GMO Food

Why Do These Well-Fed Anti-Science Activists Oppose Safe, Cheap Food For Poor People?

Nearly 2,000 studies about GMOs all say the food is safe

|

M Shields Photography/Flickr

It's easy to scare people about what's in their food, but the danger is almost never real. And the fear itself kills. 

Take the panic over genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Ninety percent of all corn grown in America is genetically modified now. That means it grew from a seed that scientists altered by playing with its genes. The new genes may make corn grow faster, or they may make it less appetizing to bugs so farmers can use fewer pesticides. 

This upsets some people. GMOs are "unnatural," they say. A scene from the movie Seeds of Death warns that eating GMOs "causes holes in the GI tract" and "causes multiple organ system failure." 

The restaurant chain Chipotle, which prides itself on using organic ingredients, produces videos suggesting that industrial agriculture is evil, including a comedic Web series called "Farmed and Dangerous" about an evil agricultural feed company that threatens to kill its opponents and whose products cause cows to explode.

Michael Hansen of Consumer Reports sounds almost as frightening when he talks about GMOs. On my show, he says, "It's called insertional mutagenesis … you can't control where you're inserting that genetic information; it can have different effects depending on the location." 

Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project responds: "We've eaten about 7 trillion meals in the 18 years since GMOs first came on the market. There's not one documented instance of someone getting so much as a sniffle." 

Given all the fear from media and activists, you might be surprised to learn that most serious scientists agree with him. "There have been about 2,000 studies," says Entine, and "there is no evidence of human harm in a major peer-reviewed journal."

That might be enough to reassure people if they knew how widespread and familiar GMOs really are—but as long as they think of GMOs as something strange and new, they think more tests are needed, more warnings, more precaution. 

Yet people don't panic over ruby red grapefruits, which were first created in laboratories by bombarding strains of grapefruit with radiation. People don't worry about corn and other crops bred in random varieties for centuries without farmers having any idea exactly what genetic changes occurred. 

We didn't even know what genes were when we first created new strains of plants and animals. There's no reason to believe modern methods of altering genes are any more dangerous.

In fact, because they're far more precise, they're safer. 

And since genetic modification can make crops more abundant and easier to grow, it makes food cheaper. That's especially good for the poor. Another life-changer is a new strain of vitamin A-enriched rice that has the potential to decrease the frequency of blindness that now afflicts about a half-million people a year, mostly children. But activists—who tend to be rich and well-fed—are pressuring countries in Asia and Africa into rejecting GMO rice. 

Crusades against food are endless. First Lady Michelle Obama urges students to eat organic, even though that term has no real meaning in science besides "partly composed of carbon." 

My nonprofit for schoolteachers, Stossel in the Classroom, offers free videos that introduce students to economics. This year, we ran an essay contest inviting students to write on the topic "Food Nannies: Who Decides What You Eat?" 

I was happy to see that many students understood that this debate is about more than safety. It's really about freedom. Sixteen-year-old Caroline Clausen won $1,000 for her essay, which contained this sarcastic passage: "Congress shall have the power to regulate the mixing, baking, serving, labeling, selling and consumption of food. Did James Madison's secretary forget to copy this provision into the Constitution?" 

Rising generations will have more food options than ever before. They face less risk of starvation or disease than any humans who have ever lived. Let's give them science instead of scare stories. 

NEXT: Trouble 'Adjusting' to Sexual Assault May Be Getting U.S. Military Members Booted Without VA Benefits

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 99.997% of these yahoos couldn’t tell you the difference between a genetically engineered organism and a genetically modified one. Why should we take anything these cranks say seriously?

    1. Because CHILDRUNZ!

      1. “If it saves only one life, it’s worth the cost.” Even if it kills or prevents the existence of thousands and millions of other lives.

        1. Exactly! One liberal urban child is totally worth the prevented lives of some millions of brown kids who may do something evil like open a business or go fishing. Ew. But end racism!!@!!

          1. “Why Do These Well-Fed Anti-Science Activists Oppose Safe, Cheap Food For Poor People?”
            Um, because they are self-righteous morons and assholes, and this is just what self-righteous morons and assholes like to do? Next question please?

            1. ^This.
              Isn’t it interesting how these same people are so quick to discuss “white privilege” and throw “racism” at every argument…but their proposed, final, solutions would inevitably kill millions of non-white people?

              Used to be funny. Now it’s kind of sickening the more control they whine away from the world.

              1. would has see: DDT.

            2. The pernicious thing is that they are claiming that these foods are unsafe, both for the people who eat them and for agriculture as a whole.

              1. I love how they tout ZIMBABWE as an example of a country with integrity for rejecting GMO crops.

        2. Not a far cry different than communism in which many millions must be murdered and many billions more must starve and suffer just so the few shot callers can have things to their sick pleasing.

          1. Yep. The great, murderous irony of socialism – to prevent wealth and power accumulation, they must enact even more horrendous wealth and power accumulation in the hands of fewer people.

            Why socialism is still taken seriously is my question.

  2. People on Facebook are calling Stossel a traitor and saying he sold out to Monsanto and stuff. It’s quite humorous as well as disheartening.

    1. Monsanto is to GMO as Kochtopus is to political speech

  3. “Congress shall have the power to regulate the mixing, baking, serving, labeling, selling and consumption of food. Did James Madison’s secretary forget to copy this provision into the Constitution?”

    Fuck, why didn’t girls like this exist when I was in high school?

    1. She’s got a bright future at Reason.com if she also knows about alt-text.

  4. Also, meet the new luddites, same as the old luddites.

    1. Fear the unknown. Fear change, in all its forms.

      1. Innovation is not yet properly regulated by Top. Men. and is therefore scary.

  5. Left-wing opponent of GMO foods, meet your new ally

    http://jezebel.com/5962624/vic…..s-all-gay/

    and you lefties will love this guy too!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWiJPeGtxQ0

    1. *opponents

  6. Ninety percent of all corn grown in America is genetically modified now. That means it grew from a seed that scientists altered by playing with its genes.

    I’d say all 100% is genetically modified considering that it, like every other crop, has been significantly alterred from its “natural” state by millenia of careful breeding. What’s the big difference between someone who modifies genes in a lab and someone who modifies them in the field? One is quicker and more efficient. The other is behind the times.

    1. I recently got into an argument with some anti-GMO types who really seemed to believe there was something fundamentally different about modern GM techniques, like “Sure, breeding and mutation cause genetic changes, but they don’t insert sunflower genes into a fish!” Which sounds plausible enough at first, but we’re actually discovering that there’s way more gene transfer going on than we once thought: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..220454.htm

    2. Corn wouldn’t be edibile to begin with is man hadn’t futzed with its genes.

      Literally all corn we’ve been eating for the past whatever centuries is GM.

      1. The corn we had been eating wasn’t modified so that it could be drenched with roundup.

        1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 12:03AM|#
          “The corn we had been eating wasn’t modified so that it could be drenched with roundup.”

          And I’m sure you think that means something.
          It doesn’t.

          1. I know non GMO corn won’t have glyphosate residue on it. That means something to me because I don’t like mutagens on my food.

  7. “Why Do These Well-Fed Anti-Science Activists Oppose Safe, Cheap Food For Poor People?”
    It’s their religion and bleevers bleeve.

    1. Precisely. No amount of evidence will change their views because, as you said, it’s a religion.

      Why use facts when you have feelings and intuition?

      1. ‘You can’t prove there’s no God!’
        ‘You can’t prove this is SAFE!’

        1. “You can’t prove global warming isn’t dangerous!”

          “You can’t prove that the Sun provides energy!”

          “You can’t prove GMOs haven’t changed us!”

          1. Well actually, one can prove the Sun provides energy. The other two are ok.

            1. Isn’t part of the AGW grand thesis denying that contiguous warming occurred on other planets the same time that Earth did?

  8. Because they’re better than the poor black and brown peasants.

    1. “We’re not better, we are just more educated and feel obliged to make the more enlightened decision FOR them.”

    2. Ugh, the black and brown peasants. I mean, they want to do things like have enough food and power their homes, own their own shops and make things. How sick and twisted they are by false consciousness.

      It is the great Progressive Program that will save them from themselves and the evuls of Kapitalism. They should be happy that they’re going to starve to death. Much better than living lie that is prosperity and private property!

      1. Besides, it’s too EASY to help the black and brown peasants with golden rice and other modified foods. THAT doesn’t demand any sacrifice, and the point is we must sacrifice and repent of our plenitude as part of saving the third worlders, otherwise what’s the point?

        1. True. If double the amount of people don’t suffer, it’s not worth it! Brilliant!

          Of course, chablis and organic foods must remain in high-end urban markets. Those are guilt-free.

  9. I have a minor aneurysm every time I hear people toss around the word ‘organic’ as if they were using it scientifically when they’re actually using it in the context of marketing.

    All food is organic. To claim that some food is not ‘organic’ is to claim that either it’s made of silicate, or that it fits the some arbitrary criteria defined only by the imagination of marketers.

    1. Organic is defined as “whatever criteria excludes Heinz Ketchup”.

      1. And deep-dish pizza!

        1. I’ll have my second come around with a gauntlet later…

    2. To be sure, there is a legal meaning to “organic.” From the USDA blog:

      Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment (see other considerations in “Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited Substances“).

      As for organic meat, regulations require that animals are raised in living conditions accommodating their natural behaviors (like the ability to graze on pasture), fed 100% organic feed and forage, and not administered antibiotics or hormones.

      There’s more on the site, and, of course, if you really crave more, there’s the more stilted language of the regulation.

      All that said, there’s still a lot of bullshit here, in the regulation and even more in the popular [mis]understanding of what “organic” really means. Not to mention that organic farming has its own risks for consumers.

      1. why does the USDA even need to get involved? Jews and Muslims don’t need the USDA telling us what is Kosher and Halal. We have our own folks do that for us. Why can’t the same be done regarding “organic”? Why are tax dollars being wasted on trying to figure out what is “organic” and what is not?

        These “organic” foodies need to start their own organizations to get approval and have their own strict standards. It will likely be far more stringent than government standards, and it is less likely to be compromised by bribery.

        If consumers did not trust an organization that certifies “organic” foods, they’d choose another that they do trust.

        IT’S NOT THAT FUCKING HARD, FOLKS!

        1. I’m certainly not endorsing the USDA or its definition of organic. Just noting that the term does have some legal meaning, bullshity as it may be. It doesn’t just mean the obvious “made up of organic chemicals.”

          1. I’m certainly not endorsing the USDA or its definition of organic. Just noting that the term does have some legal meaning, bullshity as it may be.

            Not really. The USDA has a “USDA Certified Organic” label that you need to meet the requirements of to use.

            “What the USDA Organic Label Means”

            The word organic can be used with impunity and means literally nothing.

            1. I’m hardly an expert in regulatory compliance, but I don’t think you can use “organic” when advertising food unless your usage conforms to the regulatory meaning of the term.

            2. The words “fuck off” can be used with impunity too, and they generally imply something?

        2. Jews keep kashrut and Muslims halal out of sincere deeply held beliefs. These folks eat “organic” merely as a way to signal their class status. That is, “I bought the 5 dollar organic milk because I can afford you, can you?” It’s the same sort of conspicuous consumption that drove French aristocrats to take songbirds, force feed them millet, drown them in a decanter of wine before roasting them and then eating them whole while holding a napkin over their heads.

