GMO Food

Chipotle Sued Over Misleading Claims About Selling GMO-Free Foods

Enjoy the delicious schadenfreude

|

ChipotleGMO
onegreenplanet

A California woman Colleen Gallagher has filed a lawsuit against upscale taco vendor Chipotle for making misleading claims about selling GMO-Free foods at its restaurants. Chipotle has certainly made misleading, in fact, more or less totally false claims about the safety of GMO foods, but that is not what Gallagher is suing over.

According to Reuters:

A California woman has accused the popular chain in a lawsuit of false advertising after it trumpeted on April 27 that it was the first national restaurant company to use only ingredients that are free of controversial genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

In her lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco, the plaintiff Colleen Gallagher also alleged that Chipotle violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because its food labeling is false and misleading, and deceived diners into paying more for their food.

"As Chipotle told consumers it was 'G-M-Over it,' the opposite was true," the Piedmont, California resident said. "In fact, Chipotle's menu as never been at any time free of GMOs."

Basically, Gallagher is pointing out that Chipotle sells soft drinks made with ingredients from modern biotech crops and that lots of the meat in its tacos come from animals fed with grains from biotech crops. The fact that Chipotle admits these exceptions to its silly anti-GMO policy on its website is evidently not enough for the litigious Ms. Gallagher.

It is quite true that Chipotle's unscientific anti-GMO marketing gambit has most likely "deceived diners into paying more for their food," but it has also deceived diners about the proven environmental safety and human health records of modern biotech crops.

Chipotle does mislead its customers, but not (just) for the reasons Gallagher outlines in her lawsuit. Also, this case is a further indication of how dysfunctional our civil litigation system is, but that is an issue for another time.

NEXT: Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

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. What are the damages, again? How much did Chipotle raise their prices when they went with GMO-free labelling?

    1. Enough to make the righteous think it was good?

    2. What are the damages, again?

      FRANKENFOOD!!111!!!!!!

    3. What are the damages, again?

      It’s Chipotle, so… how much is the typical tort claim for fourteen inches of destroyed colon?

      1. Aurora Snow should know.

    4. Her lawyers want a class action, dude.

      1. Class actions still need to show damages.

    5. I’m going to Chipotle right now, and you know why?

      Because it’s GMO free.

      Well, it’s the implications of it being GMO free. You see, since GMO free soybeans are about as common as real live unicorns, GMO free means they don’t use soybean oil in their tortillas and other food–except for the tofu which is expressly made of soy.

      I have a severe soy allergy, and that means Chipotle is about the only fast food restaurant where I can eat–and not have to worry about anaphylactic shock. And, yes, that’s because they went GMO free.

      No, I don’t think Chipotle should sue their critics for misrepresenting what GMO free means to their loyal customers, but GMO free means a lot more than just that it doesn’t have any GMOs in it. It also means they don’t use products made from common allergens–allergens that are typically GMO. Incidentally, people with peanut allergies are also typically allergic to soy–very similar molecule. We’re talking about millions of customers who can only eat fast food at Chipotle.

      Hell, last time I checked, even the shakes at McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Burger King, and Carl’s Jr. had soy in them. God bless Chipotle and entrepreneurial capitalism, which is all about entrepreneurs like Chipotle tailoring themselves to serve the diverse preferences of customers like me.

      1. “It also means they don’t use products made from common allergens–allergens that are typically GMO’

        Aren’t those two separate issues being conveniently conflated?

        Why not just say, “they’re allergen free”? Because you don’t seem to care one way or the other about the issue of GMO aside from the allergic reaction thing.

        1. Happily confused, yes!

          To people with peanut/soy allergies, GMO free means it almost certainly doesn’t contain soy.

          I don’t know that it’s conflation, specifically; it’s more like deduction. Since GMO free soybean oil is practically impossible to source on the scale of a chain restaurant, the oil they use is highly unlikely to be soybean oil if it’s GMO free. So you go online and check their menu and sure enough, no soy!

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to Whole Foods, where they’ve got a lot of GMO free prepared foods to choose from.

