part of that sale.

                          It's also why companies have started to embrace digital content as they realize it gives them a level of control and ownership they didn't have when selling physical products.

                          I would argue that seed is a bit of a different issue simply based on how seed is sold to farmers.

                          •  oh, I perfectly recognize that I am wrong LEGALLY (0+ / 0-)

                            But then, LEGALLY, the anti-slavery abolitionists and the civil rights opponents of Jim Crow were utterly absolutely completely wrong too.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:16:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok then. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Lenny Flank, Justanothernyer

                            I agree with you in that case.  I am a firm believer that intellectual property rights need to be rolled back extremely.  All of it - copyright, trademark, patents.  Originally intended to give creators time to profit off their work, it now creates monopolies on work and instead of encouraging creation of new works, I would argue actually discourages it.

                            But that is another topic for another day.  I do fully agree with you that once you buy something you should have the right to keep or sell as you please.  The rights of the seller to make money end after original sale.

                          •  The first sale doctrine generally provides (0+ / 0-)

                            that when you buy content embodied in a physical object you have rights to the content to the extent embodied in the physical object - so you are buying somewhat more than merely the right to read the story.

                      •  oh, I perfectly recognize Monsanto's LEGAL (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        catwho, wildweasels, duhban

                        right to it. Just as Monsanto has the perfectly LEGAL right to require anyone who buys its seeds to stand on their right foot and whistle "Dixie" three times at sunset while waving the flag of the Confederacy.

                        But they have zero MORAL right to to tell a customer what that customer can or can't do with the product they just bought, and it should not be tolerated in a democracy.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:40:08 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Not entirely true. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    catwho, madame damnable

                    Many farmers do save seed for future use.  It is very common despite your claims to the contrary.  In fact, I am pretty sure Canada does not allow terminator seeds onto market and any new seed brought to market must, by law, allow farmers to reuse the seed.

                    Your reason for this practice reducing makes no sense.  If farmers are looking for those special seeds from Monsanto, chances are they have no choice whether or reuse or not.  Especially in the US.

                    However, it is just as likely that lack of storage space and the need to rotate crops as "best practices" makes saving seed a challenge.  Especially if you are a large farm that produces a large number of crops in any given season.

                    •  What's A "Terminator" Seed? Grows Word Salad? (0+ / 0-)

                      Come on, tell us what you think a "terminator" seed is because, apparently it's something that only has a meaning in the activist community unconnected to reality.

                      I swear, this is just getting more and more into the realm of fantasy and hallucinations.

                      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                      by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:34:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  ABuse of patent law (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  madame damnable, Lenny Flank

                  When Monstanto or any company similar makes a new plant, they need to patent the DNA of that plant in order to protect it and "own" it.  Because they patent the DNA itself, they have every right (according to the court system in North America) to tell people what they can or can't do. Any sale of seed is done on contract and clearly states you have no rights or authority or ownership of that product because Monsanto owns and maintains the patent.

                  It is also why if a GMO crop contaminates your own, you are considered at fault.  You are in possession of a patented product you didn't legally purchase and courts have given Monsanto the legal authority to go after you.

                  •  point of fact . . . (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ypochris, nicteis, Justanothernyer, wonmug

                    Monsanto did not "make" the GMO Bt gene. It is a naturally-occurring gene in an ordinary common soil bacteria, that has already existed for millions of years before the human species ever even evolved. What Monsanto did was take that specific gene out of the bacterium and insert it into the DNA of the corn and soybean plants.

                    Similarly, the company that makes and sells the GMO "Glo-Fish" in your local pet store did not "make" that gene either--they took an already-existing gene for luminescence out of a jellyfish and inserted it into the DNA of a Zebra Danio.

                    My memory on the Roundup-resistant GMO gene is alas a little fuzzy--I'm not sure if they DID specifically make this by modifying an existing gene, or if they just took an already-occurring gene for glyphosate resistance (genes for Roundup resistance had already appeared before "Roundup-Ready" GMO plants were ever produced) and inserted that gene into the plants. I welcome any clarification on that.

                    But the bottom line is that this is NOT the equivalent of Monsanto writing computer code or writing a book and then copyrighting or patenting it. Even in cases where the genes are modified, that is the equivalent of me changing some names and plot points in Gone With the Wind and then claiming I wrote it and can copyright it.

                    Monsanto didn't make those genes--Mother Nature did. And Monsanto, in my view, has no right to patent a product of Mother Nature for their own private profit.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:04:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I fully agree. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lenny Flank

                      Unfortunately, politicians and the legal system do not.  It wasn't long ago that nobody was able to patent a living thing.  The courts changed that so companies like Monsanto could make a profit patenting food.

                    •  But they have a right to patent.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...the process by which they combine the two and the control the resulting product.

                      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                      by delver rootnose on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:42:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  but they have not patented just the process--they (0+ / 0-)

                        claim to own the actual GENE.

                        They claim ownership of the GENE ITSELF, no matter how anyone obtained it.  That is why they claim patent violations on farmers who have the GENE blow into their crops and become established.

                        Said farmers emphatically did NOT use Monsanto's process to obtain the gene, and that is not what Monsanto sues them for. They are sued simply for possessing the patented GENE.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:20:48 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Plant Varieties Have Been Patentable Since 1937 (0+ / 0-)

                    No doubt a lot of your favorite non-heirloom organic foods are in fact patented varieties.

                    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                    by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:38:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  you know these crops are safe? how? (0+ / 0-)

                where are the studies?

                •  well, in point of fact . . . . (4+ / 0-)

                  GMOs have already been in use in the USA for roughly 20 years now, and have been eaten during that time by literally tens of millions of people.

                  And there have been NO effects anywhere that have been attributable to the consumption of GMOs.

                  Oddly enough, the "no studies to show it's safe!!" argument is precisely the same one made by the anti-vaxxers.  I don't think that is a coincidence.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:59:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  So, if I'm understanding you (0+ / 0-)

            There would be no problem with GMO crops that were developed, say, directly by the Department of Agriculture, and placed in the public domain?

            That would put us on the same page, but I'm not sure whether GMOs introduced under that paradigm would pass muster with you.

        •  alas, this part is indeed literally true: (8+ / 0-)
          The best comparison is not between anti-GMO and anti-global-warming but between anti-GMO and anti-vaccination
          In far too many cases, the crackpot contingent is literally the same people for both issues. All one has to do is look into all the anti-vax and anti-GMO diaries here at DKos, and count how many user IDs show up in both, arguing that it's all a big giant pharma/agribusiness corporate conspiracy.

          DKos may be reality-based, but sadly too many DKosers are not.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:01:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not reality-based on science (11+ / 0-)

            Well, at least for a small but loud contingent of users here.

            There is a disconnect in the mind of anti-vax and anti-GMO liberals here.  They for the life of them cannot separate the corporate side from the science side.

            "Oh, you support GMOs?  You're pro-corporation".  I mean, it's right here in this fucking diary (see the link).

            As I have stated, and you, and several others in here, we can be in favor of GMO science while still detesting the cartel that is Monsanto.

            It's the same line of thinking behind attack Pharm companies.  "Oh, they are poisoning you!!  And making medicines for things that don't need treatment!!  etc. etc."  Sure, any corporation sucks at some things, but at least Pharms are making medicines that improve the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.  When can you ever say that about some Goldman Sachs executive pushing electrons across the NYSE?

            As a scientist, it drives me up a wall.  To be lectured by users (hi HB3 and Russgirl) that clearly don't have a clue about the science at hand - pisses me off like crazy.

            "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

            by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:37:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yep. they have allowed their ideology to (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mconvente, mattc129, wildweasels

              run away with their brains.

              As an anti-Monsanto activist (ever since I worked for Greenpeace back in the 90's) it embarrasses me to have the anti-science crackpot contingent on the same side as me.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:42:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But you've done the same, (0+ / 0-)

                by repeating (and repeating, and repeating) the strawman that the major objection to GMO crops is direct effects on consumer health from eating them. Your behavior in the debate is actually worse, because you are informed and still insist on this ridiculous red herring. Your tactics and tone destroy your credibility, so while you might have had a chance to make a constructive contribution, you've lost it in your glee in insulting people. Pathetic.

                •  then I welcome you telling all the people here in (0+ / 0-)

                  these very comments who make this claim, that they are wrong.

                  the strawman that the major objection to GMO crops is direct effects on consumer health from eating them.
                  I look forward to it.

                  PS--perhaps you should read a bit further, where I plainly say (as I also plainly say in every GMO diary I've ever commented in):

                  My gripes with GMO have always been social, economic and political. Monsanto uses them to maintain a vertical monopoly that places an entire sector of the economy into a semi-feudal relationship, and uses its corporate power to not only control the information that is available about its product, but forces people to use its product in only ways Monsanto approves of. And I don't think ANYONE has any right to patent a natural product for private profit.

                  BUT

                  Most of the "scientific arguments" made by the anti-science  fringers in the anti-GMO movement are, quite frankly, nonsense. Wrong. Incorrect. Factually challenged. Baloney. Bullshit. However one wants to put it.

                  Using "science" arguments that are simply baloney, does not help us.  It HURTS us, by making every anti-Monsanto activist look like an uneducated buffoon who flunked fourth grade science.

                  So we shouldn't do it.

                  There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Monsanto and its use of GMOs. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:25:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  in the comments here so far . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  in a quick count, I see the number of comments that advocate the existence of (unstated) health effects on people who eat GMOs at 74.

                  I count the number of replies by you pointing out that this is simply not true, as zero.

                  Why is that?

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:02:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  And what will they do... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              catwho, aimeehs, mconvente, nicteis

              ...when all the non profit organizations start rolling out their GMOs?  By demonizing the science, they are demonizing a very critical tool for combating food security all over the world.  I wonder if they even know that papaya farming in Hawaii was saved in 1998 by the introduction of GMO papaya that is resistant to papaya ringspot virus?

              I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

              by Mote Dai on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:17:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Uhmmm. Bad analogy. (0+ / 0-)

          On the one hand you say man-made baby formula is inferior to natural breat milk.

          On the other you say people who call GMOs "frankenfoods" and treat them as something less than or inferior to traditional plants/foods are being unfair.  

      •  I'm sorry, but this doesn't work... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        First I would argue that neither of those is "perfectly safe". You have to be darn careful when you use either. Second, I would remind you that you are arguing against the use of a chemical on food crops and their soils. Would you be for the use of bleach and ammonia on food crops and soils?

    •  WRONG. (35+ / 0-)

      Firstly, GMOs contribute to big-Ag pesticide/monoculture. Massively. And it's well-documented that pesticide/monoculture farming is not sustainable.

      Secondly, many health effects don't appear for decades. Of course there's no evidence of decades-long effects when there hasn't even been time for the data to accumulate, much less be gathered or examined. It took 20 years to gather the evidence against lead in gasoline, and that was for a known neuro-toxin!

      Your argument is at best deceptive.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:04:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If your concern is monoculture and pesticide use (23+ / 0-)

        why not pass laws preventing monoculture and pesticide use directly. GMOs are only a part of the problem. There is still monoculture and pesticide use with non-gmo crops.

        Many health effects don't appear for decades
        Its been two decades since GMOs came on the market. There is no convincing evidence that they cause health problems. and saying that we need to study every new plant breed for decades is ridiculous.

        You are deceptive being soooooo sure there are health problems with GMOs when there is no proof whatsoever that that is the case. And its not just a couple industry paid shills saying this, its the entire scientific community.

        •  Ridiculous Decades (11+ / 0-)
          saying that we need to study every new plant breed for decades is ridiculous.

          Why? Because it costs Monsanto too much? Unless we do those longterm studies we can't be sure these new breeds are safe. And when they're not safe, it's too late to stop them. The new DNA is established in the ecosystem. The only limit will be whether they're fit to survive in an ecological niche, not just under the direct control of farmers where they started.

          Only study for decades, for generations, can show they're safe. Like we've already put in on what we eat from nature or traditional breeding.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:54:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's just so much *trouble* (11+ / 0-)

            to actually do science.

            And safeguard the public health.

            And find out the actual truth.

            Takes decades and lots of money.

            Fuck that. Let's profit now.

            There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:15:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We would just now be getting penicillin (10+ / 0-)

            if we adopted your "study it to death" mentality.

            It was as a result of a study of 107 persons that we discovered that an antibiotic (streptomycin) killed tuberculosis. But there was no long term follow-up! We should have let tuberculosis continue to ravage society for decades while we collected long term safety data.

            NOT!!!!

            Your argument is junk science. Period.

            •  Here's my position. (5+ / 0-)

              I believe in studying something that could endanger the world's food supply for a couple of decades, yes, preferably with independent longitudinal studies with full access to all available information.

              In the case of penicillin, the research was being driven by exigent and desperate human need to stop disease. Therefore, as a researcher, you'd have to weigh the harm currently being done by the disease against the harm potentially being done if penicillin had severely damaging side effects. World hunger does not present the same kind of pressure, as there are many other ways to counter hunger than Monsanto hybrids. In fact, I see no exigent need to have released those GMOs in 1996, or in 2006, for that matter, other than Monsanto's need to make large profits.