          1. But I must know. Were those free-range organic ortolans? And were the napkins made with child labor?

          2. Surely they removed the feathers?

        3. I’m thinking of offering kosher natural shrimp-flavored pickled pigs feet. On another thread I learned that is OK with some people so long as the fine print ingredients list indicates it is not really kosher

        4. why does the USDA even need to get involved? Jews and Muslims don’t need the USDA telling us what is Kosher and Halal.

          I agree with your analogy, but it’s actually even worse than that. The anti-GMO folks demand that GMO food to be marked as such, in a transparent attempt make buyers think it’s a warning label denoting something harmful. It’s the equivalent of Jews and Muslims agitating for big red “WARNING! CONTAINS PORK!” stickers. (Yes, I know kosher/halal is more complicated than that).

          1. That’s an excellent analogy considering that there are already ‘Kosher’ food labels. So if you want to avoid pork, it is easy to pick the foods with a ‘Kosher’ label on them.

            The GMO people are doing the equavalent of a demanding a label saying “contains pork” on EVERY food produced anywhere in america that might have pork or pork products in it. (Lard, bacon grease)

        5. At least some organic farmers would prefer this. And a few DESPISE USDA.

          There is a non government watchdog type organization (Cornucopia Institute). They called out Kashi a few years ago when they “mislabeled” some products.

    3. I thought ‘organic’ just meant it didn’t have the preservatives in it to prevent the food from going bad and causing various gastric problems when the spoiled and/or moldy crap was consumed. We wouldn’t want to waste it by throwing it away sooner than we would with preserved food.

    4. Carbon?

  10. Question: Is the expert consensus on GMOs stronger or weaker than the expert consensus on global warming?

    1. fin-tastic|5.28.14 @ 12:53PM|#
      “Question: Is the expert consensus on GMOs stronger or weaker than the expert consensus on global warming?”

      Question: Do we have a contender in the False Equivalence competition, or is this one worn out from over-use?

    2. I think the expert consensus on GMO’s is much stronger than the one on global warming.

      I think initial analyses of Cook’s dataset came out with only something like .3% of papers backing the ‘consensus’ position on global warming while something like 1.2% of them called it into question.

      The paucity of papers that tackle the question is pretty much due to the fact it’s almost impossible to test AGW scientifically, other than waiting and seeing.

      With GMO’s one can actually do experiments.

      1. It’s important to point out that the science behind man-made global warming climate change extreme weather events, is nothing at all like the science behind GMOs or, as we’re frequently reminded, evolution.

        Both of these sciences look at the historical record and, in the case of GMOs, studies with empircal data reign supreme. What they don’t try and do is to leverage this knowledge to conjecture what man will look like in 100 years or what food will be like in 50 years. It’s science looking at the present.

        Whatever we’re calling global warming now, while it does have a study of the historical record, many of those records are open to debate as to how they’re interpenetrated. Additionally, how the current data is gathered is also questionable. Many of the weather stations that were once in rural areas are now surrounded in urban environments leading to elevated temperature data.

        Most critically, though, are the computer models, which as we now know, are horrendously inaccurate at predicting temperature. And that is where most of the disagreement comes from. Not what the climate is today compared to 50 years ago, but what it will be in 100 years. That’s less science than educated guessing.

        1. “Many of the weather stations that were once in rural areas are now surrounded in urban environments leading to elevated temperature data.”

          It’s noteworthy that the scientists using ground sensor data do attempt to correct for the changes due to urbanization. The adjustments they perform are still a matter of dispute, of course.

          1. I realize that, but it would be more reliable if the data didn’t need the massaging.

            1. It’s because of the Precautionary Principle. They badger everyone to worry about climate change and they also badger everyone to worry about “Frankenfoods”.

    3. Studying GMO’s likely does not involve understanding super sensitive, multi-variate non-linear dynamics, etc.

    4. Stronger.

      There are NO major scientific organizations that do not support GMOs. Zero.

      The only objectors are loony cranks, or in the pay of some organic foods lobbying group.

  11. I have a modest proposal to stop genetic modification:

    Kill all the bees. They cross pollinate plants that should not be modified! Can you imagine the damage done when apple blossoms and lilies are mixed! Chaos! Disease! Destruction!

    Mother Nature, our Blessed Gaia, never meant for any of this to happen. Honey is a scourge on the earth! Strawberries larger than a beautiful Euro dime are evil!

    1. No need for anyone to kill all the bees. The chemicals used in conventional GMO farming is already doing this.

      1. Chumby|5.28.14 @ 11:57PM|#
        “No need for anyone to kill all the bees. The chemicals used in conventional GMO farming is already doing this.”

        Cite missing and I’m sure if you find one it’ll be as stupid as you.

        1. Who needs citations when one “feels” the truth?

          And: totally missed the point, didn’t he, that genetic modification happens all the time, and naturally.

          1. Most folks understand there is a difference between selective breeding and inserting genes in a lab environment and just go along with GMO as the latter. It seems totally alien that. Squash and a pumpkin could cross. Pollinate and make a squmpkin whereas it seems perfectly reasonable that a food crop would have genes inserted into it so that it could be sprayed with a chemical or include a soil bacterium.

            Sevo continues to have issues uploading the video drinking roundup. Perhaps you could post the link to a video of you drinking roundup. You are advocating that it is safe, correct? Couldn’t you at least support that in actions?

          2. Most folks understand there is a difference between selective breeding and inserting genes in a lab environment and just go along with GMO as the latter. It seems totally alien that. Squash and a pumpkin could cross. Pollinate and make a squmpkin whereas it seems perfectly reasonable that a food crop would have genes inserted into it so that it could be sprayed with a chemical or include a soil bacterium.

            Sevo continues to have issues uploading the video drinking roundup. Perhaps you could post the link to a video of you drinking roundup. You are advocating that it is safe, correct? Couldn’t you at least support that in actions?

  12. If good for you whats wrong with labeling as a GMO and letting people have a choice on what to buy. Quit forcing these capitalist ways on everyone. let them have a choice if the want a GMO, or pesticide used on crops. or organic. Let demand by the public drive what is used, label everything.

    1. roth|5.28.14 @ 1:00PM|#
      “If good for you whats wrong with labeling as a GMO and letting people have a choice on what to buy.”

      Absolutely nothing. Let them that’s bleevers pay for the labeling like those who eat Kosher do.

      1. I’m unclear on why it need be mandated if most people want such labeling.

        1. Without the labeling, how are they going to know when to get psychosomatically ill?

        2. The corporations in their corporationy builidings will never do the right thing unless they are forced to!

          Imagine if Ralph Nader had never fought for the law mandating cup holders in cars! can you imagine how many more crashes there would have been as the scourge of drive through windows swept the suburban sprawl zones?

          1. Well, what if. . .what if, say, one business, seeing this, well, demand for labeling, provided it voluntarily to get some sort of, um, advantage in the–what do you call it?–oh, yes, marketplace?

            1. But that doesn’t happen, pro lib!

              It’s only thanks to guys life Ralph Nader that products are improved!

              1. “Improved?” You mean, altered by human intervention in some manner?

                [Points at tarran and screeches ? la Donald Sutherland.]

              2. It does indeed happen; I’ve seen quite a number of products that explicitly state “No GMO …”; almost invariably at a higher price point. If a product doesn’t have this on the label one may conclude it may contain GMO-based products. If enough people care, the products labelled “No GMO” will sell better and draw a larger market share; if they don’t, these products will draw a smaller market share.

            2. “Well, what if. . .what if, say, one business, seeing this, well, demand for labeling, provided it voluntarily to get some sort of, um, advantage in the–what do you call it?–oh, yes, marketplace?”

              The marketplace is driven by inherent corporate Greed! So, the end result will always be Cthulian evil.

              1. I have a cunning plan. Let’s harness that corporate greed and use it for good. Since it’s in their self-interest to sell stuff that people want, let us use market forces to get our way.

          2. Imagine if Ralph Nader had never fought for the law mandating cup holders in cars!

            Then we would still have those hanging cup holders?

        3. Labeling proponents are very clear on why it needs to be mandated: to spread the cost around so that people who want GMOs don’t bear it by themselves. I was listening to a guy on Vermont Public Radio. He didn’t sugar coat it at all. He just phrased it as “Why should people who want to eat GMO-free have to pay for that knowledge?” That is not quite verbatim, but its close.

    2. Or why not just have those who have non-GMO stuff to put “No GMOs” on their labels? Why should anyone be forced to put something on their label?

      1. Why should anyone be forced to put something else on their label?

        /bureacracy style

    3. “If good for you whats wrong with labeling as a GMO and letting people have a choice on what to buy. Quit forcing these capitalist ways on everyone.”

      What is this I don’t even

    4. They have a choice. They can freely buy foods labeled ‘non-GMO’.

  13. It’s notable how many of these people implore us accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, yet refuse to do so themselves when it comes to many other domains such as GMO crop safety.

    1. Patrick Bores|5.28.14 @ 1:12PM|#
      “It’s notable how many of these people implore us accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, yet refuse to do so themselves when it comes to many other domains such as GMO crop safety.”

      It’s totally predictable that ignorant luddites will attempt to justify their stupidity with faulty ‘arguments’ based on false equivalence.

      1. Actually, the two phenomena are pretty similar.

        In both cases, the groups accept junk science as fact. It’s just that one set of junk science hasn’t been as loudly debunked as the other set.

        Look at their refusal to accept the increasing evidence that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 levels is a the low end of band predicted by models.

      2. Perhaps you misunderstood. Scientific consensus ought to be accepted across all domains because it represents the best evidence we have on a particular question. The fact that GMO crop safety and anthropogenic global warming are not ‘equivalent’ questions (which no one claimed) does not excuse us from our responsibility to judge either based on their scientific merit.

        1. Scientific consensus ought to be accepted across all domains because it represents the best evidence we have on a particular question.

          Oh horse shit!

          Science isn’t an institution, it’s a process for analyzing hypotheses and winnowing out the ones that don’t describe the world around us.

          And given the fact that 99% of hypotheses once held to be correct eventually get falsified, the notion that we ought to accept them as some revealed truth is risible.

          If you think a hypothesis is wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, provided your rationale is sound.

          1. There is good science, bad science, and science that’s not ready for prime time. For example, in physics, there’s a consensus that some version of string theory will help us get to unification–a theory of everything, if you will. Yet it’s not really proven falsifiable or had the ability to predict much. So the consensus there is, for now, totally meaningless.

            Climatology, as buried in the complexity of chaotic systems as it is, may require some massive advances before we can do anything more than make some guesses. There is so much more that we don’t understand–not just in the context of temperature changes, either–than we do. Which would be fine if people didn’t treat theories like AGW with the same respect as totally tested and mostly proved theories like gravity and evolution. And that’s merely a technical “mostly”–they’re well supported by the evidence.

            1. Prol, when it comes to GMOs why be so glib about its safety? Climatology may be complex but its still a far more developed science and the complexities of genetics are several orders of magnitude higher. Is it really a stretch to seriously consider possible downsides?

              1. Susan

                You have it ass backwards. GMO’s (which really should be called AGMO’s since everything we eat are genetically modified .eg. wild almonds will kill you) can be tested for safety by doing double blind trials.

                The processes by which humans metabolize food are actually much better understood than the processes that drive the climate.

                Like CAGW, the doomsayers seem to find refuge in unfalsifiable theories that are difficult to falsify and fanciful in their mechanisms.