          1. Dams autokorrektz!

            Happily [conflated], not “happily confused”

  2. It was a silly ad campaign by Chipotle. Did it actually rise to fraud, though? There were disclaimers and I’m personally not sure how anyone could reasonably think the soda sold from the fountains was GMO free.

    1. “Did it actually rise to fraud, though? “

      No, because they *haven’t* passed a law yet clarifying what “No GMO” means (if anything)

      Its similar to the grey area which “All Natural” has been for decades… beyond “minimal” use of preservatives, a matter of personal interpretation for each marketer.

  3. Hasn’t evolution modified the genetics of all our food? I’m suing Darwin.

    1. Well yeah, most of the food you eat other than wild-caught seafood has been genetically modified by humans over the millennia. This is what became corn.

    2. Evolution doesn’t have agency. “Modify” implies that some intelligent agent was involved. I don’t know why I am the only one who thinks this is a distinction worth making.
      Whether conventionally bred crops should properly be called “genetically modified” is a little more of a grey area since people are involved, but I still think a distinction should be made. Not because it’s scary or dangerous or anything, but because it is fucking awesome that people have made such a huge leap in how new crops can be created. Deliberately and intentionally creating specific traits in crops is rather different from waiting for something useful to happen on its own and selecting for it.

      1. Are you sure? We understand next to nothing about how macro evolution works – or how genes communicate and interact with RNA and viruses.

        1. I’m not sure of anything, but I don’t see any reason to think that it does.

      2. Your hang up is on semantics. “Evolution” can certainly “modify” organisms. It’s a process, or better stated a category of interrelated biological processes. A “process” can do things without necessarily being a sentient being. Distinction unnecessary. A worthwhile distinction though, would be to properly define natural selection and unnatural selection.

        1. It is mostly semantics. But I think it matters. Both because it is interesting to see how new crops are developed, and conflating genetic engineering with old fashioned breeding confuses things, and because it is dismissive and might turn off people who could be convinced that GMOs aren’t such a bad thing. If you don’t care about the latter, that’s fine, but there are people who can change their minds.

          1. Well we do have the paleo types who consciously draw no functional distinction between old fashioned selective breeding and genetic engineering as far as their diet is concerned. I think the only good way to turn people on to the idea of GMO is to make them less stupid about, but I realize that seems pretty unlikely to happen. Once upon a time consumers weren’t all that partial to ‘rapeseed oil’ until it was rebranded as ‘canola oil’. Which was just a waste of a fantastic name, I think.

      3. Evolution doesn’t have agency. “Modify” implies that some intelligent agent was involved.

        Do you have any idea how new strains of crops are developed w/out GMO?

        It involves plenty of agency and the application of intelligence.

      4. Evolution doesn’t have agency. “Modify” implies that some intelligent agent was involved.

        Do you have any idea how new strains of crops are developed w/out GMO?

        It involves plenty of agency and the application of intelligence.

        1. and squirrels!

        2. Evolution through natural selection and that through selective breading are different processes.

      5. Evolution doesn’t have agency. “Modify” implies that some intelligent agent was involved. I don’t know why I am the only one who thinks this is a distinction worth making.

        Evolution in the sense that farmers (aka intelligent agents) selectively bred corn over generations to be better for humans, and the corn that survived that winnowing is thus evolved.

  4. Did Robby just light the “Playa signal?”

    1. I believe I’ve made my point. If you like Chipotle and bloody underwear, I can’t help you.

      1. You people and your defective digestive tracts. I have never had any problem with their food. — Although… I don’t eat beans. Could that be it?

    2. I assumed he was lighting the mayo signal. The important question is: Does Chipolte’s GMO-free mayonnaise contain egg yolks?

      1. It damn well better. No egg yolks = not mayo.

      2. Does Chipotle have mayo?

  5. How do we know anybody paid more? Compared to what exactly? Chipotle has always had a premium over, say, Taco Bell and MacDonald’s. Did the prices jump when that campaign started? Did their sales go up (more than their regular rate of increase)?

  6. upscale taco vendor Chipotle

    Their burritos, Ron. I can’t trust anything you say, now.