              Also, as I've repeatedly said, this issue cannot be examined separate from the issue of institutional trust. And it's hard to believe that you could put people like this:

              As of December 2013. the members of the board of directors of Monsanto were:[70]

              Gregory H. Boyce, Chairman and CEO of Peabody Energy Corporation
              David L. Chicoine, president of South Dakota State University
              Janice L. Fields, former president of McDonald’s USA, LLC, a subsidiary of McDonald’s Corporation.
              Hugh Grant, president and CEO
              Arthur H. Harper, managing partner of GenNx360 Capital Partners
              Laura K. Ipsen, corporate vice president of Microsoft Corp.'s Worldwide Public Sector organization.
              Gwendolyn King, president of Podium Prose, a speakers bureau
              C. Steven McMillan, former chairman and CEO of the Sara Lee Corporation
              Jon R. Moeller, chief financial officer of The Procter & Gamble Company.
              William U. Parfet, chief executive officer of MPI Research Inc.
              George H. Poste, chief executive of Health Technology Networks
              Robert J. Stevens, executive chairman of the board of Lockheed Martin Corporation
              in the same category with people like

              this

              or even people like

              this.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:49:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  point of fact . . . (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban, Justanothernyer
                I believe in studying something that could endanger the world's food supply for a couple of decades,
                GMO foods have already been available in the US for 20-odd years, and have in that time period already been consumed by literally tens of millions of people (hundreds of millions, if we include the global population)---a far larger and longer test trial than any corporation in history would ever be capable of undertaking.

                And in all that time, none of those people have shown any unusual food safety issues attributable to GMOs.

                How many more decades, and tens of millions of test subjects, would you still need?

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:55:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They were legalized in 96. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Grabber by the Heel

                  The twenty years of "test subjects," i.e. the whole fucking population, was done after legalization.

                  As for no unusual food safety issues attributable to GMOs, Scientific American says they need more tests, with access to all the information, some of which is being kept back for proprietary reasons, otherwise they won't be able to ascertain whether GMOs are related to disease or not.

                  Modern tobacco cigarettes were smoked from roughly 1854 through 1964 before the Surgeon General put out its report that smoking caused cancer.

                  I guess this is just the way we do things in this culture, but you'd think that when the global food supply might get screwed up by it--in other words, there are not only questions about personal health, but environmental risk--we'd do something other than use the whole damned world as our test subject.

                  There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 03:53:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  how dreadful (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Justanothernyer

                    None of that, however, changes the simple unalterable fact that in that 20 years of tens of millions of people were still eating them, and there still has been NO demonstrated effect on any of them attributable to GMOs.

                    Period.

                    If you disagree, then please by all means show us the sick people, and show us the mechanism whereby GMOs made them sick.

                    But you won't.  You can't.  There isn't any.  (shrug)

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:27:32 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  It appears there are ramifications to antibiotics (0+ / 0-)

              Your argument for antibiotics actually works against you, if you are at all familiar with emerging research on the human biome and the long-term, permanent effects on it due to the use of antibiotics. There are many researchers who believe that these alteration to the biome are having catastrophic effects on human health. Here's a link to an article that further describes this, and there is much research to back Dr. Blaser.

              Most people are becoming aware that over-use of antibiotics is leading to drug-resistant super bacteria, but it turns out that the problems with antibiotic use are much more extensive than that. It's essentially changing the biome, an unanticipated effect from when antibiotics were discovered.

              Pretending that we can assume safe all unintended and unforeseen outcomes from GMO use is absurd.

            •  Dumb and wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              On the one hand we've got scientific studies based on proper protocols for treatments for people who are already ill.

              On the other hand, we've got feed-it-to-everyone-eve-if-they're-not-sick, and look-noone-died-yet substituted for scientific protocol.

              And you're arguing those are the same.

              Really, I can't do anything other than laugh at that.

              "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

              by nosleep4u on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:44:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No (0+ / 0-)
            Like we've already put in on what we eat from nature or traditional breeding.
            There are no policies about long term studies for new breeds that are the result of natural methods.
        •  It is the moving target.... (24+ / 0-)

          just like the anti-vaccine movement.  When the mercury was shown to be unrelated to autism, then it became the vaccine itself, then the sequence of vaccines and the number of vaccines.  It is the conspiracy minded "Monsanto/Pharma is evil" mind set and very little can be done to rationally convince these folks.  The scary part is the 20 year campaign based on essentially nothing proven.  The anti-science left is as bad as the anti-science right.

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

          by murrayewv on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:00:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What a bullshit label "anti-science left". (20+ / 0-)

            Stop trying to paint people concerned with the genetic modification of food crops as being anti-science.

            It belittles your point.

            And please stop defending corporations that have gone out of their way to block thorough studies of their bastardized and failed technology.

            GMO crops have done nothing significant except make GMO corporations wealthy.

            Health effects aside, the lab-based GM approach to food production is an abysmal failure at a time when the earth needs real solutions that start from soil heath in order to feed the world's growing population in perpetuity.

            If that makes me anti-science, then that makes you pro-corporation. Try to make sense of that.


            "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

            by Pescadero Bill on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:15:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We have had some examples of it in this thread! (4+ / 0-)
            •  Why can't you separate corporate from science? (7+ / 0-)

              This is what I don't get.  Anti-GMO people just cannot separate the evils of Monsanto vs. the science alone.

              btw, most food is already genetically modified.  It's called hybridization...  How else do you think we get seedless watermelons, oranges, etc...

              It's the same story for all the anti-vax liberals - ohhhh, Pharm is just injecting us with poisons, FDA process is corrupt, etc.  60% of new drugs that pass Phase III trials are still not approved.  Sure, the Dendreon incident was corrupt bullshit, but of all the government regulatory agencies, the FDA is one that actually still has teeth.  When was the last time the SEC actually did anything about the seething corruption on Wall Street?

              "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

              by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:45:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  anti-science (0+ / 0-)

              anti-science- disregarding all available evidence and expert opinion

              you- disregarding all available evidence and expert opinion.

              anti-science=you. Its simple.

            •  Cult-like? Orwellian? Help Me Out Here (0+ / 0-)

              How can people spend any time on issues like this at all and not know what a hybrid plant is?  Or that plants have been patented in the US for 80 years? Or that there is no such thing as a "terminator" seed on the market, never was.  And why do people keep insisting they are being sickened by specific GMO foods that do not even exist?

              How do people do that year after year?  If I were involved in some cause, eventually I would absorb some factual information, even if it were just by accident.

              Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

              by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:45:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  anti-science left as bad as the anti-science right (9+ / 0-)
            The anti-science left is as bad as the anti-science right.
            That is the best point here. I used to be automatically anti-"GMO" until I started reading some of the things I've seen here as people started arguing with me, instead of joining the anti-GMO bandwagon. That was surprising. And I learned some stuff, that I had actually taken for granted, not nuanced enough. Now I'm starting over, just reading everything, sifting it a second time.
               I had been seriously considering the "results" of the experiment noted above by sagesource, but I was also aware that the scientists were holding out on stuff, and that other factors might be contributing since a quarter of the non-GMO-food rats also got tumors. So there is a lot to talk about. It's harsh here when people have definitely decided, instead of conferring first.

            What IS the real science about GMO corn and breast tumors in mice and how does that relate to people?

            I am happy that the diarist protested Monsanto in her neighborhood, because I think that that Corporation is a bully and Big-Ag should be pushed back against. But I also think there's a lot more to discuss. Please proceed, everybody.

            We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

            by nuclear winter solstice on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:35:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Anti-vax and anti-GMO are nothing alike. (0+ / 0-)

            Anti-vax explicitly denies case-closed scientific study.

            Anti-GMO is based on the distinct lack of scientific study.

            Equating of the two is imbecilic.

            "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

            by nosleep4u on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:49:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and yet so many of the user IDs that show up in (0+ / 0-)

              both sets of diaries giving the whole "vaccines/GMOs are a corporate plot by Big Pharma/Monsanto to make money!!!", are remarkably the same.

              Why is that?

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:57:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The people who argue.... (13+ / 0-)

          ....in the global warming debate that it is irresponsible to go against the virtually unanimous consensus of the scientific community swing right around and claim that their "feelings" and frauds are more valid than the similar consensus of the scientific community concerning GMOs. It all goes to show that calling oneself a "progressive" is no insulation against hypocrisy. It also weakens the case against such scientifically supported dangers as global climate change by indicating that the "progressive" community has no respect for the truth when that truth goes against their legends.

          And you wonder why Monsato wins so often? It's because the rich hypocrite will beat the poor hypocrite every time, once the poor hypocrite has decided to imitate the dishonest tactics of the rich one without having the resources of the rich one.

          This is the landscape that we understand, -
          And till the principle of things takes root,
          How shall examples move us from our calm?

          (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

          by sagesource on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:02:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  GMOs are not fungible, which is precisely why (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC, Russgirl, Words In Action

          each new one must be thoroughly studied and tested. If I inject sucrose into grapefruit, it harms nobody but diabetics, so   I may also inject strychnine into grapefruit and market it to non-diabetics, right?

          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 Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:11:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  where are the studies? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Russgirl

          ?

      •  Killing bees is proven by Monsanto. (8+ / 0-)

        Einstein said we had 4 years left AFTER we kill the bees.

        What if we all took care of our planet - and it took care of us?

        Poison is Poison... eat, drink, breath it...
        or CHOOSE DIFFERENTLY.

        These good folks did - fought "Goliath" and won.
        Step by step.... That is what Big AG is afraid of.
        PEOPLE POWER.

      •  WRONG (6+ / 1-)

        See, other people can say it in all caps.

        Organic farming requires MORE volume of pesticide and herbicide, MORE runoff from manure.

        GMO's, in many cases, are specifically engineered so that the farmers can use herbicides that are low impact and viable in lower volumes, resulting in LESS environmental contamination.

        But, do please continue with this destructive, luddite, attack on our food technologies.  

        "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party (quip courtesy of Nada Lemming and lotlizard)

        by Rick Aucoin on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:37:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're talking absolute nonsense (0+ / 0-)

          You're not going to convince the anti-science crowd by defending Monsanto's practices and attacking organic farming.

          If you use pesticides or herbicides on your crop, you can't label the produce organic. Period. What on earth are you yattering on about?

          Please give an example of a GMO that enables herbicides to be used in lower volumes. Monsanto's products all provide resistance to herbicides, so that herbicides can be used in higher volumes.  I can't quite figure out how you could insert a gene into a crop that would make the weeds (into which it was not inserted) suddenly docile and more susceptible to a low level of herbicide.

          GMOs hold enormous promise for improved agriculture on a warming planet. But the most widely used and commercialized specific genetic modifications have pernicious effects. You can't effectively defend the tool if you're not prepared to denounce its misuses.
           

        •  HR for intentional lying: (0+ / 0-)
          Organic farming requires MORE volume of pesticide
          Really?

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:52:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that struck me as odd too (0+ / 0-)

            Though I don't think it rises to the level of an HR.

            But it also strikes me as odd when people claim using GMO crops also increases the amount per unit of pesticide use, particularly when lots and lots of people make that claim but NOBODY ever posts any actual measured figures to show that it's so. The only person I've seen here who actually tried to post a per-unit figure (as opposed to the TOTAL amounts for both, which are irrelevant to the per-unit measure), cited figures showing about 15% more pesticide per unit on GMO--an amount that may indeed fall within the normal within-field variation caused by wind and weather during application.

            I find it intuitively odd that any farmer would voluntarily agree to purchase a product that increases his costs (by increasing the amount of pesticide he must buy) and therefore cuts into his own profits. Unless of course the offset in improved crop yeild is enough to make up for the increased expense (in which case the actual usage per unit would be going DOWN, not up).

            I suspect the real truth is that nobody anywhere on either side has any actual measured figures at all, and therefore nobody anywhere actually has the faintest fucking idea whatsoever how much pesticide is actually sprayed on any field, GMO or not--and everyone just makes up a comparison out of thin air that simply tells them what they already want to believe, and then preaches it as if it were true.  (shrug)

            After all, that entire argument--"does GMO crop use more pesticide per unit than non-GMO?" is not a matter of opinion or ideology or tribalism or whatever-->it's a simple matter of measurement. Either it uses more per unit, or it doesn't.  Period. The question can be answered, unequivocally, unarguably, and permanently, simply by citing two simple figures--GMOs use X pounds per acre and non-GMOs use Y pounds per acre, and one of those numbers will be bigger than the other. Period.

            But not only does nobody seem capable of doing that--nobody seems to even WANT to. Which indicates to me that nobody is actually interested in the actual numbers--they've already made up a comparison out of whole cloth that they like ideologically, and they're simply not interested in the actual reality.

            It's very illuminating about the entire "debate".

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:23:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong about organic (0+ / 0-)

          I am a long time organic gardener. I use a vinegar based herbicide and a soap based pesticide. Any manure I use is aged and doesn't create problems from runoff, although since I don't want to waste good horse shit, I don't apply it so it can run off.

          Organic farmers use companion planting, crop rotation, beneficial insects and other means so they DON'T have to use herbicides and pesticides.

          Regarding GMO crops that are Round-up Ready, we are already seeing the emergence of super-weeds that develop glyphosphate resistance and then reproduce. Same is true of chemical pesticides. Some insects always survive and then pass along their resistance. We will see super pests and super weeds just like we now have anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

          You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?

          by madame damnable on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:19:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  to be fair . . . . (0+ / 0-)

            Roundup is also sprayed on non-GMO crops too, where it produces exactly the same resistance in exactly the same weeds.  Indeed, Roundup was in wide use for years before GMO crops ever appeared--and there were already Roundup-resistant weeds appearing.