                It is because climatology is such a low maturity field that they’ve the doomsayers have been able to capture and hold the central position in the academy.

                1. Not to mention, we are testing GMOs. People are consuming GMO food by the million.

                2. We’ve adapted almonds the way we’ve adapted everything else up to this point. Slowly over time. In a way that humans, the particular plants and the surrounding ecosystem have been able to adapt right along with them. It was a simple matter of understanding (consciously or not) the concept of natural selection and helping it along.

                  You’ve got me wrong if you think I’m automatically anti-GMO. I don’t think a slip in a lab is going to start The Great Plant Rebellion – complete with hordes of Audrey II’s roaming the landscape – but I think it’s a good idea to consider all potential negative consequences before jumping in.

                  1. To be sure, the companies involved have quite strong incentives to ensure their foods are safe. If not, they’re toast. That’s without any regulatory involvement, just from the lawsuits and lost business.

                    1. I think it’s a good idea to consider all potential negative consequences before jumping in.

                      There used to be several levels of approval and review for academic scientific research that valued stable productivity. Bureaucrats who’s job it was to make sure the next Marie Curie didn’t irradiate herself and her lab partners or lost funding if she did. True to human nature, with an abundance of adversity and resources, they’ve come to value radically disruptive sensationalism and seek out the next Marie Curie (even if it is just a Felisa Wolf-Simon).

                    2. Like auto manufacturers that don’t recall faulty vehicles? Oh wait. That would never happen. Never mind.

                    3. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 12:14AM|#
                      “Like auto manufacturers that don’t recall faulty vehicles? Oh wait. That would never happen. Never mind.”

                      Like idjits who post irrelevant comments? Oh, wait…

                    4. The comment was in response to the argument regarding business always taking the path of safety. Clearly I should have used smaller words…

                      Maybe it would be simpler if I just stayed with your beloved Monsanto and ask about if they are about safety, why did they improperly dispose of PCBs? Why did they make agent orange?

                  2. So what negative consequences do you envision?

                    Humans are omnivores that eat everything from fish to bugs to reptiles to birds to mammals to grains to roots to fruits to milk to products of decay like kimchi, wine or cheese.

                    Not only are we omnivores, we preprocess the shit out of our food, including cooking it to make it more digestible.

                    The notion that there is some delicate balance with out environment that is going to be affected by taking gense from one thing we eat and incorporating them into the germ of something else we eat to make it more palatable/easier to grow strikes me as being more primitive animistic superstition than anything else.

                    I am wiling to listen to someone if they can articulate a mechanism by which we can be harmed, but so far such hypotheses have been thin on the field.

                    1. Well, I admit I’m kinda stumped about exactly what could happen. Maybe an unanticipated mutation which makes pollen toxic to pollinators? Hell, maybe nothing bad (or at least nothing that can’t be fixed or adapted to) will happen.

                      Although I can’t stop thinking about some long past Australian saying “Let’s bring in some rabbits. What’s the worst that could happen?” Or a beekeeper who said “Let’s mix this insanely aggressive breed in with normal bees. I’m sure it’ll be fine 😉

                    2. Although I can’t stop thinking about some long past Australian saying “Let’s bring in some rabbits. What’s the worst that could happen?” Or a beekeeper who said “Let’s mix this insanely aggressive breed in with normal bees. I’m sure it’ll be fine 😉

                      Which explains why Australia is a barren wasteland dominated by rabbits and bees kill fewer people than Tylenol every year.

                  3. If you want to live according to the precautionary principle, then that is fine. Applied consistently to all areas of life, it is absurd, but people should have the freedom to be absurd.

                    The problem comes when people want to force others to subsidize their decisions. The anti-GMO crowd wants just that, and they push pseudo-science as a way of scaring people into agreeing with them.

                  4. “all potential negative consequences”

                    Better amend that to include “reasonable”. Scaredy-pants Michael Critchon wannabes can be pretty imaginative.

                    Also, how long is the “consideration” period, before it becomes an excuse to never do anything.

            2. For example, in physics, there’s a consensus that some version of string theory will help us get to unification–a theory of everything, if you will.

              Don’t tell the standard model folks that. String theory (m-theory, whatever) was all the rage 10-20 years ago, but there’s even less consensus on it today than at its peak.

          2. Science gives us the best explanation for things that we have *so far*. Of course hypotheses can be falsified or modified once better evidence is available. If new evidence holds up to widespread scientific scrutiny, consensus will be achieved quickly. Regardless, it’s wiser to give more credit and defer to the scientific community than to a blog post your sister-in-law shared on Facebook.

            1. Heck, it took me quite a while before I started looking askance at the claims in climate science about AGW.

              1. I have to wonder what would happen if the bio-engineering scientists behaved like the climate scientific community: hiding their data and methodology from scrutiny, suppressing dissenting studies and acting like poorly behaved apparatchiks, demanding punishment of colleagues, when their claims are questioned by other scientists.

                1. Actually, that does happen in biotech.

                  The big difference is that in biotech, you actually have to produce results that work in the real world! 😉

            2. Except, any legitimate scientist I’ve ever known has no problem whatsoever explaining the logic of the scientific mechanisms for his or her claims. Similarly, the scientific consensus in favor of GMO foods has no problem analyzing the evidence in favor of its claims. The AGW “consensus”, on the other hand, not so much.

        2. Scientific consensus ought to be accepted across all domains because it represents the best evidence we have on a particular question.

          Huh!

          I was under the impression that evidence represents the best evidence on a particular question.

          1. You’re under the wrong impression. Evidence can be (and is often) bad, misleading, or downright incorrect. Good evidence requires repeatability and well-documented causality based on physical observations and proper controls.

            1. None of which has anything to do with consensus.

              Consensus is nothing.

            2. So what does the scientific method require when the measured data doesn’t match the predicted data?

              Do you still run with the consensus?

              1. This works in both directions, too. If we’re willing to accept that a vast scientific conspiracy exists to misinform us about AGW, then we must also give similar credit to those who think would claim a vast scientific conspiracy to hide the dangers of GMO crops. I personally shrug at the relative dearth of evidence for such claims in either case.

                No matter what you believe, the point is the hypocrisy. Those who would defend a belief on the basis of scientific consensus should not be quick to discard the concept when it doesn’t serve their viewpoint on another topic.

                1. Who said anything about a conspiracy.

                  WRT AGW, they are simply wrong. There hasn’t been a statistically significant increase in average global temperature in over 16 years. A little fact that flies in the face of EVERY SINGLE computer model used to concoct their predictions. Not only have the models failed, but they’ve failed spectacularly.

                  I repeat my question:

                  What does the scientific method require when the measured data doesn’t match the predicted data?

                  As far as GMOs go, again, show me data that they are harmful. You won’t, because you can’t, because such data doesn’t exist.

                  You can agree on shit until the cows come home. It doesn’t mean fuck-all unless you’ve got repeatable, well-documented, causality based data supporting your theory.

                  Neither claim does.

                  1. You already know the answer but it’s worth beating it into everyone’s heads,

                    It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

                    -Richard P. Feynman

                2. Patrick Bores|5.28.14 @ 4:19PM|#
                  …”Those who would defend a belief on the basis of scientific consensus should not be quick to discard the concept when it doesn’t serve their viewpoint on another topic.”

                  And I’m not doing that. I’m not even basing it on a predictive model that I made up.
                  I’m basing it on the evidence that millions of people ahve been eating the stuff since way back when, and not once has it caused a health problem.

      3. Yo, Sevo, you’re slipping. Wednesday’s usually the day for “Strawman” as youre moronically simplistic denial of reality. Did the CIA spooks who spy on you through you’re dental work mess up your calender?

        1. Aw, you got called on your BS you had to change your handle?
          Have you stopped licking dog’s balls yet?

    2. Because they have no actual moral consistency – only faith and beliefs. They utilize “consensus” for one field to bolster their argument for one thing. However, when legitimate consensus exists, they simply would argue corruption in the sciences.

      That basically makes them hypocrites, but they have no problem with that. They only have final, ultimate solutions for humanity.

      1. You know who else had a final… Oh, never mind.

        1. College students?

          Oh, wait, you meant final solution!

          Then I would say “chemists”!

      2. The moral consistant ones are the ones who think slave owners have a right to there property (other human beings) no?

        1. Immorally consistent, sure. The slave owners manipulated religious and legal institutions to maintain slavery, which is where humans are deprived forcefully of their own autonomy.

          Autonomy – where every human is born with private property, which is their own body.

          A slave owner would necessarily be immoral because they have captured, purchased, or own slaves – humans deprived of their own autonomy.

          Or is it the notion of private property altogether that is morally bad?I guess those who stress to make laws for others based on personal preference or bias – yeah, they would be morally consistent with slave owners.

          Unless that’s a dig at libertarians, autonomy, and whatnot.

          1. How can you tell from that grammar?

            1. Just a hunch – have you ever seen the Salon.com comments sections? The grammatically inefficient tend to have certain…progressive…political beliefs…:)

              1. I think I’ll take your word on that.

                1. Yeah. Let’s just say other than Glenn Greenwald there was no reason to go to Salon.com.

                  But…oh those comments. They often straddle that line of hilarious/saddening.

    3. Their big thing now is to claim that the 2000+ individual report consensus on GMO safety no longer exists because they got 300 European professors to sign a piece of paper saying there is no consensus.

      1. Interesting, but somehow not surprising.

        I wonder – I notice a common thread between the global warming thing (where they manufactured a consensus) and the anti-GMO thing.

        A lot of poor people are going to die or become serfs.

        Those conspiracy theories are beginning to look a lot more valid, perhaps?

        1. Then again, neo-Marxism. Part of the plan. Lot of dead bodies needed for utopia. Heh.

      2. How many of these studies were not conducted by land grant universities that received subsidies, grants and funded professorships from Monsnato et. al.? I believe the answer is none. Reminds me of the “smoking is safe” studies that tobacco companies conducted.

        1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 12:18AM|#
          “How many of these studies were not conducted by land grant universities that received subsidies, grants and funded professorships from Monsnato et. al.?”

          How much irrelevant bullshit can you post?
          I believe you have a lot of it.

          1. It is particularly germane, though one needs a triple digit IQ to understand it. I think everyone else got it. When the researcher and the research facility are paid by one of the topics being researched, the data has an inherent bias (called advocacy).

        2. The same universities that get billions in federal funding to say that AGW/CC is real and will kill us all?

          1. EXACTLY! So why would you support them when they are paid by Monsonta to produce a report that says Monsanto’s agriculture practices are as safe as organic farming?

        3. And: safe or not, there’s a scientific consensus that smoking is indeed cool.

  14. Yet people don’t panic over ruby red grapefruits, which were first created in laboratories by bombarding strains of grapefruit with radiation.

    Shht! They can’t ban the stuff they don’t know about!

    I guess I’m okay letting them take ruby red grapefruit as long as they don’t know about these.

  15. BANANAS ARE IRRADIATED! ALL OF THEM! MONSANTO! KOCHS! RUN FOR THE HILLS!

    1. I’ve never understood why people like bananas.
      Once you peel ’em and throw away the bone, there’s not a lot left to eat.

  16. Hey guys…

    Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. The restraining order he has on you says it all.

  17. I’m not a farmer (which you will find obvious from this question), but if I were to plant some seeds for corn, where would I get those? Let’s say I’m a small, local farmer that takes produce and sells at, oh, let’s say the local farmer’s market. Those seeds that I use to grow my corn, are they GMO seeds?

    1. Is this serious?

      If you’re growing sweet corn for ‘personal use’ any online seed store will sell it to you. Burpee is the ‘Wal-mart’ of seeds. By-and-large, it is “non-GMO”.

      If you’re growing corn as a cash crop (to sell on the exchange/at the elevator or to feed livestock), find your local co-op they’ll sell it to you in 50# bags. Overwhelmingly, they sell GMO in response to demand. If you asked to get a bag of non-GMO they would probably have some on hand or be able to get a bag from whatever company you wanted the seeds from.

      You could go direct to the seed company like Pioneer (DuPont), but they usually won’t deal with anyone asking for seeds in anything less than tons.

      1. Yes, serious.

        My question had to do more with “personal use” rather than commercial. And my understanding is that crops of GMO seeds are planted to be hardier and faster growing. Wouldn’t we want that in our “personal” crops also? Or is that cost-prohibitive?

        1. And my understanding is that crops of GMO seeds are planted to be hardier and faster growing.

          Your question is hard to answer because GMO and personal use are very broad terms. GMO businesses don’t generally target the 1-2 acre weekend gardener, they target the 100,000-200,000 acre full-time farmer (customers that will also buy their fertilizer and pesticide products as well). Additionally, the weekend gardener is often looking for a different product than a 100,000-200,000 acre farm is producing. Generally, modifications are usually aimed at providing nutritional benefits to the food, which isn’t often highly profitable or desirable in the well-fed West or aimed at preventing the destruction of whole crops, which is relatively easily achieved for little cost at the personal level.

          General yield and tolerance to adverse conditions aren’t near their genetic/biological limits, and GMOs have hardly been a silver bullet in terms of improving them considerably;

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr

          [sic]the gene had a positive effect on shelf life, but not on the fruit’s firmness, so the tomatoes still had to be harvested like any other unmodified vine-ripe tomatoes. An improved flavor, later achieved through traditional breeding of Flavr Savr and better tasting varieties, would also contribute to selling Flavr Savr at a premium price at the supermarket.

        2. They probably don’t market GMO seeds to the home gardener because they assume that the kind of people who garden won’t buy them.

          Personally, I’d love to have some GMO corn in my back yard.

          1. Or you could crop rotate, feed the soil and be all set. Have grown popcorn and sweet corn the past six years and have had maybe a dozen ears that had a corn borer in them. Plantings varied from maybe a hundred row feet to about a quarter acre.

    2. EDIT: Sorry, that’s traditional farm co-op. The modern organic movement has emulated the traditional farm movement and you can just as easily find organic co-ops.

      My experience with organic co-ops is not as extensive as with traditional farm co-ops, but what experience I’ve had, they seem much less business and much more hobby. That may have changed with the growth of organic food, but I think there’s an intrinsic ethos in the organic movement against becoming a business.

  18. Slightly OT, but dealing with natural vs unnatural (i.e., manmade)…

    I heard a radio show discussing the Berkley Pit. The show focused more on the extremophiles that have emerged there, but there was still a general consensus that the pit is bad and an environmental disaster. It got me thinking, why? Because open pit mining takes the top off of mountains? So did Mount St. Helen, and it caused much more wide spread destruction in the process. Because the pit and the lake that formed in it are poisonous? So are the hot lakes in Yellowstone, but no one proposes cleaning them up. One aspect of the Berkley Pit that is not shared by volcanoes or hot springs is the degree to which it created wealth and improved the lives of millions of people (copper being a pretty important resource). But it was tainted by the hand of man and profit. It’s like original sin.

    1. Lynch, the lakes in Yellowstone aren’t going to contaminate a populated area or the groundwater and local rivers.

      1. They absolutely did “contaminate” the area they are in now when they first formed. Granted, that took a lot of time and no people were around, but if you were part of an elk herd that grazed those lands for generations…I’m being a bit facetious, but you get my point, I hope.

        But let’s accept your statement for argument’s sake: there is no inherent reason why an open pit mine or some other site that houses toxic material has to pose a threat to people. I’m all for being careful and allowing people to sue, or possibly even bringing criminal charges, if people or property are harmed by such practices.

        My larger point was that nature sans people can be just as, if not more, destructive than people, while people can and usually do use nature to vastly improve the human condition. But you rarely hear that from environmentalists, because anything “unnatural” is automatically deemed to be bad.

        1. Yes, Nature can be a bitch and plenty of environmentalists are nuts. But Nature doesn’t possess a volitional consciousness and the abstract thinking needed to anticipate problems in the future. Humans do (mostly) (often) (sometimes) (infreq..ah fuck it)

          In any case, I’m not saying anything to cast blame or judge motivations I’m just saying it’s a huge problem that needs sorting out.

          1. Susan, all of the potential problems you anticipate are equally valid concerns with conventional breeding.

            If you cross a crop plant with a wild relative, you introduce new genes. Those genes can have the same complex interactions within the plant that a gene inserted via rDNA techniques can.
            In fact, since you cross in millions of genes at a time, the probability is much greater.

            If anything the rDNA techniques are LESS dangerous because you are only inserting one gene at a time. Plus, if you have a problem, you can isolate the cause to that specific gene. Whereas if you cross plants together, it may take many generations of crossing and outcrossing before you breed out whatever undesirable trait you introduced.

    2. I drove by there last week.

  19. I just want to know why they won’t label GMO so that at least we can decide for ourselves.

    1. Just give me your definition for GMO. Will you test the each germ’s DNA against a base library? What happens if your corn picks up a bacterial infection from the soil that modifies its DNA in a beneficial way. Is that still GMO?

    2. Because “they” don’t want a poorly understood, and in some cases intentionally misrepresented, term to scare away customers and cut into sales.

      It also isn’t incumbent on “them” to cater to consumers who don’t even want to buy their products anyway.

      If you want to decide for yourself, buy foods certified as non-GMO. Problem solved.

    3. Why can’t you just buy labelled organic foods? Why do you need to put cigarette warnings on GMOs to stay away from them?

    4. Knowing if a product contains GMO material, in and of itself, is generally useless. To be of any real use, one would need to know the nature of the modification; that is, what is new and different about it. Not all modifications are identical.

  20. Whoops. I posted this on the wrong thread, but I’m taking investors for my plan to sell supplemental health insurance to cover GMO related illnesses. I think we’ll set the “healthy adult” price to, say $20/month.

    1. I’m taking investors

      Where do I back up my dump truck full of cash?

  21. There’s hardly a food crop we eat that hasn’t been modified by selective breeding over the last few thousand years. Corn, wheat, oats, rye were all derived from grass plants. Modern potatoes were modified from their ancestors Most fruits and veggies are far too small in their wild form to be practical as food crops, and were breed to the forms we now consume.
    Even all dog species are decendants of wolves. It wasn’t all natural selection that got these things to their modern form, but a lot of human intervention.
    Never ceases to amaze me that the crowd that claims the mantle of righteousness is so scientificlly illiterate. Just ask then to name a single “natural” food they eat today, unless they’re out in the prairies collecting weeds and eating them.

  22. I think mandating that a food processor needs to label their foods with GMO, is really stupid. Why don’t company’s take it upon themselves to label if they are so against GMO’s and for the labeling? Not even Whole Foods label produce.
    But on the other hand. I’m not for GMO’s. You have farmers being sued by such company’s as Monsanto, for having open pollinated crops. It is a case of Large Ag Corp and control.
    Also interesting how many ex monsanto employees have been hired on by our shitty government.
    Farming practices have been pretty poor for the past 60 years. So even if GMO’s are used. What about the soil building that is suppose to be taking place? The topic of GMO is a touch bigger than just labeling. GMO’s by design are able to take pesticides that would normally kill a plant. So what is that doing to the soil and the biology in it?
    It reminds me of the global learning crowd. The topic of sustainability is thrown in with it and that’s just not staying on topic.
    And who’s flipping the bill for these short term studies? I haven’t seen much in the form of long term. And no, I’m not a damn liberal.

    1. And no, I’m not a damn liberal.

      Well that settles it!

      You can’t be a liberal, because you said you aren’t!

    2. “Farming practices have been pretty poor for the past 60 years.”

      The Ghost of Norman Borlaug laughs at you.

    3. “You have farmers being sued by such company’s as Monsanto, for having open pollinated crops.”
      If you’re referring to Percy whatever, that’s BS.

      “Farming practices have been pretty poor for the past 60 years.”
      Cite missing

    4. I notice a lot of personal to a reasonable post.

    5. Don’t confuse being for/against GMOs with being for/against Monsanto.

      As for concerns about soil, from what I understand, glyphosate (Roundup, the herbicide that people seem to get worked up about the most) degrades pretty quickly in soil, so long-term contamination likely isn’t a problem. In time, I would expect certain weeds to develop a resistance to currently used pesticides, which would necessitate new R&D and new products, or new farming practices. That doesn’t bother me.

      1. You spray your RoundUp. You wait three days. You disc the ground. You spray your RoundUp the second time to kill the sprouts from the seeds germinated from the soil exposed by your disc. You wait three days. You drill your seed.

        The only thing that comes up is what you planted.

        Btw, there should still be a Youtube video of a Monsanto chemist drinking a solution of RoundUp. As he states, “drink enough and it’ll make you vomit, but there’s nothing in
        RoundUp that’ll kill you”.

        1. there should still be a Youtube video of a Monsanto chemist drinking a solution of RoundUp As he states, “drink enough and it’ll make you vomit, but there’s nothing in RoundUp that’ll kill you”.

          I haven’t seen the video, but this has always been my contention to anti-GMO nuts; a raw soybean is more toxic than the glyphosate that gets sprayed on it.

          When I point out that glyphosate is phenomenally more safe than stuff like gramoxone or 2,4-D, they usually explode in a tirade of nonsense.

          1. They hate having their scientific illiteracy exposed.

        2. I guess you haven’t read about the neurotoxin glyphosate then, have you?

          “The true toxicity of glyphosate?the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup?is becoming increasingly clear as study after study is published demonstrating its devastating effects. In June, groundbreaking research was published detailing a newfound mechanism of harm for Roundup.

          This was immediately followed by tests showing that people in 18 countries across Europe have glyphosate in their bodies,1 while yet another study revealed that the chemical has estrogenic properties and drives breast cancer proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.2

          This finding might help explain why rats fed Monsanto’s maize developed massive breast tumors in the first-ever lifetime feeding study published last year. Other recently published studies demonstrate glyphosate’s toxicity to cell lines, aquatic life, food animals, and humans.” Dr. Mercola

          1. Yeah, when you cite a source, someone *MIGHT* check your bullshit.
            I see you credit your crap to Mercola:
            “Joseph Mercola
            Joseph M. Mercola is an alternative medicine proponent, osteopathic physician, and web entrepreneur, who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements”
            http://www.bing.com/search?q=d…..dad9cad49d
            Quack, quack, quack, quack…

            1. Please post the link to the YouTube video of you drinking Roundup.

              1. Please post a link to a non-quack source that shows SPECIFIC health problems SPECIFICALLY resulting from glyphosate.

                1. http://www.epa.gov/safewater

                  Again, I asked you to post the video of you drinking your beloved roundup and again you have failed to provide it. You retort with ad hominem but no substance.

          2. I guess you haven’t read about the neurotoxin glyphosate then, have you?

            Yes, I have, and if I had to ingest roundup compared to any of the handful of toxins naturally found in soybeans, I’d choose Roundup.