            If you ban all GMOs tomorrow, Roundup will continue to be sprayed, and weeds will continue to develop resistance to it.   The presence or absence of the GMO gene is utterly irrelevant. We get the same resistance whether the GMO is there or not. That is simple evolution in action, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop or prevent it.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:34:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  but there's tons of evidence they're bastards (29+ / 0-)

      http://rt.com/...

      until they can guarantee their crops won't contaminate non-GMO crops, there is a problem.

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:06:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Anyone who says "junk science" is a tea-bagger (25+ / 0-)

      It is a code word for "conspiracy,"  and I never heard it used by anyone but climate change deniers. But science or no, I do not want mega-billion $ businesses to control our food supply on the DNA level. I do not trust where they will go with it, and I do not see any reason to give them that kind of power.

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:17:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (7+ / 0-)

        There are plenty of reasons to protest against Monsanto even without considering the science at all.

        „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

        by translatorpro on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:49:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Name-calling.... (8+ / 0-)

        ....is not argument. But it's an effective way to "argue" if you know the facts aren't on your side. Any number of progressives derided as "dirty Commies" can attest to that.

        This is the landscape that we understand, -
        And till the principle of things takes root,
        How shall examples move us from our calm?

        (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

        by sagesource on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:51:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name calling wasn't my argument, was it? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CenPhx, Russgirl, maregug

          I have a comment below about allowing this kind of technology to run amok just because there is no proof that in the next six months it will not be injurious to health or the food supply. To deny the vast political and economic impact of GMO foods is a short term, two-dimensional view. I would not willingly  give them the power for this technology,any more than I would willingly give the power to the NSA to record every conversation in America, even if they claim it is for my own benefit (and they always do).

          "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

          by shmuelman on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:09:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Sowing doubt." (10+ / 0-)

        Classic tactic when defending corporations that are doing something injurious to the public health.

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:16:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No evidence that GMOs are injurious (7+ / 0-)

          to the public health.

          •  When insufficient research is done (6+ / 0-)

            and sufficient research is suppressed, it's easy to experience a lack of evidence.

            In 2009, 26 academic entomologists wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that because patents on engineered genes do not provide for independent non-commercial research, they could not perform adequate research on these crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops," they wrote.
            Perhaps if the leading company in the industry was not a band of fascist censoring fuckwads, we might be able to find out what the actual effects of genetically modified foods are. Though discovering the effects might well take more than 18 years, which is what it's been since this type of genetic manipulation was introduced in 1996.

            There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:18:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you ignorant or just wilfully disingenuous? (5+ / 0-)

              I've posted around five times a 10-year meta study published just in March 2014 that shows "no significant hazards" from GMOs at this point.  A good journal from a good publication house.  Solid impact factor.

              "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

              by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:52:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, first: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                occupystephanie, Russgirl, maregug

                that doesn't counter what I just posted re: scientists not being able to do sufficient research because they are denied access to information deemed proprietary. Unless you're saying that the 2009 letter I link to is fraudulent, or that those scientists are lying, or are crazy anti-science nuts.

                Second: as I said, longitudinal studies over decades would be best for accurately determining the effects of this technology--if what you're interested in is getting accurate data that you can rely on, rather than enabling a company to maximize its profits as quickly as possible

                And before you talk to me about hunger and famine, let me say that rather than attempting to place a technological bandaid on those problems, perhaps we should deal with the economic and political inequities that produce most of the world's hunger. As well as the ecological depredations that produce the rest of it.

                There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:01:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Come on, SLMD, what's next, Serelani? (5+ / 0-)

              There's been zero peer reviewed studies showing ill health effects from GMO's, and contrary to what you're saying, such research hasn't been suppressed.  

              That's like saying that all the research proving global warming false is suppressed by... whoever.

              When you find yourself making the same arguments as climate change deniers and only the nouns are different then you should know you need to reevaluate your stand on a subject.

              "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party (quip courtesy of Nada Lemming and lotlizard)

              by Rick Aucoin on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:06:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here ya go: (4+ / 0-)

                This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

                “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

                There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:53:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not the same arguments, as it's not the same (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                occupystephanie, Russgirl

                situation.

                There's no letter from a large number of independent academics saying that climate research isn't being allowed, or is being controlled by some left-wing political conspiracy. There's no article in Scientific American discussing that problem.

                Also, climate problems have been studied since...well, let's see, the first computer-model research on it was published in 1978, I believe. By 1998, pretty much all doubts should have been resolved. Of course, the problem was (and is) that massive corporate power was obstructing, manipulating, and undermining the message of the science. Here too, there is some evidence that corporate power is obstructing, manipulating, and undermining the science.

                If it turns out that GMOs are safe, no one will be happier than me. I'm agnostic as far as GMOs are concerned. I'm definitely not agnostic as far as extraordinarily corrupt corporations capturing government is concerned, especially when evidence of such regulatory capture occurs in relation to an issue that has profound implications for global survival. Further, bullying and secrecy on the part of said company does not increase my confidence. Further still, the fact that there are reputable scientists, and more than a few, saying that there are problems with the research caused by corporate policy does not increase my confidence.

                Given the political and economic realities we're living in, I have every reason for suspicion, Rick. And if you look at my comment history, I think you'll find it harder to believe that I am some kind of anti-science wingnut.

                There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:05:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  GMOs by itself may not be. (0+ / 0-)

            But currently, corporations are grossly misusing it.

      •  I am no tea bagger (7+ / 0-)

        just an honest scientist. I call out all sides for junk science.

        "I do not want mega-billion $ businesses to control our food supply on the DNA level."

        That isn't a scientific argument, it is an emotional argument.

        •  Not everything that can be done, should be done. (5+ / 0-)

          The use of GMO's is not "science." It is "technology" and it is a political issue. When you say "emotional argument," I assume you mean "not rational."
          Technology has been abused in every way imaginable by corporations and governments. Why should I trust that a multibillion $ international corporation would not leverage this kind of technology to its advantage and against food producers and the citizenry? That is not emotional, that is entirely rational and prudent and in fact, foolhardy not to be grossly suspect of this technology.

          "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

          by shmuelman on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:04:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's a LOGICAL argument based on the historical (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          occupystephanie, Russgirl, maregug

          behavior of "mega-billion $ businesses"...  Can you name one such business that by any definition of terms put people's interests before profits?

          How children dance to the unlived lives of their parents. Rilke

          by ceebee7 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:44:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Jackson County voters rejected Monsanto in part (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiveroftheWest, madame damnable

          because of the dishonest campaign they ran. They simply lied about the content of the measure. There is a large number of organic farmers in the valley and they have lots of customers who prefer their produce and didn't want these farms put out of business.

          Monsanto and Syngenta proved they are neither good citizens or good neighbors.So we gave the bastards the air.

      •  OK, You Just Called All Scientists "Tea Baggers" (0+ / 0-)

        In terms of scientifically illiterate statements, you won the internet today.

        Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

        by bernardpliers on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:51:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No Evidence (16+ / 0-)

      There is no evidence that these mutations to the biochemistry of our food and ingredients are completely harmless, either.

      We do not want the genes and bodies of our farms and families to be the testbed. When it goes wrong after the bad DNA is firmly established in the world, where will you be to apologize?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:50:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Forget health; GMO destroys crops and land value. (29+ / 0-)

      This is a land rights issue.  GMO crops inevitably spread to the land of people that don't want them.  Non-GMO and organic farmers then have their crop value destroyed by what is essentially dumping on their land.  And then to add insult to injury these farmers may have to PAY the GMO companies that contaminated their land.  

      So throw aside the argument over food safety, and recognize that this is an issue of food SECURITY. When a small number of companies own crop species, and these species can spread to the land of farmers that don't want it, GMO crops become a farmer's nightmare and a real and genuine threat to global food security. This is why everyone should oppose the very concept of patented GMO crops, whether they are unhealthy in our diet or not.

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

      by bigtimecynic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:58:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are problems . (16+ / 0-)
      Much of anti-GMO campaign is based on junk science.
      But not all of it is based on "junk science".
      There is simply no evidence that they are a health hazard.
      http://guardianlv.com/...
      Dangerous Levels of Roundup Found in GMO Foods Across U.S.

      In a recent report released by Norwegian scientists and researchers studying genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other genetically engineered produce in the Unite States, GMO foods across the U.S. have been found to contain absurdly dangerous high, levels of Roundup, a product used to kill weeds and ward off various harmful insects.

      Showing dangerous levels of glyphosate (the chemical manufactured to kill weeds, and used in Roundup), genetically engineered soy is frequently used in feed for animals such as cows, chickens, pigs, as well as feed for turkeys. Glyphosate has also been frequently found in non-organic foods, mostly in packaged food items and a range of GMO products and foods across the U.S.

      "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

      by indycam on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:06:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Use of Roundup (5+ / 0-)

        was common before GMOs and will remain even if GMOs were eliminated completely. It's a separate issue.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:02:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That entire study of glyphosate is bogus. (5+ / 0-)

        There are NOT dangerous levels of glyphosate found in GMO food crops across the U.S.

        The whole point of most GMO crops is to make them resistant to glyphosate so that glyphosate (an incredibly SAFER and more effective in smaller doses herbicide compared to older herbicides) can be used around those crops.  Glyphosate doesn't stick around on the crops by the time they are in your grocery store any more than older, less efficient, herbicides do.

        And whether or not there are herbicides in food by the time it gets to the grocery store (and that's what matters, not how much herbicide is on them out in a field or in a storage bin) is a completely seperate issue from GMO's.

        Man, it's like the Luddites have taken OVER this place.  So much for "reality based", huh.

        "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party (quip courtesy of Nada Lemming and lotlizard)

        by Rick Aucoin on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (10+ / 0-)

      I had started making a diary on this topic but I got discouraged.

      We cannot claim to be the party of pro-science if we continuously conflate bad business practices with good agricultural practices.

      I hate Monsanto because they have driven up prices of grain by pricing out any farmer who refuses to play ball and by suing individuals for growing crops in a way they don't approve.  I don't hate them because they tinker with plant genetics.

      Plants are weird. Corn is especially funky.  There is nothing we can do to corn that corn wouldn't do to itself given the opportunity.  

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:08:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "nothing we can do to corn that corn wouldn't do" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catwho, mconvente, duhban, Roadbed Guy

        Indeed. I needed some eye-bleach after seeing a whole bunch of corn smut.

        We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

        by nuclear winter solstice on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:41:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I had some corn smut on an ear I grew. (4+ / 0-)

          One kernel had taken over the whole ear, stunting the rest of the kernels.  Couldn't tell untill you stripped the ear. It was a huge, solid mass of corneyness.  I read that the indians used to prize the fungus-infused smut kernels as a delicacy. Mushroom/corn frittatas anyone? Yum!

          •  They still do in Mexico (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LeighAnn

            It's a delicacy down there.

            The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

            by catwho on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:36:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  So you don't have to... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            catwho, LeighAnn

            The intrepid Steve at the sadly dormant The Sneeze covered cuitlacoche as part of his "Steve Don't Eat It!" series, which is some of the funniest food writing I've ever seen.

            "There you go, givin' a f*ck when it ain't your turn to give a f*ck." -- Bunk Moreland

            by slapshoe on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:40:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Huitlacoche (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            catwho

            They do say it's a delicacy.

            And now good for you?
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

            IRAPUATO, Mexico — It's now an established scientific fact: Smut is GOOD for you. Corn smut, that is.

            For years, scientists have assumed that huitlacoche (WEET-LA-KO-CHEE) – a gnarly, gray-black corn fungus long-savored in Mexico – had nutritional values similar to those of the corn on which it grew. But test results just published in the journal Food Chemistry reveal that an infection that U.S. farmers and crop scientists have spent millions trying to eradicate, is packed with unique proteins, minerals and other nutritional goodies.

            And here's a bonus: agro-economists have found it can sell for more than the corn it ruins.

      •  All corn is genetically modified (6+ / 0-)

        as is all wheat. And humans have been eating both for thousands of years.

        •  Oh pleeeeze (6+ / 0-)

          Don't try to muddy the waters. GMO is real, and is not the same as crossbreeding, no matter how much you are Monsanto might claim otherwise.

          "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 Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:03:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Cross breeding is NOT the same as (6+ / 0-)

          gene manipulation. Corn has been bred to become a completely different plant than the grain it was in ancient times and no original form of corn exists now. That was done by saving seed and cross pollination of strains. Completely different to take a gene from Bt, Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacteria and insert it into corn to make corn kill worms that eat it by shutting down their digestive systems. That could never happen by pollination, but now that new corn strain that contains Bt DNA can contaminate a heritage corn strain and forever change its qualities.

          You can say there is no evidence that Bt corn is unsafe but I don't want to eat corn that contains a gene that kills pests by effecting their digestion. Gives me a stomach ache just thinking about it.

          You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?

          by madame damnable on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:09:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, that's the problem with this argument on (5+ / 0-)

        DKos.  Monsanto has some really horrible, wretched business practices and I would shed not a single tear to find that they had been shut down on account of violating some federal law of which I yet know not.

        But Monsanto's shitty business practices and destructive abuse of IP laws ≠ GMO.  I've done reading and I can find no real ties between the concept of genetically modifying crops and harm to public health.  Anyhow, anybody who took high school biology knows that we've been intentionally cross-breeding agricultural seeds for thousands of years.

        "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

        by auron renouille on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:53:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Monsanto should be shut down. They have (13+ / 0-)

      clearly demonstrated that they do not give a shit about the environment or people's health over their profit (See Agent Orange and PCB). All of the big Ag corps are pretty much evil, so banning their products isn't a bad thing, regardless of what the evidence says so far about GMOs. Their science is worthless anyway, because it is geared toward making a profit, not benefitting the community.