            If I were worried about the estrogenic properties of the food I eat, I’d worry more about the isoflavones in the bean that I consume rather than the pesticides that, by and large, removed with the husk and, if traces still remain, are washed away.

            However, if I were that worried about shit in food that would kill me, I’d worry about the trypsin inhibitors and phytohemagglutinins that occur naturally in raw beans. The stuff that acutely killed our early ancestors and is the very essence of why we started cooking our food to begin with.

            The lifetime feeding study published last year was so bad the EFSA, which is widely considered to be excessively stringent and anti-GMO, denounced the findings. Glyphosate is not benign, no compound is, it’s benefits are obvious and its risks and adverse effects are so obtuse that refusing to use it is silly.

    6. What about the soil building that is suppose to be taking place?

      What soil building? WTF is that? Soil is overwhelmingly inert matter and this is food production. They’d grow crops on a fields composed entirely of inert styrofoam, but, centuries ago, it was easier to get the weeds out of the way and use soil.

      So what is that doing to the soil and the biology in it?

      Hopefully, it’s killing the root worms and other pests that are reducing yields. It’s estimated that rootworms *still* cause some $1 Billion in losses every year so, if you’ve got a solution, there’s still money to be made.

      1. Soil is overwhelmingly inert matter? Wherever did you get that idea? If the soil is dead, nothing grows.

        1. So you have problems reading?
          Are you a worshiper of the mud momma?

        2. If I can raise crops from ‘dead soil’, would that make me some sort of God?

    7. Monsanto hasn’t sued anyone who didn’t deliberately plant patented seeds without a license.

      Percy Schmeiser purposely sprayed the margin of his field with Roundup, next to the Roundup Ready neighbors’ field, then saved the surviving seeds, and planted them the next year. He was intentionally selecting for the roundup-tolerant plants.

      His neighbors saw him spraying with roundup, which is how he got caught. Because they knew he was supposed to be an “organic” farmer, but he was using roundup and roundup-ready seeds. He was cheating, so they turned him in.

      1. If I remember correctly, he claimed the seeds blew in from trucks going by. And the planted themselves in neat rows, too.

  23. Is reason working for the Obama administration now? http://www.globalresearch.ca/m…..aw/5329388

    Nice to see so many liberty minded individuals turning into sheep.

    1. Don’t confuse being for/against GMOs with being for/against Monsanto.

      1. You have little idea how much you owe Monsanto. And it ain’t a tumor.

      2. You have little idea how much you owe Monsanto. And it ain’t a tumor.

    2. Oh, look! Lefty, luddite agit-prop!
      How
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      infantile.

  24. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out http://www.Fox81.com

  25. When you think of the USDA keep in mind Certified Black Angus Beef is a trademarked term, and applies to ANY black colored cattle. When I take steers to the processor I’m given a 10% premium for ANY all black cattle of ANY cross. The result of a VERY successful lobbying effort by the Angus Cattle Association for the past 25 years.

  26. Most people are to busy pushing global warming so they dont have the time to wrap their heads around GMO’s. Whats up with broccoli?

    1. “VILE WEED!!!” Quick honey mustard!…

  27. Don’t cyber bully me.

  28. My nonprofit for schoolteachers, Stossel in the Classroom, offers free videos that introduce students to economics.

    I wonder what classrooms these get in to. I never saw them in grade-school, and didn’t discover Stossel until I was in college.

  29. Just try to remember that it’s the groups that are trying to give the poorest people in the world access to high quantities of affordable, sustainable, nutritionally fortified food that are motivated by greed, NOT the multi-billion dollar grocery chains scaring science-fearing yuppies into paying twice the price for a meaningless label.

    1. Well of course. That’s because the special, enlightened progressives compare food to their cars and rugs, where quality and price are the only measures. Quantity equals bad.

      Any way they can have a conscience in their hatred for the poor.

      1. I’m not sure whether you are sarcastic here, but:

        “The pioneer of the organic, sustainable, local food movement says that food should cost more but be free to school children.”
        http://www.bing.com/search?q=a…..616d8e98db

        Pretty sure if you smacked Alice upside the head, what passes for brains would rattle in there.
        This is a woman who thinks school kids should spend their days growing what they want for lunch.

        1. Oh no, I really do think most progressives equate food in the same way they do other material objects – an expensive car, for example, has more value because it’s expensive. Therefore, to their odd brains, if food is inexpensive, it’s bad.

          And that article – that’s head-slappingly dumb.

  30. The outside testing for the safety of GMOs is extremely recent due to the power of the bio-tech industry.
    Here are some facts about the industry; Monsanto in particular.
    The former lead lobbyist for Monsanto is now the food czar at the FDA.
    Many of the FDA scientists are also former Monsanto employees.
    Monsanto has attempted to use our State Department to force other countries to accept Monsanto’s products.
    Some genetically modified crops, including a particular sweet corn (being studied for human consumption), are their own insecticide.
    Genetically modified crops usually require more water and therefore are not suitable for drier regions. Ask the families of thousands of Indian cotton farmers who committed suicide due to extensive crop failure. They weren’t informed of the extra water requirements when they were sold the seed.
    Indigenous crops fare much better in “risk” areas than do genetically modified ones.
    Many genetically modified crops are created to withstand extremely heavy doses of Roundup weedkiller. This product contains glyphosate- a neurotoxin that is now being found in human breast milk.
    The reason that organic produce costs more, is that the giant corporations that run the industrial food complex, get subsidies from the government. This is despite the fact that they consistently have huge profits. The growers of organic products do not get the subsidies. If you’re going to have a fair or free market, remove the cronyism that affects the food supply.

    1. pjmer|5.28.14 @ 11:56PM|#
      “The outside testing for the safety of GMOs is extremely recent due to the power of the bio-tech industry.”
      Which is both bullshit and irrelevant.

      “Some genetically modified crops, including a particular sweet corn (being studied for human consumption), are their own insecticide.”
      Yes, as is the “organic” food an idjit like you likely favors. All crops are pesticides to some degree or they’d be eaten by the bugs before they were harvested.

      “Genetically modified crops usually require more water and therefore are not suitable for drier regions.”
      OK, don’t grow ’em there.

      “This product contains glyphosate- a neurotoxin that is now being found in human breast milk.”
      As is H^2O, you imbecile. That’s WATER; equally “toxic”.

      “If you’re going to have a fair or free market, remove the cronyism that affects the food supply.”
      Couldn’t agree more and “organic” food would still cost more and be totally worthless as an alternative.

      Now, do you have more BS?

      1. Did you actually think before you wrote this? Comparing a neurotoxin to water is rather inane.

        1. pjmer|5.29.14 @ 12:12AM|#
          “Did you actually think before you wrote this? Comparing a neurotoxin to water is rather inane.”

          Yes, I did; you posted lies and got called on it.
          Glyphosate is not a neurotoxin in any amount it is possible to ingest.
          You’re an imbecilic luddite. And likely a lefty besides.

        2. Cite your source for the neurotoxicity of glyphosate. We’re waiting.

          If genetically modified crops “usually require more water,” then why was the recent drought impact much lower on crop yields than a similar drought 30 years ago? Blanket statements like this demonstrate your ignorance.

          “Some genetically modified crops, including a particular sweet corn (being studied for human consumption), are their own insecticide.”

          *GASP* Oh wait, that’s the whole point of BT corn. It takes a naturally occurring insecticide and incorporates it directly into the plant. This means fewer pesticides are applied to the fields which results in less collateral kill of non-pest species. We generally think application of fewer pesticides is a good thing, but that’s probably not what the lizard people told you through their theta wave broadcasts.

          The reason that organic costs more is that it yields less. Even nutjob Leftie fantasies can’t defy the laws of supply and demand and productivity curves.

          Get rid of cronyism? Sign me up. But that means you asshats don’t get to use the government to stuff your religion down my throat.

          1. Evenin’ to ya.

            1. I shouldn’t be here. I have to get on a call at 7am tomorrow. 😛

              1. Looks like the luddites really did H&R.
                Good luck on the call.

          2. “Some genetically modified crops, including a particular sweet corn (being studied for human consumption), are their own insecticide.”

            I can only guess that this refers to “RoundUp Ready” crops, developed years ago and are constantly being expanded.

            It’s hard to quantify any “harm” done by selective/general herbicides when the positive aspects of same are considered. It reminds me of the DDT hysteria of the 60’s and the resulting ban. Gotta weigh the bitter with the sweet.

            1. Well by using safe BT corn that does not use as much pesticide to grow, you do not run into problems like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranthus_palmeri

              1. Edit Herbicide, and pesticide. Bugs can devleop a resistance as well.

  31. Please post the link to the video of you drinking roundup. Glyphosate is a regulated drinking water contaminant with a primary limit (MCL).

  32. Please post the link to the video of you drinking roundup. Glyphosate is a regulated drinking water contaminant with a primary limit (MCL).

    1. Please post a link to specific health problems resulting from Glyphosate.
      SPECIFIC; not the standard luddite bullshit.

      1. Thanks Al Gore: respond to a question with a question. For someone who had disdain for so-called Luddites, you seem challenged in using the internet to accomplish a simple task of searching “glyphosate” and MCL.

        And I’m still waiting for the video link of you drinking roundup.

        1. “And I’m still waiting for the video link of you drinking roundup”

          Sorry, dipshit, I didn’t make that claim.
          Now, let’s see some cites, luddite.

          1. You are making the claim that it is safe. Seems like you are backtracking on your position. Maybe you think atrazine is safe or 2, 4 D? I already posted the link and the information but will do it again because you seem challenged:
            http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html

            Please cite peer reviewed, non-advocacy toxicology studies that claim roundup is non-toxic.

            1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 8:03PM|#
              “You are making the claim that it is safe.”

              I am making the claim that GMOs have caused no harm.
              Here is my comment re: glyphosate:
              “Glyphosate is not a neurotoxin in any amount it is possible to ingest.”
              ———————
              “Maybe you think atrazine is safe or 2, 4 D?”

              Maybe you’re making things up.
              ——————-
              “I already posted the link and the information but will do it again because you seem challenged:
              http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html

              Yep, look there! The EPA doesn’t want much in drinking water.
              ———————-
              “Please cite peer reviewed, non-advocacy toxicology studies that claim roundup is non-toxic.”

              Please ask for cites supporting the claims I’ve made.

              1. GMOs facilitate the use of glyphosate and other herbicides. I challenged the use of glyphosate and provided information regarding its safety. Multiple times.

                Actually, EPA doesn’t want people to drink water contaminated with glyphosate. Or atrazine. Or a whole host of other SOCs used for GMO crop production.

                I’m asking for the cite because in the same post you state, “…in any amount it is possible to ingest.” Please cite. Your YouTube video would be sufficient.

                1. 1)
                  Chumby|5.29.14 @ 8:44PM|#
                  “GMOs facilitate the use of glyphosate and other herbicides. I challenged the use of glyphosate and provided information regarding its safety. Multiple times.”

                  Anti-GMO luddited facitlitate the use of stupidity. I don’t need to cite the harm that does.
                  That’s not an argument, you idiot, that’s a bunch of hypothetical insinuations followed by irrelevancies.
                  ——————————–
                  “Actually, EPA doesn’t want people to drink water contaminated with glyphosate. Or atrazine. Or a whole host of other SOCs used for GMO crop production.”