      So, banning Monsanto and other large Ag corps is a good thing. Banning GMO in general is a different story, but I think the benefits will outweigh the negatives in this case, because the area will be plenty productive without the use of GMOs. I wish we could disentangle the two on both sides.

      There is clear benefit from the research into GMOs, if conducted by universities and geared toward helping people cultivate less productive land or setting up aquaponic systems or something, but as soon as it is connected to profit, those benefits are gone. Then it becomes about copyrighting DNA strands and controlling/expanding the market.  

      If all of the "science" GMO missionaries could decouple capitalism from the GMO research, they would have a much better argument. They end up arguing in favor of people like Dekalb and Monsanto

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:48:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ranger - Monsanto should be shut down? (9+ / 0-)

        On what possible legal basis? The fact that they made Agent Orange at the request of the Defense Department more than 40 years ago?

        This is a company, based in St. Louis, who consistently ranks as one of the top 100 employers to work for in the US. What would happen to the 11,000 people who work there? The average hourly worker at Monsanto makes nearly $50,000 a year and the researchers earn an average of $100,000. More than half of Monsanto's workers are outside the US. Do we want to push the rest of the company offshore?

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:24:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Following the money vs. poison facts. Sad. (4+ / 0-)
        •  They purposely lied about the negative effects (9+ / 0-)

          of both PCBs and Agent Orange to both the government and the general population. They fought court battles to avoid paying for health care costs associated with the poison they produced. Your post shows exactly what is wrong with the capitalist system. You excuse their evils because they provide jobs.

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:27:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The time to penalize them for those acts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep, Justanothernyer

            has long passed. To actually put a company out of business through a legal death sentence is exceedingly difficult by design. In addition to the shareholders, who are entitled to every legal due process available, there are numerous other stakeholders to be considered, including employees and their families, communities, and suppliers. Fortunately in the US you can't just "shut down" a company because a small group of people and politicians don't like their products.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:38:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)
              The time to penalize them for those acts has long passed.
              Can you blame the public for not trusting them again? When the harm is finally discovered, they are long gone with their short-term profits and the public is left holding the bag of ill health and costly clean up efforts.

              Not this time.

              We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

              by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:10:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't blame the public for not trusting them (0+ / 0-)

                And I have no issues with people lobbying against GMOs or Monsanto. That's the wonderful thing about living in the US, free speech, and the right to petition your government. I also have no issues with Monsanto protecting their brands and lobbying to protect their interests.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:03:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then you should have no problem (4+ / 0-)

                  with citizens using the initiative process to place matters of community concern on their local ballots.

                  The people have voted.

                  We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                  by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:47:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It will be interesting to folow the litigation (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    occupystephanie, RiveroftheWest

                    that will surely follow.

                    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                    by VClib on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:13:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We expect it. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      madame damnable, VClib

                      That is the whole point. This is civil disobedience through the courts and ballot box. They will need to prove that corporate rights are above our inherent rights. Our Benton county ordinance specifically elevates people's rights over corporate rights and says the state has no right to preempt local decisions.

                      Plus we have the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund people behind us. We will not be alone.

                      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                      by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 03:39:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  of course, the people once voted for (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Justanothernyer

                    segregation, against marriage equality, and for George W Bush, too. In general, voters are uneducated uninformed simple-minded morans who vote on purely emotional responses without having a clue what is going on around them. Alas, that is one of the downsides of democracy.  (shrug)

                    But I do admire the organizing success in beating an immensely powerful corporate opponent. Even if the goal of that organizing is, basically, a crock of bullshit.  It's worth studying so we can perhaps utilize similar organizing methods to do things that are actually more useful.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 03:01:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I invite you to stay out of Jackson County along (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RiveroftheWest, madame damnable

                      with Monsanto and Syngenta. We moronic voters valued something in the place where live and protected it by eliminating the threat to it.

                      Who wants these bad actors as neighbors?

                      •  oh, I have no objections to Monsanto getting (0+ / 0-)

                        its ass kicked.  I'd like to see them all hang from lampposts.

                        My objection is to our side using "science" arguments that are at best factually wrong and at worst a deliberate dishonest falsehood.

                        There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Monsanto and its use of GMOs. We don't need to make stupid shit up. It doesn't help us.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:34:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Jackson County farmers protecting their property (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          madame damnable

                          rights and certifications and consumers demanding  access to     a product they prefer is not making shit up. It is taking on a corporate monster and their legalized bought and paid for gangsterism.

                          Monsanto and Syngenta made shit up about the 15-119 and informed Jackson County voters were on to them. They outspent their opponents, the residents of Jackson County, by 3 to 1, maybe 10 to 1 and lost.

                          You may have an argument to make about GMO science, but this was more about corporate bad behavior and privilege. Monsanto and Syngenta rolled over everyone else's rights and then told us we liked it.

                          We didn't.

                          •  I'm glad to hear that. but (0+ / 0-)

                            as I noted elsewhere, your supporters do not seem to be getting your message.  There are already 75-plus comments here blathering about the "health effects" of GMO.

                            Wanna do some good? Tell them (1) they're wrong, and (2) that's not what the fight is about.

                            When our side makes "science" arguments that are simply wrong, incorrect, unfactual, not true--it does not help us. At all. We should not tolerate it.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:49:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No you tell them. I can't argue the science with (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable

                            any authority but I do understand the property rights 15-119 is protecting. When you give your botanical and chemistry lecture to  the errant, you inform about what 15-119 says and does.

                            "Our side" made a property rights argument. People found the argument reasonable and handed Monsanto their ass.  

            •  Tell that to veterans and families affected... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RiveroftheWest, madame damnable

              to say "that time has passed" does not even come close to what they and those affected in Vietnam are still dealing with today.  The effects continue to worsen with each generation exposed.

              Truth : Kind of like LEAD PAINT - after a while, it does affect people.

              •  I am well aware of Agent Orange (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Roadbed Guy

                and it's devastating impact on people and habitat. The time has passed for recovering damages from Monsanto for those actions. It was forty years ago. And Monsanto was providing a product to the DoD that the Defense Department had requested, so who is ultimately responsible?

                VClib
                US Army 1969-1975

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:00:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  new talking point, bravo (4+ / 0-)

          just like Keystone, the employment talking point (since we're making analogies today)

    •  GMOs are not fungible. As a result, they (12+ / 0-)

      cannot rationally or scientifically be declared "safe", no matter how much their manufacturers and supporters try to make that claim. It boils down to perspective.

      Should we plant and eat any old random crap until it is, perhaps disastrously, proven dangerous?
         versus
      Should we label and rein in the planting of any old random crap until it is proven safe?

      No reasonable middle ground can be reached so long as the government only considers the first issue and then does no testing.

      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 Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:06:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bullshit. (16+ / 0-)

      I could love GMOs to death and I'd still oppose them right now, as long as Monsanto is at the head of the industry. I'd oppose Monsanto no matter what I thought of GMOs, given the people who run their company, and the political practices they have used. These are not the people you want in charge of a new technology.

      To say nothing of their legal bullying.

      Means like this don't lead to admirable ends. People like this are not to be trusted.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:10:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most of Monsanto's power (17+ / 0-)

      is based on junk politics and junk law, leading to eminently unqualified people being in charge of a powerful new technology.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:12:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  10 meta study shows no hazards from GMOs (12+ / 0-)

      Just published in March 2014.  Abstract freely available, and here it is (I have added paragraph breaks to make easier to read).  Also, this is a pretty good journal (impact factor of 5), so it's not some BS publication:

      The technology to produce genetically engineered (GE) plants is celebrating its 30th anniversary and one of the major achievements has been the development of GE crops. The safety of GE crops is crucial for their adoption and has been the object of intense research work often ignored in the public debate.

      We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide.

      The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE. Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture.

      Maybe there will be effects 20+ years down the line, but as of right now, there are no significant hazards.

      Monsanto sucks.  The science of GMOs does not.

      "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

      by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:30:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The diary did not say one word (9+ / 0-)

        about the science. The political action was on behalf of the small farmers, organic and conventional, to protect their crops from cross-contamination with GMO material. The diary she links to makes that very clear: It has nothing to do with the science, but farmers' and citizens' rights to determine what they do and don't want around them. There are some major countries that will not buy GMO soy or corn, for example, and so there is an economic angle, as well. Ergo, plenty of reasons to not want Monsanto around even leaving out the science entirely. To them it's about profit and being in control of our most basic nutritional needs from the seed onward, and that is definitely something a LOT of people don't like about the company.

        „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

        by translatorpro on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:13:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How do you separate them? That's the problem. (6+ / 0-)

        Disarticulating GMOs from the big Ag corps in the problem. They have all the money to fund, produce, and distribute them.

        Until that problem is solved, organics are fine for me. I will support independent farms who use less dangerous fertilizers and pesticides to grow their crops.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:50:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the best way would be to have the research (7+ / 0-)

          be government funded and open to all. Sadly though university funded research has been in a death spiral for about 40 years thanks precisely to the GOP. This leaves corporations as really the major targeted long term research aspect.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:53:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But people here don't trust independent research (7+ / 0-)

            either. If it is biotech they hate it.

            This is no different from the way the teabaggers treat climate science that is inconvenient for them.

            •  bah I had a really long reply (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mconvente, wildweasels

              and then chrome ate it.

              Shorter and to the point, there will always be those people. They were there when Newton worked on gravity and Watson and Crick presented the gene. There's no solution to those people and willful ignorance unless they choose to change.

              With publicly funded research we can at least address the other problem here or hopefully address it.

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:02:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Two things: 1) technology and science are not the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RiveroftheWest, maregug

                same thing. It seems most of the "science" missionaries conflate the two. So, you think that any technological development is science, and therefore good. This is not true. Some technological advances cause more problems than they supposedly solve. Often times technology is introduced for profit even when the science proves that it will have negative effects.

                2) Science is an epistemological approach to learning about the natural world. Newton didn't work on gravity, he discovered some of the principles by which gravity works. Of course, technological advancements often relate to scientific research, but I would ask that you stop conflating them.

                Science and the scientific method are good things, or at least the best way that we have developed to learn so far.

                Technology is ambivalent, it can be good or bad. This is something that really bothers me, how many people conflate science and technology. Even you two here. GMO foods are a technology. Climate change is a natural phenomenon explained by scientific research. It is not the same at all to be a climate science denier and skeptical about GMOs that come from corporations that have profited from selling poison in the past.

                "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:12:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  .... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mconvente, catwho, aimeehs, wildweasels

                  Generally speaking technology and science are at least almost interchangeable. Without science there is no technology. It is true that not all science becomes technology but technology is applied science.

                  2 Newton worked on gravity. Hell Newton created a whole new branch of mathematics because the current mathematics are incapable of explaining matters. Science is more than simply observing it's explaining. Or at the very least the attempt to explain.

                  I agree that technology is neither good nor bad but you're guilty of conflation here. GMO is based on science, same as climate change. We can argue about the policy implementation but the science is for now indisputable.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:22:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Science and technology are NOT interchangeable. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    upstatefrantic

                    As I said, science is a method for learning about the natural world, an epistemology. I said nothing about science just being observation. The scientific method is the means by which science takes observations and empirical data collection and explains the natural world. Gravity is not a product sold on the market. Newton didn't make it in a lab, he developed calculus to help him explain it. Understanding the principles of gravity and planetary motion did help develop technology.

                    Although technology is often related to scientific research, that is not always the case. Many times technology is developed by inventors who are not scientists at all, they just see a more efficient way of doing things. Engineers are not scientists, and that's pretty much what they do for a living, develop technology and make things more efficient.

                    Climate change is not a product produced in the lab or factory. It is a phenomenon that is taking place on our planet, that scientists have observed and are attempting to explain. All the data suggest it is a manmade phenomenon. Denying climate change is like denying evolution or gravity for that matter.

                    GMOs are products produced by companies, albeit based on scientific research. Being skeptical of the products that are produced by a for-profit corporation with a bad history is not the same as being a climate change denier.

                    Though I will give you that denying that existing GMOs are safe
                    could be placed in that category. However, the products that surround the commercial GMOs are often not safe, making the farming of them questionable.

                    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                    by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:39:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  point out one piece of technology (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      aimeehs, wildweasels, mconvente

                      that doesn't have it's foundation in our understanding of the world (which is science)

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:43:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, now you are just being ridiculous. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CenPhx

                        If I pick up a rock and throw it at you, I have used a tool and implemented technology. I don't need anything beyond my experience to use it. There was no scientific research conducted, and perhaps I couldn't even explain the principles that caused it to be effective.

                        If you are really going to have that rudimentary understanding of science, than why not accept the people going out in their backyards and saying it's cold so climate change is not real.

                        Because you know there is more to it than your personal experience. Science involves the scientific method and research, not just knowing that throwing a rock at you will hurt you and give me an advantage.  

                        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                        by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:49:32 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  throwing a rock is not technology (5+ / 0-)

                          this is getting absurd

                          https://www.google.com/...

                          Der Weg ist das Ziel

                          by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:53:06 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Engineering is not science. Even if I took (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RiveroftheWest

                            a set of rocks and experimented on which rock makes the best tool. Even if I recognize that rocks with sharp edges are more effective weapons and then purposely modify the rocks to be sharp, that is still not science.

                            I think conflating engineering/technology with science is a major problem cause by our capitalist system. The idea that the goal of science is to produce technology is a farce. The goal of science is not to invent/develop technology, it is to learn about the natural world.

                            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                            by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:37:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well every dictionary and the internet (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            aimeehs, mconvente, mattc129

                            disagrees with you.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:43:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What about technologies that make it easier (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mattc129, duhban

                            to understand the natural world?  Like DNA sequencing machines?  Is that not a goal of science?

                            That is definitely technology, but high-throughput sequencing machines allow researchers to sequence an organism's DNA for ~$10,000 - not bad considering it used to be millions.

                            And the more genomes we sequence, the better scientists can be at putting together more in-depth phylogenetic trees.

                            I have 50+ bioengineering Ph.D. and Masters students in the research core I work in that would strongly disagree with your premise that engineering is not science.

                            You're letting you abhorrence of anything corporate influence your opinion on this topic.

                            "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                            by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:03:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If engineering is not science then why do Computer (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mconvente, duhban

                            Science majors become engineers?

                          •  as a maybe-relevant maybe-not aside (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tarkangi

                            I note in passing that in my 30-odd years of creationist-fighting, nearly every creationist I ever met who claimed to be a "scientist", was an engineer.

                            Might be something in the water.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:07:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dentists, also (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Lenny Flank

                            Dentists can be very nice people and they perform a vital public health service, but I have found them to be over represented in the Creationist ranks - especially in comparison with medical doctors, who come from an otherwise similar demographic.

                            What I don't like about the Creationists is that they come to their opinions on a technical matter based on utterly irrelevant non-technical considerations, upon which they cast about for scientific-sounding pretexts that prop up their beliefs.  In fact there is enough demand for such that an entire cottage industry has grown up to provide them with pamphlets and web pages and poorly-sourced articles that they can pass around while chanting "See!  See!  There really is Scientific Proof that we are right!"

                            All of which is ultimately pointless because it is fine to espouse Creationism as a religious doctrine - so long as you don't lie and try to pass it off as scientifically sound.
                             

                            o caminho d'ouro, uma pinga de mel: Parati

                            by tarkangi on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:21:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  I just want to add that most people accept the (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CenPhx, UberFubarius, madame damnable

                  fact that the scientific studies surrounding GMO suggests they are safe to eat.

                  The benefit of them to society, however, is debatable. So far the only benefit is to monopolize our food production and garner much profit for the Big Ag companies.

                  It appears there have been some small scale independent research projects that have developed GMOs resistant to drought and such. That's not what is being marketed.

                  What's being marketed is high yield products that increase production and profit and show no added nutritional benefit.

                  "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                  by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:26:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You have a very philosophical view about science (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aimeehs, wildweasels

                  Today, science is about finding innovations.  There is "basic research", which is more aligned with the tenets of science ("knowledge") you mention, but even in those labs the concept of applied science runs deep.

                  And then there are labs that focus exclusively on applied science, using the fundamentals and natural laws we have discovered and applying them to advances.  I guess you would call this "technology".

                  There's a reason why the term "Research and Development" exists - it combines both science and technology into one blended concept.

                  Honestly, I don't even get why you insist on the distinction in the context of this diary.  Genetic engineering is a technology that utilizes, as well as advances, the current knowledge base in the field of genetics, biology, and chemistry.  Who gives a crap about separating the two for some philosophical posturing?

                  "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

                  by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:05:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That is a very problematic view of science brought (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Russgirl

                    to us by corporations. Engineering is about finding innovations. Science is about learning about the universe. Corporations want more engineers and less scientists, to make products and not challenge them.

                    We are now convinced that the purpose of science is to produce cool stuff. That is very dad indeed. Applied science is just another name for engineering to direct more funding toward technological development and away from true scientific research.

                    It's a shame that we can only envision science within the capitalist economic reconfiguration.

                    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                    by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:42:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  And anyone who treats "science" as a shield for (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CenPhx, Russgirl

              corporate profiteering is the same as a neocon.

              Science is an epistemology, not a religion. You don't believe or not believe in science, you use it to learn things about the world.

              "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

              by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:04:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  And their only concern is profit, which they (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, occupystephanie, Russgirl

            have proven over and over.

            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

            by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:59:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  No evidence of harm? (4+ / 0-)
      There is simply no evidence that they are a health hazard.
      Yes, isn't it amazing that Monsanto won't publish any evidence of GMO/glyphosate harm. Who would have thought!?!

      "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 Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:59:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not all GMO crops are pushed by Corporate Ag (6+ / 0-)

      This crop could eliminate childhood blindness in much of the world; it was developed based in part on research done by some of my professors in grad school:

      http://www.goldenrice.org/

      Incredibly, the Big Ag companies have all agreed to license their technology for little or no cost at all. The folks who attack all GM crops need to think about the fact that their actions will condemn poor children in much of the world to vision impairment and other nutritional deficiencies. I am frankly sick of First World people who do not have to worry about these problems not caring!

      •  Golden Rice DOES NOT WORK + SAFETY unsure. (6+ / 0-)
        The most recent news from the IRRI, which is overseeing the golden rice project, shows that golden rice doesn't even pass muster in terms of the yields and agronomic performance necessary for farmers to adopt it.
        IRRI noted (see article below), "average yield [of GM golden rice] was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers."
        http://irri.org/...

        The IRRI has also previously made clear that it still isn't known whether golden rice is safe or even works:

        "It has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness."
        http://www.gmwatch.org/...

        It is more than reprehensible that a product that :
        - doesn't yet work in the field,
        - hasn't been proven safe, and
        - may not even help people with malnutrition,

        --is being promoted as a miracle cure that could already be saving millions.

        All this false promotion does is distract attention from the proven alternatives that are already effectively combating vitamin A deficiency in a country like the Philippines - the main target of the golden rice promoters.

        http://www.gmwatch.org/...

        http://www.gmwatch.org/...

    •  What it should be based on is that we don't know (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Russgirl, RiveroftheWest

      enough about the potential effects, since genetic modification in plants is done very differently that those in bacteria or animals. 'Genie out of the bottle' is a good analogy, since reversing the spread after it escapes into the biosphere would be impossible.

      We don't know enough to deem them safe.

      Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
      ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

      by FarWestGirl on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:17:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But it's not like the antivax idiocy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiveroftheWest

      Because much of the anti-GMO campaign is not based on junk science at all.

      I'm cheered by what one county in Oregon has done, because I cheer any poke in the eye of Monsanto. Even if many people are poking for the wrong reasons.

      Those of us who know the science are just going to have to work patiently to draw the distinctions between the harm done by Monsanto-style GMO applications, which do damage by encouraging the massive use of insecticides and herbicides, exploiting farmers, and expanding monocultures, and the harmless and often beneficial effects of many genetic modifications that could be introduced to improve drought resistance, disease resistance, and nutrition. But as long as Monsanto retains its stranglehold on U.S. agriculture, those benefits of GMOs will be swamped by the ill effects.

    •  I was about to despair. (0+ / 0-)

      I had to scroll along way before anyone pointed out how misguided these initiatives are.

      If we're going to be a reality-based community, we can't truck with bad science.  And it really undermines the joy I take in laughing at climate science deniers on Fox News.  

      Neither side has a monopoly on stupid.  Their market share is amazing but man oh man do we have some niches of our own.

      "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

      by Spider Stumbled on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:37:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just so you know (0+ / 0-)

        The thrust of our ballot measure was more about property rights than science. GMO sugar beet pollen had drifted to an organic seed grower's land and contaminated a chard crop as they are very similar genetically. Also, GMO's were originally mandated to have a four mile barrier between them and non-GMO crops, which was violated by GMO farmers growing alfalfa and sugar beets, the main GMO crops grown in this area. Organic farmers were in danger of losing their certification and the GMO farmers were not willing to uphold the four mile barrier. Their ads claimed they had the right to grow whatever they wanted on their land regardless of the effect it had on their neighbors crops.

        You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?

        by madame damnable on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:01:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Congratulations. Great work! (16+ / 0-)

    If you don't like it, attack the message, not the messenger. The former may convince me that I am wrong, but the latter will always convince that I am right.

    by nancyjones on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:08:53 AM PDT

  •  Congratulations! Thank you for helping to (19+ / 0-)

    restore, Everyone's right to know what is in their food.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:19:13 AM PDT

    •  ALL can stand up - get involved. Start somewhere. (6+ / 0-)
      Seventy (70) health scientists wrote EPA a joint letter urging the Agency to reject Dow Chemical’s application for commercial sale of 2,4-D resistant corn and soybeans.

      Medical scientists have linked exposure to 2,4-D and herbicides of its class to increased rates of cancer, Parkinson’s disease and low sperm counts, among other effects; children of pesticide applicators where 2,4-D is heavily used suffer higher rates of birth anomalies.

      Dow Chemical developed 2,4-D resistant crops as a solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds generated by first-generation GE crops from Monsanto, known as Roundup Ready. Roundup Ready crops triggered a massive increase in use of glyphosate, followed by an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

      “2,4-D is not a solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds. Weeds will rapidly evolve resistance to 2,4-D as well if these crops are approved, driving a toxic spiral of ever-increasing herbicide use.

      Dow’s Enlist crops are a textbook example of unsustainable farming, profiting pesticide companies to the detriment of American farmers, public health and the environment,” added Kimbrell.
      Over 400,000 citizens and 154 farm and public interest organizations have also opposed Enlist crops.
      http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...
  •  Federal lawsuit in 15 minutes.... (7+ / 0-)

    ....no doubt the county will wind up spending millions in Feral Court defending the will of the people against Corporate DickBites...

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:32:48 AM PDT

  •  Congratulations! Life was so much simpler as a (6+ / 0-)

    hunter gatherer.

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

    by ban nock on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:39:29 AM PDT

  •  That is wonderful news! Congratulations (12+ / 0-)

    and thank you for all of your hard work!

  •  Sadly, Monsanto was handed a bigger win (16+ / 0-)

    by this administration to head the FDA...

    Yay Oregon!

    "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

    by Damnit Janet on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:07:20 AM PDT

  •  You are cheering being lied to.... (16+ / 0-)

    ....by the people you like rather than by the ones you dislike.

    This is not likely to end well. See the anti-vaccine movement.

    This is the landscape that we understand, -
    And till the principle of things takes root,
    How shall examples move us from our calm?

    (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

    by sagesource on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:48:03 AM PDT

    •  Oh bullshit. This is nothing like the vaccine (6+ / 0-)

      issue. You can eat organic foods and be just fine, it's mostly what human beings have thrived on for millennia. The people who refuse to eat GMO foods do not create a dangerous situation to the rest of the population.

      The people who insist everything must be GMO though, do actually create dangers to the environment and the general population, not with the food itself, but with the chemical products those foods depend on (round up ring a bell?)

      Tell me round up is healthy for our environment. That there is no science to suggest it is unhealthy.  

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:54:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hooray! It gives me hope, even in the (9+ / 0-)

    face of Citizen's United and an all-out assault by the right, people are starting to make their voices heard. I truly believe the "silent majority" these days are people who want good food, clean air and water, and good government.  

    “You can say any fool thing to a dog and the dog will just give you this look that says, 'My GOSH, you're RIGHT! I NEVER would've thought of that!” ― Dave Barry

    by Merry Light on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:52:45 AM PDT

  •  Now can you guys sue (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DawnN, Penny GC, Russgirl, RiveroftheWest

    Monsanto when a GMO crop lands in a non-GMO farmer's field? Just like what Monsanto does when one of theirs ends up in a field and they accuse a farmer of stealing?

  •  Supreme Courts say companies own your seeds (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aznavy, Russgirl, RiveroftheWest

    I always plant seeds i buy from produce in the store,especially those vine ripe tomatoes from Mexico,they cost almost 1.50 dollar  a pound

  •  the science on the safety of gmos (17+ / 0-)

    Isn't in yet and won't be for decades.  You wanna have nightmares?  Watch the World according to Monsanto.  No one with any brains or common sense should take the word of Big Ag -- they are in it for the $$$, health risks and environmental damage  be damned.  

    "History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

    by upstatefrantic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:15:31 AM PDT

    •  and climate change isn't settled yet either, right (8+ / 0-)

      It's easy being reality-based when reality is always just what you say it is.

    •  Bullshit. (9+ / 0-)

      10-year meta study IS in.  Read the abstract here:

      We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense.
      Maybe there will be effects 20+ years, but now the evidence is clear - stop being alarmist about the science.

      "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

      by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:23:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •   Not being alarmist (7+ / 0-)

        Look at history -- how long were PCBs, asbestos, benzene allowed to contaminate the environment before action was taken?

        I think it's more likely that the effects will subtle at first.  We may not even have the scientific techniques to pick them up.  I'm not being a luddite.  My husband is a farmer.  We actually planted round up ready corn.  Then I watched that documentary and it disturbed me greatly.

        There have just been too many examples of big corporations shoving products and technologies at us.  And then 20, 30 years later, oops, how could we have known?  And how many times have these same corporations dumped the clean up on the taxpayer?  

        "History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

        by upstatefrantic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, it is not settled by a long shot. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maregug

        One abstract vs. quite a few more listed at the link below.

        GMO Science
        This compilation is a sample of the scientific references including over 1500 studies, surveys, and analyses that suggest various adverse impacts and potential adverse impacts of genetically engineered (GE/GMO) crops, foods and related pesticides. This list contains references regarding health impacts, environmental impacts, including impact of non-target organisms (NTOs), resistance of target organisms, pesticide drift, genetic contamination, horizontal gene transfer, unintended effects, as well as references regarding yields, social impact, ethics, economics and regulations. In most cases, links are provided to the abstracts for the references or links to sites where the study can be purchased.