                  Or many other things. So?
                  ————————–

                  1. Hypothetical? so either (1) exposure never occurs or (2) it isn’t harmful if it does?

                    Millions of acres are sprayed with this stuff so I will gout on a limb and suggest that (1) is a non-starter.

                    1. “Millions of acres are sprayed with this stuff so I will gout on a limb and suggest that (1) is a non-starter.”

                      And since there is no harm caused by GMOs, well, you’ve just proven you have no argument.
                      Tin foil hats are cheap, and I’m sure you have a closet full

                    2. Folks plant (GMO) RR crops they could spray them with roundup. Pretty simple concept. So RR (GMO) crops lead to the use of roundup. And as I have provided to you multiple times, roundup (glyphoate) is a contaminant. Unless you want to take the position that glyphosate is not harmful?

                    3. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 10:24PM|#
                      ..”as I have provided to you multiple times, roundup (glyphoate) is a contaminant.”

                      Yes, so is water.
                      Fuck off, asshole

                    4. Please cite where water is defined as a contaminant.

                2. 2)
                  I’m asking for the cite because in the same post you state, “…in any amount it is possible to ingest.” Please cite. Your YouTube video would be sufficient.”

                  OK, idjit:
                  “5. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note, “Just because we can detect levels of an environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine does not necessarily mean that the chemical will cause effects or disease. Advances in analytical chemistry enable us to measure low levels of environmental chemicals in people, but separate studies of varying levels of exposure determine whether specific levels cause health effects.”

                  1. *sigh* The EPA link includes background information regarding the toxicology studies that lead to the MCL (maximum contaminant level, otherwise known as the drinking water standard). You are positing a quote without an actual link to a generic “just because we can detect it doesn’t mean it is harmful” and completely ignore the VERY SPECIFIC health information that was provided to you (multiple times)? Are you really serious? Specific health effect information about a specific contaminant, the chemical we have been discussing in probably 50 posts, is somehow irrelevant because of a generic statement?

                    1. *sigh* The EPA link includes background information regarding the toxicology studies that lead to the MCL (maximum contaminant level, otherwise known as the drinking water standard)….”

                      Quit the bullshit; I’m not going to read the article for you.

                    2. “I’m not going to read the article for you.” I didm;t ask you to. I asked you to cite it. Since you seemed to have butthurt over looking things up for yourself.

                      And regardless, generic information that some things may not be harmful trumps the results of a peer-reviewed (multiple times) toxicology study specifically identifying the harmful effects of the contaminate glyphosate?

                    3. Read the article and fuck off.

                3. 3)
                  “Food naturally contains a wide-array of potentially toxic chemicals such as cyanide, strychnine, carototoxin, and arsenic but they are usually present at levels that do no harm. Any chemical, whether natural or human-made can hurt us if we consume too much of it. Even table salt or iron can kill if too much is consumed. The mere presence of glyphosate in serum, urine or mother’s milk is not a cause for alarm unless the levels are above those known to do harm. Over 4 decades of research studies and real-world use, including studies on large numbers of people who have been exposed to glyphosate, have allowed regulators to understand and set safe levels of exposure. Research has also established that the low levels of glyphosate sometimes found in bodily fluids pose no threat to health.”
                  http://academicsreview.org/201…..e-roundup/
                  It also debunks that breast-milk lies from assholes like you.

                  1. Please cite the breast milk post I made.

                    And again, thanks for the ad hominem attack. Reminds me when I talk with progressives.

                    So because some foods have some levels of toxic chemicals, or improper use of other foods is unsafe, it is ok to douse food with chemicals that have established exposure limits? I will be honest, I my have to consult my copy of “Attacking Faulty Reasoning” to figure out all that is wrong with that. Thanks for the chuckle though.

                    1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 9:18PM|#
                      “Please cite the breast milk post I made.”

                      I said “like you”, in case you can’t read.
                      I get tired of the shucking and jiving by luddite bullshitters trying to square the circle, so you’re welcome, asshole.
                      ————
                      “So because some foods have some levels of toxic chemicals, or improper use of other foods is unsafe, it is ok to douse food with chemicals that have established exposure limits?”

                      Yes it is, asshole. That’s the reason there are “limits”.

                    2. Please cite the breast milk post I made.

                    3. Read my comment and fuck off.

                    4. Please cite the breast milk comment. If you are going to ascribe a comment to me, please cite it. Really.

  33. I have worked for the past 17 years in Malawi, Africa on issues of food security and can assure you that genetic engineering is NOT needed. Here in Malawi, we face high levels of nutritional deficiencies including Vitamin A and iron. We also have a nutritional ‘stunting’ rate which affects 47% of the nation’s children under the age of 5. These problems, however, have nothing to do with a lack of access to genetically engineered crops, but rather with an incessant push towards the monocropped production of maize (corn). Even with several consecutive years of surplus maize harvests, our malnutrition rates have remained steady. There are literally hundreds of local (non-GMO)foods that farmers and families could be utilizing to eliminate nutritional deficiencies, but instead we find farmer’s fields sitting in a state of ‘food deserts’ for 11 months out of the year. Genetic engineering is also not ‘cheap’. Many local farmers have already become locked into economic dependence on agricultural ‘inputs’ (i.e. fertilizers, seeds, and chemicals) and are now forced into selling off huge portions of their harvests each year just to recover the costs of these inputs. GM seeds are often several times more expensive than their hybridized equivalents, and both of these can not compete with freely-sourced open-pollinated seeds. Solutions exist, but we need to stop promoting the idea that all the world’s nutrition should come from a limited handful of artificially engineered crops.

    1. RoundUp the shit out of the field. Plant soy beans. Oh, and zucchini. You can make shoes out of fucking zucchini.

      1. RoundUp Ready zucchini. GMO RoundUp Ready zucchini.

        Shoes even. Think of the children fer chrissakes.

      2. RoundUp Ready crops have led to superweeds.

        That’s the thing… If we can tweak a few genes and make a plant immune to RoundUp, so can the spontaneous processes that drive Evolution generally. And so they have.

        RoundUp in the irrigation ditches makes this problem even worse. If you think like a mechanical engineer, sure, your plan sounds like a good idea. If you think like a biologist, however, you understand that it has some serious shortcomings.

        http://www.wired.com/2012/05/n…..evolution/

        1. From the link:
          “These weeds may go a step further than merely being able to survive one or two or three specific weedkillers. The intense chemical pressure could cause them to evolve resistance that would apply to entire classes of chemicals.”

          Lemme guess: You still think the Population Bomb is real?

    2. I was hoping someone would bring up Monoculture. In essence that’s the real issue. My problem with the ant-GMO crowd in the western world, is that they want to remove Genetic Modification as an option, and force upon farmers a standard set of agricultural practices that may, or may not fit the requirements of the people, and the region.

    3. Never Ending Food|5.29.14 @ 7:28AM|#
      “we need to stop promoting the idea that all the world’s nutrition should come from a limited handful of artificially engineered crops.”

      When that happens, you might have a point.

    4. Surely you are aware of Golden Rice and it’s potential to reduce vitamin A deficiency.

  34. [ In essence that’s the real issue]

    The real, real issue here is (once again) government. The shit hole that is Malawi, and/or any other aggrieved third world nation blaming Monsanto or Dupont or BigAg for their starvations, was first made then maintained a shit hole by their government of thieves and thugs. The top down control that results in a monoculture is largely the same, whether it comes from roving bands of AK47 equipped teen soldiers or anti GMO bands of lawyers petitioning some “world court”.

    1. Well this is a Libertarian magazine. You would figure state interference would be par for the course.

  35. During the Depression and WWII, the Progressives in America were happy as clams because it seemed that the Working Man was with them. Then, after the end of the War, when the Working Man had either several years of high pay ion “War Industry” or a bellyful of taking orders, the Working Man kicked the Progressives to the curb in his haste to get to Levittown and buy a car with tail fins.

    The Progressives have nor forgotten.

    The Progressives oppose the spread of crops that might put a dent in world hunger because their experience has been that when the poor are no longer hungry, the poor have scant use for preaching busybodies.

  36. Forget the GMO’s. I’m worried about these genetically modified wolves. They are everywhere. Sure they try to fool us. Calling these GMWs “dogs” but I won’t be fooled. These are dangerous killing machines that will turn on you the second they detect weakness. Millions of people own them and let these GMWs live in their homes. Don’t come crying to me when the GMW rips your throat out while you sleep. Genetically Modified Tigers are even more insidious. Once again they try to fool us using a cute name – “cat.” Can’t fool me powers that be! I know a tiger when I see one.

  37. European Food Safety Authority and Science magazine both found strong correlations with colony collapse disorder and exposure to neonictinoids.

      1. Chumby. Genetically Modified crops that reduce the amount of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides used in agriculture help with CCD. What will also help is better beekeeping practices, like not taking all the honey out of a hive, and replacing it with corn syrup.

        1. So you are taking the position that pesticides et. al. play some active role in CCD? If that is the case, wouldn’t you want to eliminate their use?

          The food I grow on my property doesn’t require ANY herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, algicides, rodenticides or biocides and I get good crop yields. And I save $ by not paying for that stuff in a bottle. I also don’t need PPE for their application. I also don’t need to worry about REIs when the family goes outside. We have plenty of bees.

          1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 7:39PM|#
            “The food I grow on my property doesn’t require ANY herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, algicides, rodenticides or biocides”
            Bullshit. They require no *additional* ones.

            “and I get good crop yields.”
            Compared to what?

            “I also don’t need to worry about REIs when the family goes outside.”
            Yea, luddites like you sill find plenty to worry about.

            1. I don’t recall every spraying store-bought, taxpayer subsidized chemicals on the property. Though I haven’t killed any of the beneficial insects and they certainly take care of some of the pests. Hmmm, maybe you count flash tape and terror eyes as fill-in-the-blank-icide.

              I get good crop yields compared with expected yields. And the cost is less because I don’t spend money on chemicals, sprayers or personal protective equipment. Or seed for that matter.

              If you don’t care about REIs, then I’m guessing you are in the process of uploading that video of you drinking roundup? Where’s the link?

              1. “I don’t recall every spraying store-bought, taxpayer subsidized chemicals on the property. Though I haven’t killed any of the beneficial insects and they certainly take care of some of the pests. Hmmm, maybe you count flash tape and terror eyes as fill-in-the-blank-icide.”
                Oh, mr. NATURAL! Good. Go eat lichen you scrape off a rock

                “I get good crop yields compared with expected yields.”
                IOWs, you couldn’t possibly make a living selling the stuff

                “If you don’t care about REIs, then I’m guessing you are in the process of uploading that video of you drinking roundup? Where’s the link?”
                How many times do I have to point out that I DIDN’T MAKE THAT CLAIM?
                Can you please learn to read?

              2. Don’t know you. You sound like a very efficient farmer. Pardon me in advance for imagining you as a bull shit artist. What you say may be the gospel.

                But,

                as late as the early 70’s, corn yield at over 50 bushels/acre made news in most farming communities. This year yields will approach 165 bu/A. Soy bean averages have doubled in the same one generation time frame.
                This is no doubt due to how much better the 2014 dirt is, how much more it rains, and how much more the fucking sun shines.

                If you are even remotely approaching these average yields without the use of herbicides/insecticides you can join Al Gore and Barack Obama and receive your Nobel Prize and the cool million that comes with it.

                1. You caught me. I really spray the shit out of everything with Sevin.

                  And as late as the early 70s, most commercial ag was practicing conventional farming – why would I want more food sprayed with chemicals per acre?