        „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

        by translatorpro on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:24:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You do realize what a meta study is, correct? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pico

          Meta-analysis

          It takes a look at all the published research (or at least all the authors could find) over a defined time period.  In this instance, 10 years.

          So it's not just one abstract, it's a collection of 10 year's worth of research.  Summed into one paper.  But still 10 year's worth of work.

          And 10 year's worth of research says no significant hazards.  Maybe there's a 20+ year long-term effect.  Maybe not.

          "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

          by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:46:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Congratulations to everyone involved (10+ / 0-)

    And thanks for sharing the fantastic news!

    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
    -- Dr. Peter Venkman


    Join me, LOLGOP, Anne Savage, Amy Lynn Smith, & Emma White at Eclectablog.

    by Eclectablog on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:27:12 AM PDT

  •  For the pro GMO gang commenting above (26+ / 0-)

    Our campaign stressed family farms and the problems that occur when pollen drifts and trespasses on organic and traditional crops thereby contaminating them. So it IS a land rights issue as well as a health issue.

    You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?

    by madame damnable on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:30:46 AM PDT

  •  Symbolic victory (3+ / 0-)

    This law seems pretty clearly prohibited by the state Right to Farm law.  The state also passed a law prohibiting local GMO bans recently, but exempted Jackson.

    Kind of amusing try by the drafters, though:

    (3) A violation and violation abatement shall not be construed to mean a nuisance or trespass as those are defined by common law or by ORS 30.392
    The part about private right to damages is also specifically prohibited by the state Right to Farm law.
    •  Sorry MGross, but I must say that... (8+ / 0-)

      your comment fairly drips with smugness.

      The so-called Right to Farm ALEC model legislation is kin to the Right to Work ALEC bills we have seen which actually gives no rights at all.

      Jackson county is a farming community. Conventional as well as organic farmers are having their property rights violated by GMO farmers whose crops contaminate their neighbor's crops. This has forced organic and conventional farmers to do expensive testing on their crops in order to sell them to markets which are increasingly refusing to buy GMO contaminated crops.

      If you think that corporate rights trump people's rights, just declare that. However, you should look at the large margin of this vote--66%. What don't you like about the will of the people?

      This is a David vs Goliath struggle. You want to bet on Goliath, go ahead but know that you are in the minority.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:04:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good news! (11+ / 0-)

    As a Oregonian and a human this gives me the hopies. People can and do make a difference. As for those who call anyone who is against GMO and the makers of Round Up playing God with our food anti-science there is a difference between science and technology. To say that people who are against big AG's and Monsanto controlling the worlds food production are like climate change deniers or rabid anti-vacciner's is very much like the fundies that deny science. It's 'faith based' to believe that any technology that is based on science is always good for humans or our planet.

    I heard the CEO of Monsanto once say on Frontline 'Who better then us to play God'. Not a good idea to allow the products of science that change the DNA of crops at a time when the environment is under siege and balance is needed. Who the hell want's to let a corporation like Monsanto hoist it's science based technology on the food we are being forced to eat. You don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. In this case the wind carries the strange fruits of Monsanto's science. Sometimes you have to take into consideration the fact that what is scientific doesn't mean it's fit for human consumption or that it isn't doing harm to an already stressed planet.

                 

  •  GMO - Get the Motherf**kers Out!!! (9+ / 0-)

    Keep up the good fight!!

  •  Well done! (11+ / 0-)

    We can beat the machine--for now--by working around the channels of mass communication.

    Or by forming our own channels of mass communication.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:00:34 AM PDT

  •  CONGRATULATIONS! (9+ / 0-)

    Excuse the caps which I rarely use to that extent but...

    CONGRATULATIONS!

    I cannot begin to describe the excitement here in Benton County as we begin our petition drive to place our own ordinance on the ballot. You have put wind in our sails!

    The huge tide of money "invested" by Monsanto et al to protect their profits was wasted. I believe we are beginning to see a public backlash against the money-as-free-speech court decisions which have allowed our nation to be ruled by oligarchs.

    Josephine County passed their anti-GMO crops ordinance as well. And Benton County intends to pass ours.

    The "patchwork" of ordinances that the corporate politicians complain about has given us the perfect metaphor because patches can be sewn together into a quilt which will cover this state!

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:15:06 AM PDT

  •  Monsanto sucks. GMOs do not. (17+ / 0-)

    I'm against Monsanto's cartel-like behavior when it comes to the business of GMOs.

    But I am very much in favor of the science behind GMOs.

    It's really bizarre to see a supposedly "reality based" community attack GMOs from the science side.

    A 10-year meta study (full article behind pay wall, abstract available) on GMOs, published just this past March, states "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops."  Informa Health is a good publishing firm, so this isn't some junk journal.

    Maybe there will be effects 20+ years down the road, but as of now there are no significant hazards at this intermediate stage.

    It's amazing that a group so alarmed (and rightly so) about climate change violently dismisses scientific advances that will help us deal with drought effects on agriculture.

    I think consumers should have a right to know whether their food is GMO, so I'm fine with GMO labeling.  But to totally discount the science is ridiculous.

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:21:17 AM PDT

    •  What is bizarre is your very vocal (6+ / 0-)

      and vociferous opposition to the diary.  OK, you're a trained chemist.  This is more a populist issue than a scientific one.

      I'm against Monsanto's cartel-like behavior when it comes to the business of GMOs.

      But I am very much in favor of the science behind GMOs.

      It's really bizarre to see a supposedly "reality based" community attack GMOs from the science side.

      Why don't you support the FARMERS who are fighting "Monsanto's cartel-like behavior," rather than trying to elevate yourself and your ego by so strongly trumpeting your scientific expertise.

      IOW, look at the big picture.  Mega-corporations and their interests and behavior should be opposed on spec.

      How children dance to the unlived lives of their parents. Rilke

      by ceebee7 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:13:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hello anti-science wing of the Democratic party! (9+ / 0-)

    You guys should come up with some actual facts to back up your hatred of GMOs or stop blocking progress that can increase yields and reduce pesticide use.

    And I'd best not be seeing any of you attacking the climate change deniers, because you're no better than they are.

    •  Hello to the anti-Democratic wing of the (8+ / 0-)

      democratic party. When you use the corporate talking points, you declare yourself for the monoculture agrochemical industry and against conventional and organic farmers and the very large markets--overseas and national--which demand non-GMO crops.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:08:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're conflating 2 separate things (7+ / 0-)

        One is the practices of the corporations which personally I'd agree are quite predatory and egregious.

        Second is the science which is about as settled as science can be right now and it's not settled in the favor of the anti GMO crowd. Though really that we've been genetically modifying plants for over 3,000 years I'm not sure why anyone is surprised on that score.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:15:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tell that to the Oregon wheat farmers (6+ / 0-)

          during the GMO wheat contamination which threatened their overseas sales. Perhaps you should try to convince all those many nations which have banned GMOs and won't buy it.

          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

          by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:31:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not going to waste my time on those nations (6+ / 0-)

            GMOs and vaccinations really are the anti science of the left.

            As I said I'd agree with you on the practice side especially crossing of the species but the science is for now settled and all that's left is irrationality.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:41:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I love how you complain about people running (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, mconvente, wildweasels

            into the very barriers you people created in your anti-science zeal.

            •  You should read the ballot measure. It isn't about (3+ / 0-)

              science. It is about protecting conventional and organic farms from GMO contamination and loss of profits. Lost wheat sales to asia and GMO wheat found on conventional farmland, along  with the well publicized bad behavior of Monsanto, the lying campaign they ran against the measure, all combined to get their asses kicked out of Jackson County. These are facts not junk science.

              •  well, this part is absolutely true: (0+ / 0-)
                It isn't about science.
                That is alas true about the entire "debate".

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:28:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right. Monsanto can contaminate a conventional (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  occupystephanie, madame damnable

                  crop and make it unmarketable, or cause an organic farmer to lose their certification, and then sue the conventional or organic farmer for theft, very corporate person behavior.

                  That's what 15-119 was about, riddling ourselves of a dangerous and reckless intruder and protecting property and access to a preferred product.  

                  •  if this is true, then your supporters are not (0+ / 0-)

                    getting your message.  I have already counted 74 comments here that claim an unstated "health effect" on people eating GMOs.

                    I count zero comments from you to them pointing out that (1) they are wrong, and (2) that's not what the fight is about.

                    But then, I always thought Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was stupid.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:29:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  74 comments out of more than 400. I'm not a (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      occupystephanie, madame damnable

                      scientist so I don't comment on the science. People in my family did work on the 15-119 campaign and I know what the ballot was trying to achieve.

                      Monsanto has bought itself market advantage and the privilege to ruin other peoples businesses with impunity. And then they arrogantly promoted easily proven lies about the ballot measure.

                      The usual corporate arrogance and lying worked against them and was an asset for the reasonable voters of Jackson County who didn't want these pricks running our agricultural sector.

                      •  Grabber (2+ / 0-)

                        thanks to your family members who worked on this campaign. When farmers stand together, they can defeat forces that would ruin their land.

                        So very proud  of all of them!

                        We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                        by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:02:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  of those 400, half are from people who (0+ / 0-)

                        think the "GMO makes us sick!" crowd are nutty.

                        That means over one-fourth of your own supporters, are not getting your message.

                        You may want to have a chat with them about that.

                        Or, you can just let them continue to make our side look ridiculous . . . . . . .

                        I'm not a scientist so I don't comment on the science.
                        Great advice. I wish more of our side followed it. We'd get a lot less of silly idiotic things like "GMO apples cause my colitis!!"

                        Like I said, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose Monsanto and its use of GMOs. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

                        And we should not tolerate those who do. They not only don't help us--they actively hurt us.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:06:02 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Fine. But you keep telling me why people in my (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          madame damnable

                          community voted to boot Monsanto and Syngenta out of our misery. And you're wrong. GMO companies do not win any good neighbor awards. Their legal bullying and expected privilege of place in our county put them in a bad light and that makes them and their GMO product unpopular.

                          They chose to be intruders instead of neighbors. And if they would tell lies about the content of a ballot measure any voter could read, it is reasonable to assume they would lie about their product if they needed to.

                          They wrote their own worst PR.

                          •  um, perhaps you have not read my comments (0+ / 0-)

                            I hate Monsanto and am glad to see them kicked in the nuts.

                            That doesn't make the factually incorrect "scientific" anti-GMO arguments any less factually-incorrect. Nor does it make it any more useful to use anti-GMO arguments that are simply wrong.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:47:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes you hate Monsanto. But you are keep telling me (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable

                            I didn't vote YES on 15-119 because of I'm not a scientist. I voted to keep GMOs out of Jackson County because of the corporate privilege GMO companies have bought and impose on others. I am offended by the lack of respect these companies show farmers and communities all over the world. The farmers and citizens of Jackson County gave me a chance to stand up to these odious corporations and I, along with 2/3rds of county voters, voted to protect our community from corporate hegemony, bullying and lying.

                            And I like organic food. It tastes better. And I want to help protect the farmers and farms that produce organics. Also organic farmers are usually very nice hardworking people. Can I prove organics are healthier? No, and I don't have to.

                            I voted my preference before Monsanto bought the privilege to stop me.

                            P.S.

                            My wife and I met two retired lab rats who worked for Monsanto on a bike tour last fall. We thought they were very nice people. We disagreed agreeably.

                          •  um, no, that is not what I'm telling you, or (0+ / 0-)

                            anyone else.

                            I am happy to repeat what I am telling you and everyone else:

                            there are plenty of good reasons to oppose Monsanto and its use of GMOs. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

                            And we should not tolerate those who do. They not only don't help us--they actively hurt us.

                            If you think it DOES help us to have people on our side making "science" arguments that are simply wrong and factually incorrect, or that we SHOULD tolerate them (Reagan's 11th Commandment, or something), then please by all means explain why you think that.  I'm all ears . . .

                            And I am pointing out that if your fight is NOT really about presumed "health effects", then a rather large proportion of your own followers seem not to have grasped that message, since most of them ARE arguing precisely over the presumed "health effects". The health effects that nobody has shown even exist.

                            I'm not sure how that helps our side, either.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:55:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Many people don't trust engineered food. Couple (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable

                            this understandable caution with Monsanto's corporate dickishness, lack of respect for the rights of others and, surprise, they got booted out of Jackson County.

                          •  I understand many people don't trust engineered (0+ / 0-)

                            food. Many people don't trust vaccines either. That doesn't mean either one of them is actually harmful.

                            And indeed, when we get a person here declaring that "GMO apples" are causing his illness, then it becomes crushingly obvious that whatever reason it is that causes people to attribute their illnesses to GMOs, it is not reality (there are no GMO apples, they simply do not exist).

                            There are no demonstrated health effects for GMOs. And to claim otherwise, is simply not true.  False. Incorrect. Wrong. Factually at variance with reality.  Period. That remains true whether people trust Monsanto or not (and I do not, and see no reason whatever to trust them).

                            But now I am puzzled---didn't you just spend three or four posts telling me that the presumed "health issues" were NOT what this fight was about, and I was wrong for thinking it was . . . . ? Have you now changed your mind . . . ?

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:14:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lenny I voted YES on the measure for the very (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable, cville townie

                            reasons you say you hate Monsanto.

                            Can Monsanto be trusted on the science? I don't think they can. They are liars and provably so.

                            Bad corporate practice works against their safe food argument and yours. They have undermined confidence in their own claims and products.

                          •  I understand that (0+ / 0-)

                            That is not what I am talking about.