                  I’m beginning to think you work at Dow.

                  1. “I’m beginning to think you work at Dow.”

                    So when you’re caught bullshitting, you fall back on an adolescent line like THAT?

                    1. Link an e-mail address of yours and I’ll send pictures of my fields.

                    2. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 9:22PM|#
                      “Link an e-mail address of yours and I’ll send pictures of my fields.”

                      I don’t care about your fields. You’re a luddite bullshitter and whether you get five or ten tomatoes doesn’t mean squat.

                    3. *laughing*

                    4. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 10:20PM|#
                      *laughing*

                      How
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      infantile.
                      Fuck off.

                    5. This is pretty hilarious too.

                    6. Chumby|5.30.14 @ 12:15AM|#
                      “This is pretty hilarious too.”

                      Ignorant assholes called on BS look for any escape they can find.

                  2. [I’m beginning to think you work at Dow]

                    Sorry if I gave you that impression, but if you will examine the crux of the article it speaks to feeding the masses. I’ve got the ever present Amish in the area too, and I appreciate their approach to agriculture, albeit it’s based on frugality first, but that approach will lead to worldwide famine if practiced on any massive scale. Chemicals aren’t cheap, nor is genetics, but if we are talking about feeding the world there is no alternative aside from starving off 30% of the planet. You first.

                    1. So the choice is either Amish style farming or using GMOs doused with chemicals? Isn’t that a false dilemma?

                      Me first? I grow some of my own food and nobody in my household isn’t starving. We also aren’t exposed to any of the chemicals.

          2. Chumby if you are not familiar with Pyrethrum, or Neem oil. I seriously doubt you grow anything, let alone produce.

            1. I am. And I don’t use them. I will admit that I purchased Pyganic a few years ago when I first began growing potatoes since I thought we would be inundated with the Colorado potato beetle. But they are few enough to hand pick (we only have about 300 row feet of taters this year). So I never used it. Interestingly, Kennebec were not well liked by the CPB. Unfortunately, our soil liked to stick to the skin to the pint that I didn’t grow them again (soil is clay – loam). Radish make a nice trap crop for early flea beetles. No spraying needed.

  38. Please cite. And deduct the tax subsidies that Monsanto and it’s products have received from my tax money

    1. OK, let’s see the subsidies.
      BTW, you seem to throw a lot of bullshit around without ever providing anything but the word of a luddite to back it up.

      1. Still waiting for you to post your video of you drinking roundup. I’m bringing to think you are a fraud.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..72136.html

        http://www.ibtimes.com/here-ho…..lly-255333

        I could post hundreds…or you could read any Farm Bill from the past twenty five years.

        1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 7:50PM|#
          “Still waiting for you to post your video of you drinking roundup. I’m bringing to think you are a fraud.”
          As I mentioned, I didn’t make that claim.

          “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..72136.html”
          Yep, look there! Foreign sales promotion! Got me! I owe you $0.23

          “http://www.ibtimes.com/here-ho…..lly-255333”
          Uh, that’s ethanol.

          “I could post hundreds…or you could read any Farm Bill from the past twenty five years.”
          Don’t bother trying to blame me for the farm bill, but have at it!
          Grasp at every straw you can find! It’s amusing.

          1. You are stating that it is safe. Prove it.

            Uh, Monsanto sells the RR and bt corn that is used to create the ethanol.

            I’m not blaming you for the farm bill, I’m asking you to read it. Which is probably a task for you.

            1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 8:15PM|#
              “You are stating that it is safe. Prove it.”
              Could you please find a local community college and learn to read?
              I CLAIM GMOS HAVE CAUSED NO HEALTH PROBLEMS.

              “Uh, Monsanto sells the RR and bt corn that is used to create the ethanol.”
              Uh, so do lots of other companies sell corn seed and pesticides.

              “I’m not blaming you for the farm bill, I’m asking you to read it. Which is probably a task for you.”
              That’s rich coming from a low-watt bulb like you.

              1. Still waiting for the video. Roundup is safe, correct? Or is it not? Or are you now not sure?

                There aren’t many companies that sell RR and bt corn. Perhaps five? That’s a lot of taxpayer money being shifted to five entities.

                1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 8:53PM|#
                  “Still waiting for the video. Roundup is safe, correct? Or is it not? Or are you now not sure?”
                  Still pointing out that I DIDN’T MAKE THAT CLAIM, YOU ASSHOLE.

                  “There aren’t many companies that sell RR and bt corn. Perhaps five? That’s a lot of taxpayer money being shifted to five entities.”
                  So you admit that Monsanto gets nothing more than any other ag business? Good, now what about the subsides to the non-GMO sellers? And you, since you buy them?
                  I guess non-GMO outfits are subsidized, too!

                  1. “So you admit that Monsanto gets nothing more than any other ag business? ”

                    And? I have similar contempt for Dow, DuPont, et. al. but Monsanto tends to be the surrogate for all of them.

                    I grow a lot of my own food yet I don’t get any subsidies. The CSA I belong to doesn’t get any subsidies. Looks like organic producers are subsidizing big ag.

                    1. “And? I have similar contempt for Dow, DuPont, et. al. but Monsanto tends to be the surrogate for all of them.”
                      Yeah, you need professional help for your Monsanto boner; I can’t help stupidity.

                      “I grow a lot of my own food yet I don’t get any subsidies. The CSA I belong to doesn’t get any subsidies. Looks like organic producers are subsidizing big ag.”
                      Yes, you do, by your standards. You drive on roads!

                    2. I also pay for the gasoline I used to fuel my vehicles, which includes a fuel tax. Don’t know where you live, but in my state the fuel tax is what is used to maintain the public roads. Explain to me the special tax that is imposed on GMO crops that is then partially refunded to GMO producing companies?

                      So user fee is the equivalent of special subsidy? Really?

                    3. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 10:16PM|#
                      “I also pay for the gasoline I used to fuel my vehicles, which includes a fuel tax.”

                      So does Monsanto, ignorant luddite.
                      Fuck off.

                    4. So because someone or something pays a gas tax that entitles them to hundred of millions of dollars in tax subsidies? Didn’t Solyndra employees commute to work in a vehicle that uses gas? By your argument, you should be ok with the tax money they reviewed.

                    5. Chumby|5.30.14 @ 12:14AM|#
                      “So because someone or something pays a gas tax that entitles them to hundred of millions of dollars in tax subsidies? Didn’t Solyndra employees commute to work in a vehicle that uses gas? By your argument, you should be ok with the tax money they reviewed.”

                      Well, you were the one claiming a subsidy. Then you posted links that showed that Monsanto got no more subsidy that ignorant luddites such as yourself.
                      So, asshole, you can play word games all you please, but you’ve been called on your bullshit once again.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    6. “Then you posted links that showed that Monsanto got no more subsidy that ignorant luddites such as yourself.”

                      The link I showed the very opposite. They got tens of millions of dollars. Last I checked, I received none. Unless you can provide a link that shows otherwise.

                      Let me save you time for your typical response. “Bullshit. I showed that you are subsidized because I said so. Asshole. Luddite.” 🙂

                    7. [I also pay for the gasoline I used to fuel my vehicles, which includes a fuel tax. Don’t know where you live, but in my state the fuel tax is what is used to maintain the public roads]

                      You seemed destined to continue stepping on your foreskin. Or perhaps you are a hobby farmer. Or perhaps you live in a state that does not eliminate the road portion of fuel costs for ag related uses. I wasn’t aware of such state. In my state even diesel is colored for ag use. Caught with red diesel in your grocery getter and you go to jail.
                      If you’re doing any serious ag you are not paying road related taxes on your ag fuel.

                    8. “If you’re doing any serious ag you are not paying road related taxes on your ag fuel.” I am doing serious ag. I’m planting non-GMO seeds without using synthetic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, algicides, rodenticides, biocides etc. The last four meals I have eaten came from the property.

                      “You seemed destined to continue stepping on your foreskin.”
                      Thanks for the ad hominem.

        2. Uh, read that huffpost propaganda again. It seems the state department wrote some memos. Not a subsidy by any measure other than idiocy.
          Let’s make that $0.0000023.

          1. Had to delete links since Reason only allows linking two. Thought I was keeping the one referencing the $147M/yr paid to Brazilian cotton farmers by the US govt to save Monsanto.

            http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/08-8

            As mentioned, there are many articles regarding the tax subsidies.

            1. From the link:
              “and the profits of companies like Monsanto and Pioneer.”

              Man, you got me there! Why, did you know that Monsanto uses the ROADS that the government builds?
              See!!! MONSANTO SUBSIDY!!!!!!!
              Your tin-foil hat is on special, aisle #6

              1. You challenged that Monsanto received tax subsidies. They are getting a large portion os $147M/year. So that is now not a subsidy?

                1. And I pointed out that (from YOUR links, you dolt!) that Monsanto is getting nothing more than any other seed seller.
                  So you’ve been caught bullshitting one more time.

                  1. “…Monsanto is getting nothing more than any other seed seller.”

                    Cite where Seeds of Change received a tax subsidy. or Johnny’s Select Seeds. Or Fedco. Or Wood Praire Farm.

                    1. “Cite where Seeds of Change received a tax subsidy. or Johnny’s Select Seeds. Or Fedco. Or Wood Praire Farm.”

                      Sophistry won’t get you far.
                      Never heard of ’em, didn’t care and I don’t care if Sam’s Seeds down the road didn’t either.
                      You were called on your claim that Monsanto as a GMO supplier was subsidized; they are no more subsidized than you are.
                      You were called on your bullshit.

                    2. “…Monsanto is getting nothing more than any other seed seller.”

                      Please cite where specific organic seed companies receive subsidies. Just because you are ignorant of several of the major organic seed companies doesn’t let you off the hook. Since you have such a man crush for roundup and its producer Monsanto, I even included one that recently sued them. Being so knowledgable about this subject, which you clearly are, I figured you would enjoy that opportunity to respond. But clearly you missed it.

                      “…they are no more subsidized than you are.”
                      Please cite where I receive a subsidy from the Farm Bill.

                    3. “…they are no more subsidized than you are.”
                      Please cite where I receive a subsidy from the Farm Bill.”

                      If you bought seeds, you were subsidized by your standards, ignorant luddite.
                      Fuck off.

                    4. (1) Please cite where the previously mentioned organic seed companies receive a subsidy.
                      (2) I also mentioned that I did not buy seeds this year. One of the wonderful things about open-pollenated vegetables is that you can save the seed for future planting (or in the case of potatoes, save the potatoes to be used as seed potatoes).

  39. My reasons for not wanting to eat GMOs are not anyone’s concern but my own. I should absolutely have a choice about whether or not I want to eat them. That being said, why should I have to spend my money to support a certifying agency that tells me my food doesn’t contain GMOs? GMOs spread with no help from humans. If they stayed contained, that would be fine, and I would have no objection. But they don’t, and they DO affect insect resistance to pesticides, something that is already a problem. There are much better way to increase food production if that is the actual concern.

    1. Selina|5.29.14 @ 2:20PM|#
      “My reasons for not wanting to eat GMOs are not anyone’s concern but my own”

      And I don’t care. You want to pursue your religion? Don’t make me pay for your scriptures.
      ———————
      “That being said, why should I have to spend my money to support a certifying agency that tells me my food doesn’t contain GMOs?”

      Because you’re stupid enough to want that information, I’m not.
      ——————-
      “There are much better way to increase food production if that is the actual concern.”
      Then sell those to the people raising food.