                            I am talking about those on our side who make arguments that are simply wrong. Not only wrong, but in some cases intentionally deliberately dishonest. (Example--2,4-D is NOT "Agent Orange", and it does NOT have dioxin as an ingredient.)

                            Their arguments do not help us. All they do is give Monsanto a big fat club to beat us all over the head with.

                            Factually-incorrect arguments and flat-out dishonesty are things our side should simply not tolerate.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:29:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well anyway, a lousy corporate actor caught one (0+ / 0-)

                            on the chin because they are rotten neighbors, bullies and liars, and nobody trusts them.

                            I just want to be proud of my community for the level headedness our voters demonstrated. And I want to applaud the activists, some in my family, who waged an honest campaign that brought together local producers and consumers to protect farms and businesses that a majority of us in Jackson County value.

                          •  I meant to state I voted YES. I'm weary of the (0+ / 0-)

                            repetition and long for life again.

                          •  Wait I did. I might just as well have a pointless (0+ / 0-)

                            argument with myself as with you.

                •  lenny, oh lenny... (2+ / 0-)

                  You are a one note charley.

                  You live in Florida, which has the worst record of environmental stewardship in the nation, yet you believe that you can decide a local matter of farmers in Oregon and Maui who are living with the harms of GMO/pesticides that Big Biotech brings.

                  Farmers who are having their crops contaminated by GMOs are losing their markets and farms over it. Property rights are an important local issue.

                  If you call all of us anti-science, I counter that you are anti-democratic to deny local people the right of initiative and ballot box to have a say in their own communities.

                  We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                  by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:54:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  stephanie oh stephanie (0+ / 0-)

                    you still see exactly what you want to see, instead of what's actually there.

                    I'm anti-Monsanto and anti-GMO, remember? I've been fighting them since the early 90's. And i have not said word one about denying anyone the right to pass whatever ballot initiative they like.

                    PS--people who think science is a big conspiracy against them are, by definition, "anti-science". As are people who make "scientific arguments" that are wrong, incorrect, factually untrue, contrary to reality, and in some cases deliberate intentional deceitful falsehoods.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:00:05 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've seen you make that assertion before.. (2+ / 0-)

                      but see no evidence to support it in your general comments.

                      You skipped right over the reality that Oregon farmers face with no trouble at all. Property rights. Local control. Control over scare resources which agriculture land is. No comment from you on that reality at all.

                      You have an unwavering faith in industry funded research that I find amazing. The industry has funded a huge amount of work which is favorable to its bottom line while withholding their patented seeds from researchers who might not be so kind. Reminds me of the old joke about splitting scientific papers rather than writing just one because, although Deans can't read, they can count.

                      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                      by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:26:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  (sigh) (0+ / 0-)

                        Whatevs.

                        You have a soundproof head.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:30:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  and your IFF needs adjusting /nt (0+ / 0-)

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:41:26 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Whenever anyone asks you to comment upon (2+ / 0-)

                          the issues surrounding this, you revert to whatevs and "give up". Charming.

                          For once, I'd like to see you actually address the reality that people face in their local communities which emboldens them to do the hard work to bring an initiative to the ballot. It's no fun. It is a long process with high powered Big Biotech lawyers hounding every step.

                          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                          by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 11:02:08 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  here is the reality people face: (0+ / 0-)

                            In 20 years of tens of millions of people eating GMO foods every day, no harmful effect on health has been found anywhere by anybody that can be attributed to eating GMOs.

                            That is true no matter how big a fucking bastard Monsanto is, or how much you or I hate Monsanto.

                            You can wave your arms all you want.  That's the reality.

                            If you disagree with that reality, then by all means, show us.  Show us what disorders you think are being caused by GMOs, and show us the mechanism whereby you think GMOs cause it.

                            Until you do that, you are just waving your arms. But you won't do that.  You can't.  There isn't any.

                            (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:51:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lenny, the example you give is anecdotal not (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cville townie, madame damnable

                            scientific.

                            There have been no scientific human trials. Some harms take a while to come up and since on one is even looking at it, how can we know what kind of maladies it causes? It is an unknown. Americans are hardly a healthy lot.

                            Besides these kinds of bans are put in place for other reasons too. It is much more complex than the one area you insist upon.

                            Property rights

                            Local control of our communities

                            Scarce resources--Arable land for one. My valley is a seed cradle. Do we want to use that to grow GMO sugar beet seed which causes genetic drift to other seed plants like kale?

                            There is much more to it.

                            Oh, thanks for the tip on the mosquito fish. Getting three of them tomorrow!

                            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                            by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:20:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  anecdotal ????????????????????????? (0+ / 0-)

                            Over 100 million people have been eating GMOs for 20 years now, and you can't show any health effect in any of them that is attributable to GMOs. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. Nothing.

                            That is bigger and longer than any scientific study ever done in the history of science. And you have nothing from it. Nothing.

                            Hell, you can't even give any plausible mechanism how it is even POSSIBLE for a GMO gene to cause any human health effect (unless you want to run with Dr Huber and his magic microbe that only he can see).

                            You got nuthin.

                            Game over.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:26:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ridculous. It's anecdotal. ask any scientist. (0+ / 0-)

                            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                            by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:02:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  a better response (one a scientist would want) (0+ / 0-)

                            would be to simply show us the data and evidence that support your hypothesis that "GMOs are making people sick".  By, say, showing us the sick people, and explaining how it was that the GMOs made them sick.

                            Form a hypothesis.

                            Test the hypothesis with data.

                            But you won't.  You can't.  There isn't any.  (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:09:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is peer reviewed science (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madame damnable
                            Nutr Rev. 2009 Jan;67(1):1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00130.x.

                            Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health.

                            Magaña-Gómez JA1, de la Barca AM.

                            Abstract

                            The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models, and parameters. The most common result is that GM and conventional sources induce similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. Diversity among the methods and results of the risk assessments reflects the complexity of the subject. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.

                            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                            by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:43:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so where are the sick people it points to (0+ / 0-)

                            All it says is "some people say X, some people say Y". It does not name a single disease that can be attributed to GMOs.  It does not give a single mechanism through which GMO genes can do anything anywhere to anyone.

                            It has nothing.

                            If THAT is the best you got (wanna try Seralini or Huber instead?) then it's no wonder science laughs at you.

                            Let me ask you the same questions that Rosencrantz ducked for me earlier today, and see if you can do any better:

                            What diseases do you think the GMOs cause?

                            How can we tell which diseases are caused by GMOs and which aren't?

                            What plausible mechanisms are there for GMOs to cause any disease in humans?

                            You may begin.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:00:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  By using the scientific method which you are not (0+ / 0-)

                            From the same paper:

                            The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15)
                            Protocols need to be followed. You can't just say, as you have done, that "no one has dropped dead" , offering it as scientific evidence. That is ludicrous.

                            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                            by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:57:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no, what is ludicrous is claiming that (0+ / 0-)

                            GMOs make people sick, when you can't point to a single person anywhere, at any time, who is sick in any way because of GMOs. Particularly when you have no clue whatever how it is even POSSIBLE for a GMO gene to make anyone sick.

                            You are just waving your arms again.

                            You have nothing.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 08:11:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  as I have always said (but am always happy to say (0+ / 0-)

                            again for the hard of hearing):

                            My gripes with GMO have always been social, economic and political. Monsanto uses them to maintain a vertical monopoly that places an entire sector of the economy into a semi-feudal relationship, and uses its corporate power to not only control the information that is available about its product, but forces people to use its product in only ways Monsanto approves of. And I don't think ANYONE has any right to patent a natural product for private profit.

                            BUT

                            Most of the "scientific arguments" made by the anti-science  fringers in the anti-GMO movement are, quite frankly, nonsense. Wrong. Incorrect. Factually challenged. Baloney. Bullshit. However one wants to put it.

                            Using "science" arguments that are simply baloney, does not help us.  It HURTS us, by making every anti-Monsanto activist look like an uneducated buffoon who flunked fourth grade science.

                            So we shouldn't do it.

                            There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Monsanto and its use of GMOs. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

                            So stop making stupid shit up. Such as nonexistent "health effects".

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:30:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the Gambusia breed like rabbits (0+ / 0-)

                            Within months you'll have them coming out of your ears.  ;)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:31:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  genetically modifying, yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          translatorpro, madame damnable

          Not splicing fish genes into tomatoes.

           Angel virus, anyone?

          "History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

          by upstatefrantic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:33:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you realize the angel virus is fictional right? (4+ / 0-)

            that more over how it 'works' makes little scientific sense? Or for that matter that splicing under goes rigorous testing because outside of the Umbrella corporation "kill the world" isn't a profitable business outlook?

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:44:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  of course I know it's fiction (0+ / 0-)

              Just a joke.

              No need to be so snide

              "History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

              by upstatefrantic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:25:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well if meant as a joke my apologies (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wildweasels, mconvente

                but given the anti science nonsense being flung around I thought you were voicing a serious concern.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:30:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  it's like the scientists who are trying (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mconvente

                  To hatch up a mammoth  and I think there's another bunch trying to recreate some dinosaurs.   Occasionally fiction makes a good point.

                  For the record, I've got little patience with the anti vaccine folks.

                  "History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

                  by upstatefrantic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:02:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  except some things only exist as plot points (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wildweasels

                    Yes there are efforts to bring the mammoth back. I give them billion to one odds and returning dinosaurs even longer odds.

                    Case in point what King describes in Jurassic Park has never been found or observed. It's brilliant writing and plausible but never been backed by actual science. The same is true of the 'angel virus'. It sounds plausible but it makes no scienctific sense. Viruses are just not random bits of genetic code. In point of fact there is millions of years of evolution behind them and they are quite highly evolved for their purposes.

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:21:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it wasn't the plot point (0+ / 0-)

                      It was the underlying warning.  Just because you can do something ....

                      I'm  not condemning bioengineering -- there have been amazing  developments, like the insulins and the bone marrow stimulants.  

                      But like any technology, the potential for harm exists.  It wouldn't be the first time the public has been used as unwitting test subjects, i.e. hormone replacement therapy, even thalidomide.

                      Besides, like they tell us peons, if there is nothing to hide, why shouldn't the public have gmo labeling?

                      "History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

                      by upstatefrantic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:36:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Monsanto are a bunch of assholes (5+ / 0-)

        And their business practices should be regulated out of existence.

        That does not mean that their, or anyone else's GMO crops are going to destroy the world.

    •  You asked: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiveroftheWest, maregug
      GMO Science
      This compilation is a sample of the scientific references including over 1500 studies, surveys, and analyses that suggest various adverse impacts and potential adverse impacts of genetically engineered (GE/GMO) crops, foods and related pesticides. This list contains references regarding health impacts, environmental impacts, including impact of non-target organisms (NTOs), resistance of target organisms, pesticide drift, genetic contamination, horizontal gene transfer, unintended effects, as well as references regarding yields, social impact, ethics, economics and regulations. In most cases, links are provided to the abstracts for the references or links to sites where the study can be purchased.

      „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

      by translatorpro on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:28:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry, these studies... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mikidee

        mostly deal with effects of Roundup and whatnot, and not effects of genetically-modified food crops on anything even remotely resembling a human, with one notable exception being reference 1230, which is to a scandalous study of rats with falsified results that has now been retracted for scientific dishonesty.

        After the retraction of this sole study, there is simply no science proving any adverse health effects to humans from eating genetically-modified crops.

        •  *correction... (0+ / 0-)

          replace "effects to humans" with "effects to higher lifeforms."

          Also please do not conflate effects of Roundup (glyphosate, herbicide, nasty) and effects of GMO food (which humanity has been messing with to a larger and smaller extent since at least the Neolithic age).

    •  I firmly believe in science (5+ / 0-)

      In fact I think we should perform it more.  There's a lot of interesting phenomena occurring with human health, decreased fertility, increasing reproductive issues and cancer rates.  At the same time we have introduced hormone disrupters, gmos, all sorts of chemicals whose safety hasn't been tested.

      We should be skeptical.   It takes 25 years for hepatitis B to cause liver cancer.  We need to keep in mind that some things have timelines longer than than we are comfortable with.

      "History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."

      by upstatefrantic on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:45:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Superweeds from Monsanto...who would have thought? (3+ / 0-)

        Monsanto solution: MORE POISON added to existing poison that no longer works.

        Farmer + healthy solution:  Agroecology w/NO chemicals

        Which would average people choose - if they had a choice?
        -----------------------

        ...weeds that developed glyphosate resistance can develop resistance to the new herbicides as well—and this has already begun to happen.

        When major weed species develop widespread multi-herbicide resistance, farmers will really be in a bind, because there are no new herbicides coming over the horizon to save the day.
        A science-based solution: healthy farms

        There's a better way. Farmers can control weeds using practices grounded in the science of agroecology, including crop rotation, cover crops, judicious tillage, the use of manure and compost instead of synthetic fertilizers, and taking advantage of the weed-suppressing chemicals that some crops produce.

        http://www.collective-evolution.com/...

        http://www.ucsusa.org/...

    •  Hello, anti-populist wing of the Democratic party! (5+ / 0-)

      How's it going at those corporate shindigs!

      And I better not be seeing any of you attacking the Koch brothers and their supporters, because you and your corporate friends are no better than they are.

      There. That sure increased the value of this conversation didn't it? Divide, divide, divide, and make sure and demonize while you're at it. Extra points for using climate as a football in the debate.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:10:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Global Day of Action against Monsanto 6/24 (6+ / 0-)

    from translator pro

    link

    Hoping someone here will cover ..

    If you're not terrified into action by the IPCC's 5th Assessment , you're not human.

    by boatsie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:20:03 AM PDT

  •  Yay you Madam!!! It's good to be kicking corporate (6+ / 0-)

    ass in Southern Oregon!

    And to you Monsanto supporters, if the country these gmo companies have their headquarters in, won't allow the product to be sold and planted there, other places shouldn't play the laboratory for them.

    Suck on it trolls.

  •  Thank you for all the hard work. An important (6+ / 0-)

    step in taking our country back from the despoilers and crooks.

    Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

    by StrayCat on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:23:51 AM PDT

  •  Great Work (4+ / 0-)

    More of these.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:24:51 AM PDT

  •  HURRAY! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madame damnable

       So cool. A journey (like the Hobbit) starts with one step.
        To all the gummos, as in gums up the works:
        Single generation seed DOES NOT EVOLVE or ACCLIMATE.
        The Irish potato famine was caused because most potato plantings were the same type. The disease is called BLIGHT.

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:01:24 AM PDT

  •  Bring back Prohibition (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin

    Anheuser Busch has been involved in some questionable marketing practices.

    Therefore, we should bring back Prohibition.

    The Democratic President and Senate should not regulate Anheuser Busch.

    We should just bring back Prohibition.

    "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

    by Utahrd on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:05:40 AM PDT

  •  Yaaaa! Hope Maui Can Follow Suit (5+ / 0-)

    We're right now trying to be the first to ever initiative meet the onerous conditions of getting a citizen initiative on the ballot to ban GMO growing in Maui County.

    They're verifying signatures right now.

    http://ShakaMovement.org

  •  Great job! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aimeehs

    It shows that you're ignorant of science and you put people out of work!

    Woo-hoo! Score one for fear-based scientific ignorance!

    You can't simultaneously fire teachers and cruise missiles!-Jon Stewart

    by djtyg on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:46:12 AM PDT

  •  Wonderful to see your diary getting so much (6+ / 0-)

    attention!

    I have done a diary on this too. David Slays GMO Goliath!

    I have been sharing your diary and mine across FB. People are just loving it!!!

    Thanks so much for all the hard work and the wonderful campaign. Here in Benton County, we hope to be next up with Lane County following. There are many other counties who are organizing to follow suit.

    We will sew together all the "patchwork" pieces into a quilt which will cover Oregon and force our state to do the will of the people!

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:00:46 PM PDT

  •  Never seen so much effort put into (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ceebee7, Russgirl, RiveroftheWest

    defending Donald Rumsfeld, the former President of McDonald's, and the head of Peabody Coal. Oh, and the Lockheed Martin guy.

    Real band of trustworthy folks you got up there. That's why it puzzles me that they need the government to pass a law forbidding lawsuits brought on the basis that their GMO seeds cause health problems.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:13:37 PM PDT

  •  Good job (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Russgirl, RiveroftheWest

    "To live in a world where truth matters and justice, however late, really happens, that world would be heaven enough for us all." - Rubin "Hurricane" Carter

    by blueoregon on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:36:26 PM PDT

  •  I can't add much more (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest

    than has already been said, but, "WOW!" Very impressive, and it show's that if we the people are informed, we really can have more control over our futures than corporations do.

    Big time congrats! And thank you!!!

    It's all about the song.

    by 47songs on Wed May 21, 2014 at 01:45:03 PM PDT

  •  what REALLY amuses me . . . . (4+ / 0-)

    . . . is the number of user IDs here who also regularly turn up in the anti-vax diaries to tell us all how unsafe and untested and potentially dangerous vaccines are and it's all a Big Pharma Corporate Conspiracy to make money.

    (snicker)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:09:30 PM PDT

  •  Congratulations!!! (3+ / 0-)

    Isn't it amazing how honest facts (even with a lack of money!) can triumph over those who are compromising our food (and health!), with GMOs...?

    Keep on keepin' on kicking butts of those f##king corporations who are trying to tinker with the basic building blocks of life all in the name of trademarks, copyrights, and the almighty profit margins of corporate America!  Bastages!

    PS:  Another state could benefit from your experience.

    In one of the world's most isolated and sensitive environments, our state of Hawaii, this is what those frickin' GMO corporations are doing:

    Islands at Risk (Part 1) - Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i
    http://www.youtube.com/... mk

    Islands at Risk (Part 2) - Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i
    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Islands at Risk (Part 3) - Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i
    http://www.youtube.com/...

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Wed May 21, 2014 at 02:14:08 PM PDT

  •  Monsanto out of Jackson County (3+ / 0-)

    This is especially heartening because it seems to have turned out progressive voters in this very red county. As of this writing, the library and the extension service levies are also passing.

    •  There is a very strong libertarian leaning (0+ / 0-)

      down in the "State of Jefferson". But it tends to be pretty conservative which shows that this property rights issue has no real political party. Farmers don't like being messed with!

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:12:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Important post. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest, occupystephanie

    Tipped and shared on Facebook. This appearing on the cusp of this Sunday's March Against Monsanto nationwide, will add fuel to the momentum that is growing. The old cliche think global and act local is true. Way to go, Jackson County.

    Consumerism is the deepest shrinkage of what it means to be human. - Dr. Vandana Shiva

    by bisleybum on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:34:58 PM PDT

  •  What it takes. Organizing, energy, stick-to-it-ivi (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest, occupystephanie

    ty. Bearing on mind the the creatures who make up the Borg Mind of Monsanto are ruthless, greedy and implacable in pursuit of their corporate goals. They get a paycheck for their effort and will work 80 or 100 hours a week to spread the Demon Seed and the debt that goes with it all across the planet. May your energies never flag or fail -- the shits and their shills are in various capitals even now, looking for ways to outlaw your successful outlawing. They have various "supremacy" clauses and arguments to lie on, you have the police powers that let locales act to protect health and safety.

    Too bad so few in this community are as energetic organized and dedicated as you all... And no, I did not name names or refer to anyone with that, at all, so spare the prickly responses ( if any.)

    We ordinary people, who care about our future great- grandchildren, need to do a whole lot more of this. The fuckers within Monsanto and Lockheed and so forth DO NOT OWN THE PLANET.

    "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

    by jm214 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 04:54:40 PM PDT

  •  Congrats to you and the folks of Jackson Co. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest, occupystephanie

    I hope other ag areas take your example to heart.

  •  Clearly, canvassing will have to be outlawed if (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest

    we're to be properly ruled by our Evil Corporations.


    A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

    by Jim P on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:26:58 PM PDT

  •  Congratulations! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest, occupystephanie

    wonderful news.  

    Now maybe we can get fracking banned down here in California....

  •  Madame D (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madame damnable

    Your diary is number 2 on the high impact list!

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Bravo!

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:04:16 AM PDT

    •  What a crazy 36 hours (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      occupystephanie

      I'm amazed that this conversation is still going on and is so vitriolic! Who knew my little midnight post after the results were in would be such a barn burner.

      I am stepping away from the computer and getting my tomatoes planted today. Putting my hands into the soil instead of talking about it. I am amending with all organic fertilizers and tons of my own worm compost. Sorry Monsanto, no Round-up here. I don't spray weeds, I actually pull them.

      You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?

      by madame damnable on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:50:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for telling me that! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      occupystephanie

      I had no idea, just been reading with amazement.

      You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?

      by madame damnable on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:51:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Meteor Blades, Pat K California, fly, trillian, Doug in SF, northsylvania, CJB, Bill in Portland Maine, scribeboy, decisivemoment, RW, teacherken, Joan McCarter, kaleidescope, Gooserock, Pandora, NYmom, Dave the Wave, mimi, greenbird, Emerson, dengre, Shockwave, jazzizbest, Sherri in TX, LynChi, Pescadero Bill, GayHillbilly, mslat27, celdd, eeff, StAdams, xynz, mzinformed, dhl, Creosote, regis, missLotus, Babsnc, Einsteinia, magnetics, susakinovember, whenwego, ehavenot, ReneeNY, mkfarkus, farmerhunt, ivote2004, PeteZerria, egarratt, Terre, fumie, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, sidnora, wader, kharma, ranger995, Damnit Janet, DSC on the Plateau, Steven Payne, renaissance grrrl, Mi Corazon, lcrp, Brian82, stringer bell, JayBat, zerelda, WisVoter, ScienceMom, jcrit, rickeagle, slapshoe, boran2, Josiah Bartlett, rmx2630, Sybil Liberty, BDA in VA, Gowrie Gal, weelzup, sachristan, la motocycliste, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, eastsidedemocrat, Tinfoil Hat, Ckntfld, BluejayRN, JanetT in MD, Chinton, democracy inaction, one of 8, basquebob, dewtx, stagemom, TigerMom, Tod, Brooke In Seattle, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, fixxit, owlbear1, bleeding blue, SaraBeth, Pam from Calif, Sun Tzu, where4art, most peculiar mama, markdd, RichterScale, Sandino, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Ginny in CO, snoopydawg, Pluto, peacestpete, xanthippe2, Alan Arizona, kathny, Jim P, begone, Mother Mags, martini, LeighAnn, tommymet, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, cybersaur, tobendaro, emeraldmaiden, Russgirl, HoundDog, seefleur, Audri, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, philipmerrill, funluvn1, boatsie, Wisper, onionjim, BlueMississippi, CA Nana, James Hepburn, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, suspiciousmind, blueoregon, shaharazade, Statusquomustgo, bstotts, Spongebob76, sea note, PatConnors, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, ammasdarling, old wobbly, Sapere aude, dotsright, Karen from Maui, camlbacker, ninkasi23, Debs2, leema, devis1, ColoTim, offgrid, Wino, FishOutofWater, LillithMc, Mary Mike, la urracca, HeartlandLiberal, greenchiledem, Mangrove Blues, Kentucky Kid, jayden, letsgetreal, jnhobbs, gchaucer2, Librarianmom, pioneer111, Got a Grip, leonard145b, bewild, spearfish, Azubia, Jamaste, shmuelman, on the cusp, roycej, fb, sand805, JDWolverton, JayC, Scioto, flowerfarmer, Shahryar, kingneil, GAS, wayoutinthestix, Sixty Something, gtnoah, Fiona West, Laughing Vergil, alasmoses, VL Baker, jamess, Lujane, triplepoint, ashowboat, Gemina13, elpacifico66, KrazyKitten, Karl Rover, Karen Hedwig Backman, Executive Odor, JamieG from Md, Mayfly, billybam, toom, protectspice, Lib Dem FoP, lissablack, tuckerm, ZhenRen, fayea, Marnie1, legendmn, multilee, zmom, bleuet, ceebee7, greengemini, welso, CanyonWren, Methinks They Lie, notrouble, indres, fToRrEeEsSt, prgsvmama26, dRefractor, kevinpdx, winkk, KenInCO, sfarkash, jfromga, citisven, Words In Action, Just Bob, BigVegan, confitesprit, rb137, NJpeach, barkworsethanbite, catwho, kjoftherock, Crabby Abbey, Things Come Undone, dagnome, cordgrass, samanthab, Puddytat, AJ in Camden, Yasuragi, Jaimas, ericlewis0, USHomeopath, debk, nosleep4u, soaglow, not4morewars, slice, newusername, translatorpro, Onomastic, Maximilien Robespierre, Colorado is the Shiznit, TAH from SLC, ladywithafan, Oldowan, slowbutsure, henrythefifth, jm214, vahana, OldGrammy, Seitanist, Eclectablog, BillyElliott, FarWestGirl, cama2008, boomerchick, mrsgoo, marleycat, Lusty, thomask, Wolf10, Santa Susanna Kid, BarackStarObama, smoothnmellow, rk2, 1718bill, LSmith, Reinvented Daddy, RMForbes, enhydra lutris, shevas01, bluedust, Crider, PhilJD, sound of progress, poliwrangler, Merry Light, Caddis Fly, cailloux, Vatexia, SteelerGrrl, leftykook, DRo, Regina in a Sears Kit House, SouthernLiberalinMD, No one gets out alive, DawnN, Take a Hard Left, quill, Pinto Pony, i saw an old tree today, kywildcat, bluezen, greenbastard, Chrislove, molecularlevel, IndieGuy, turn blue, joanil, tb92, barkingcat, AnnieR, winglion, FreeSpeaker, ANY THING TOO ADD, Horace Boothroyd III, martinjedlicka, peachcreek, Forward is D not R, jan4insight, radical simplicity, Olkate, doroma, parakeet, Grabber by the Heel, New Minas, avsp, rat racer, GAladybug, Glen The Plumber, dotdash2u, George3, AZ Sphinx Moth, Robynhood too, bisleybum, nuclear winter solstice, Lily O Lady, countwebb, akadjian, poopdogcomedy, goodpractice, weck, 3rock, gypsytoo, HedwigKos, Southcoast Luna, Yo Bubba, GwenM, Drocedus, knitwithpurpose, Jollie Ollie Orange, RiveroftheWest, howabout, Homer177, GreenMother, Smoh, the oklahoma kid, BadKitties, ET3117, Portia Elm, maregug, saxoman1, OregonWetDog, Ellen Columbo, Gardener in PA, R rugosa alba, CenPhx, nancyjones, Future Gazer, Dr Arcadia, eagleray, Fish Man, patbahn, Penny GC, occupystephanie, VoteWisdom, thanatokephaloides, Skyye, ginimck, Random Brainwaves, hbk, benamery21, AJayne, ypochris, numble, upstatefrantic, alypsee1

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site