      1. “Don’t make me pay for your scriptures.”

        Using the logic your “road use subsidy” argument, shouldn’t you be ok with paying for the labeling that someone else wants since you are being subsidized? But yet you aren’t. Nice.

        1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 11:12PM|#
          “Using the logic”

          Ignorant assholes are not to be trusted using that term.
          Fuck off, luddite.

          1. Another ad hominem personal attack. Maybe all the GMO food you consume is making you rage. I enjoy reading your hypocrisy. Once again: you don’t want to subsidize GMO labeling but yet you are ok with others subsidizing GMO seed companies.

            1. Chumby|5.30.14 @ 12:12AM|#
              “Another ad hominem personal attack”

              Yes, asshole. You have been given data proving that every one of your claims is bullshit and you continue making claims.
              That’s pretty much a definition of an asshole.
              Oh, and fuck off, asshole

              1. You haven’t provided anything other than this:
                (1) “quote text”
                (2) disagree with text without providing any support
                (3) curse

                Well, you have also provided entertainment.

  40. Hrmmm, so no links to any of these supposed studies that say that GMO’s are safe, or references to scientists that are claiming as such. The only reference is to a Jon Entine who isn’t even a scientist. An author and journalist who worked for NBC and ABC for many years. So he has no history in genetics or science, and only real experience is being a mouth piece for Mass Media.

    As to John Stossel, once again, not a scientist of any sort, just another Mass Media mouthpiece that went from ABC to Fox Business news and reportedly a Libertarian. A party that is already known to be pro-big businesses/elite class. And let’s see, he is also a teacher and talks about an assignment he gives out:
    “My nonprofit for schoolteachers, Stossel in the Classroom, offers free videos that introduce students to economics. This year, we ran an essay contest inviting students to write on the topic “Food Nannies: Who Decides What You Eat?”
    I was happy to see that many students understood that this debate is about more than safety. It’s really about freedom. Sixteen-year-old Caroline Clausen won $1,000 for her essay, which contained this sarcastic passage: “Congress shall have the power to regulate the mixing, baking, serving, labeling, selling and consumption of food. Did James Madison’s secretary forget to copy this provision into the Constitution?”

    1. Well if we look at Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution we see: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..”

      The general Welfare, to make sure the country is healthy. And since any country is nothing more then it’s citizens (would there be a country if there were no silly humans claiming it was a country?) perhaps making sure the entire food supply was not being poisoned would be part of the Governments responsibility then. But no, the business class tries to ignore those facts and spin it into a “Freedom” issue. Screw our Freedom of Choice to not have poisoned food, or our Freedom of Choice to Not Buy It, or our Freedom of Choice to even know if it is a GMO product.

      So what does a real scientist say, a Geneticist to be exact:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mBF1OOPdTo

      1. Zoologist to be exact.

      2. Government mandates, and Federal Agencies that have little oversight, which are prone to corruption by the very corporations they are charged to regulate will not solve environmental problems.
        Getting out of the way of real scientists, farmers, and businesses will.

    2. ACiotti|5.29.14 @ 3:18PM|#
      “Hrmmm, so no links to any of these supposed studies that say that GMO’s are safe, or references to scientists that are claiming as such.”

      Hrmmm, so no links to any of these supposed studies that say GMOs are dangerous.
      Sorry, idjit, you claim they’re dangerous, you show the proof.

  41. Well if we look at Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution we see: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..”

    The general Welfare, to make sure the country is healthy. And since any country is nothing more then it’s citizens (would there be a country if there were no silly humans claiming it was a country?) perhaps making sure the entire food supply was not being poisoned would be part of the Governments responsibility then. But no, the business class tries to ignore those facts and spin it into a “Freedom” issue. Screw our Freedom of Choice to not have poisoned food, or our Freedom of Choice to Not Buy It, or our Freedom of Choice to even know if it is a GMO product.

    So what does a real scientist say, a Geneticist to be exact:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mBF1OOPdTo

    1. Zoologist to be exact.

    2. “perhaps making sure the entire food supply was not being poisoned would be part of the Governments responsibility then.”

      Since there are no poisons involved, perhaps you’ve been called on your bullshit.

  42. ” And since any country is nothing more then it’s citizens” Um… Screw you. I am a person, not some lever to be pulled in a machine.

  43. Mr. Stossel is being misleading. There is no credible movement in the United States to ban GMOs. Current political action aims at requiring they be labeled.

    This is a magazine that promotes libertarian principles. What could be more consistent with that than providing people with the information they need to make their own decisions. What could be more inconsistent than working to take the decision making power away from people you disagree with.

    1. “What could be more consistent with that than providing people with the information they need to make their own decisions”

      Having the people who want that information pay for it.
      Your red herring’s been used up.

      1. A red herring is an issue that is thrown in to distract from the real question. That’s what John Stossell and most of the commenters are doing. They are arguing the false issue of banning GMOs and ignoring the real issue which is labeling. The whole article is a red herring in the correct sense of the word.

        ADM knows which of its grains are GMO and which are not. You may not like it, but companies have been living with requirements for labeling for a long time. Cost of labeling has nothing to do with the argument. Which makes your post a red herring.

  44. Customers of Oakhurst dairy were willing to pay for labeling regarding hormone-free milk but Monsanto wouldn’t stand for that and sued:
    http://www.webcitation.org/5wlecaMul

    1. Yeah, it was settled when the dairy changed the wording:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakhurst_Dairy
      Now, did you have any point about GMOs, or just more bullshit to spread?

      1. Your point was that the altruistic approach would be to pay for the labeling in the “non” product, which was done.

        Sounds like you supported Monsanto’s efforts to force Oakhurst to change its own label (if you don’t think a lawsuit from a billion dollar corporation with many key government ties isn’t force, then I have a bridge to sell you).

        1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 8:25PM|#
          “Your point was that the altruistic approach would be to pay for the labeling in the “non” product, which was done.”
          You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.

          “Sounds like you supported Monsanto’s efforts to force Oakhurst to change its own label (if you don’t think a lawsuit from a billion dollar corporation with many key government ties isn’t force, then I have a bridge to sell you).”
          Sounds like you can’t read:
          “Now, did you have any point about GMOs, or just more bullshit to spread?”

  45. You stated, “Having the people who want that information pay for it.”

    I provided a counter to it by no other than Monsanto. You then got butthurt and continued with ad hominem.

    1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 9:06PM|#
      “You stated, “Having the people who want that information pay for it.”
      Yes, I did.

      “I provided a counter to it by no other than Monsanto.”
      And I’m not Monsanto, you asshole!

      1. *sigh* I didn’t claim you were Monsanto. Thanks for the name calling though. I appreciate it.

        1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 9:27PM|#
          “*sigh* I didn’t claim you were Monsanto.”
          You insinuated that I was supposed to apologize for what Mansanto did.
          You’re welcome, asshole.

          1. I was stating a fact of what occurred, which was partially counter to what you proposed. Then you attacked me for pointing it out, which partially invalidated your point.

            1. “partially invalidated your point.”
              It did nothing of the sort.
              Asshole, you’ve been caught in every bullshit claim you made,
              Fuck off.

              1. “you’ve been caught in every bullshit claim you made,”
                Like the one about providing actual negative health effects regarding glyphosate? Did that via the EPA link.

                Or the one about me growing organic plants on my property? You won’t provide an e-mail address for me to send you pictures. So in the interest of charity, that technically is still an open question.

                The one about breast milk? You ascribed that to me, a claim which I never made.

                The one about where I said you were Monsanto? Ooops, that never happened.

                Or how about where Monsanto gets the same tax subsidies as all other seed producers? I named several organic seed producers that do not get Farm Bill subsidies.

                1. Chumby|5.29.14 @ 10:33PM|#
                  “you’ve been caught in every bullshit claim you made,”
                  Like the one about providing actual negative health effects regarding glyphosate? Did that via the EPA link.”

                  Yes, asshole, every one, including all the hints and nudges:
                  1) You’ve at least suggested that GMOs are harmful, and have yet to offer one single piece of evidence of that. While they continue to feed the world like it’s never been fed before.

                  2) You’ve claimed Monsanto is getting subsidies and been shown Monsanto gets no more than the hypocrite Mr Natural; you.

                  3) You’ve claimed that glyphosate is causing harm and been shown that it is doing nothing of the sort.

                  Your EPA link is nothing other than a statement that you really shouldn’t drink a lot of the stuff and ignorant assholes like you presume that means you shouldn’t drink any at all.

                  Is that clear?

                  1. So if glyphosate doesn’t so any harm, please post the link of the video of you drinking it.

                    I don’t get farm bill subsidies. Monsanto et. al. do. I provided information supporting that. You can choose to ignore it or choose to get but hurt over it but it doesn’t change that this is a fact.

                    Planting of GMOs coincides with the use of harmful herbicides. That is not the equivalent of innocuous.

                    1. Chumby|5.30.14 @ 12:08AM|#
                      “So if glyphosate doesn’t so any harm, please post the link of the video of you drinking it.”
                      I never said that, asshole and I never claimed anything about a video, you lying piece of shit.

                      “I don’t get farm bill subsidies. Monsanto et. al. do. I provided information supporting that. You can choose to ignore it or choose to get but hurt over it but it doesn’t change that this is a fact.”
                      Yes you do, asshole, just as much as Monsanto does.

                      “Planting of GMOs coincides with the use of harmful herbicides. That is not the equivalent of innocuous.”
                      It does nothing of the sort, asshole. You’ve been called on bullshit again.
                      Fuck off.

                2. Chumby I seriously doubt you grow anything let alone produce. Here let me help you.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethrum

                  1. Why do you think one has to purchase something in a plastic bottle?

                    1. This is stuff you can grow, and make yourself you fucking dumbass.

                    2. Given that I live in region 4, I’m thinking growing neem may be a stretch. And then I’d have to process it. If I’m going to cold press seeds, I would probably stay with sunflower and make something more useful to me. Do you think I should also attempt to grow citrus, coffee and bananas? I like gumbo so maybe okra as well.

                      I’m interested in growing food, not organic alternatives to conventional agriculture.

                      To be honest, I didn’t originally look at your last link because I figured it would be another store-bought product that I don’t need. I do agree heavily with composting. If the soil dries enough this weekend, we are putting in a hugelculture mound (a form of in situ composting). Have some leftovers from firewood processing that I want to convert to free nitrogen. Will likely plant squash in it as a test. If you have any store bought alternatives to conventional ag you think would make the mound better, please feel free to share. Add a few epithets as well.

            2. [Or the one about me growing organic plants on my property? ]

              Now, this makes perfect cosmic sense. Organic guy.

  46. You never included the link. For someone that raged into a barely coherent rant whenever a link isn’t posted you have a strange habit if failing to include them in you own posts.

    1. Chumby|5.30.14 @ 12:05AM|#
      “You never included the link.”

      I never made that claim you fucking idiot! How many times do you need to read that?
      Fuck off, idjit.

  47. “Why Do These Well-Fed Anti-Science Activists Oppose Safe, Cheap Food For Poor People?”

    Because the government’s present ability to justify things and hold itself accountable is a good reason for a responsible person to raise the alarm if anything seems potentially suspicious… even if the majority of the scientific community thinks otherwise. The problem isn’t with GMOs that are ok, the problem is with the ones that make it past the FDA regardless. The “anti-science” label may seem like it fits in this case, but I don’t think it’s entirely true.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.