    1. What is a burrito, if not a genetically modified taco?

    2. They have tacos too.

      1. Yes, but that is not what they are known for.

    3. I take exception to “upscale”.

      They cater to the sweatpants crowd.

      1. In some places, sweatpants is upscale.

        1. Yeah, I’m from Michigan. What about it?

      2. I would say more “fast casual”. Sweatpants crowd is Taco Bell.

        1. I read that as “fat casual”…

          1. No, that’s me.

    4. In the end it all comes out the same.

  7. I’m all for certain genetically modified foods…however, too much of anything is never a good thing–unless we’re talking about Bailey’s articles.

  8. Who told her to put the balm on?

    1. The MAESTRO???

  9. Looks like a case where the two parties are getting what they deserve.

  10. GMOs are delicious

  11. OT: A critic of Jeremy Corbyn lost his face in the Falkland War. After he wrote an article criticizing Corbyn, a writer for the Guardian posted on facebook that “If he knew anything he’d still have a face.”

    I guess this is that dry British humor I’ve never really gotten.

    1. I wouldn’t call that an example of “dry british humor”, so much as just a young person being a snotty dick on twitter

      1. I wouldn’t call my last sentence a serious reference to dry British humor, so much as a sarcastic joke at the writer’s expense.

        1. Yeah, well, if you knew anything maybe you would have a face.

          1. But can he buy a pair of pants?

          2. Oh, in your FACE, Irish!

            Well, if you had one…

      2. Heh.

        …being a snotty dick…

        Well, his name is Richard.

        1. Ah! How droll. We truly are a waggish lot, what?

        2. snotty dick

          Isn’t that a type of sausage?

          1. Sausage and clams casino.

          2. Come now, we all know that’s not snot.

    2. And on top of that, it was posted on FACEBOOK of all places.

    3. David Cameron is the worst sort of “Good Government” Tory. But fuck me, Corbyn is off the fucking planet. I mean full on nationalize ALL industry, the Arabs are all innocent saints and the damn JOOOOS are to blame for everything, sell uranium to Iran, suck off Putin and the British Army is too big.

      The only good thing is that he is essentially a tantrum leader since Miliband was trounced in the last general election. But I guess Tony Blair’s new vision of Labor didn’t last very long.

  12. Petard! Thou hast been hoisted by thine own.

  13. upscale taco vendor Chipotle

    Upscale to what? A school lunch?

    1. Taco Bell?

      Tacos aren’t supposed to be upscale anyway.

    2. Other fast food. Chipotle is fucking delicious.

      1. Try Taco Palenque. It’s a chain, priced about the same, and lightyears better than that dog food at Chipotle.

        1. Yes, Chipotle is not only terrible but boring as well.

        2. El Taco Tote isn’t bad but it pales next to Taco Palenque.

        3. I’ve never seen Taco Palenque. How would you personally rate Q’doba compared to Chipotle?

          1. Qdoba is crap compared to Chipotle.

            Their meat is comparatively flavorless and most importantly the rice at Qdoba is horrid. I have eaten there probably 25 times or so and every single one of them the rice was undercooked and usually seriously so (rice shouldn’t be crunchy) and has absolutely no flavor.

            Overall I’d put rate Qdoba as suitable food for when there are no other cheap options available, Chipotle I’d travel out of my way to get to

            1. Speaking of rice and gimmicks, I find it rather amusing what Chipotle offers up for “brown rice”. It is only slightly off-white white rice. And people think there’s a difference. It’s so goddamn funny.

              1. “Hey, we didn’t wash off the bran-dust, what more do you want?!”

        4. Foodies are so retarded. I’m sticking with Taco Bell because their food is delicious when I’m in the mood for it.

          1. I agree with you. Taco Bell is way better than Chipotle.

  14. They don’t have any locations around here. Is the food any good?

    1. I think it’s good, but all the cool kids here seem to hate it.

      1. Speaking as Lord Regent of the Cool Kids, I don’t have a problem with the end-state of the food so much as the Subway-assembly-line process which they force customers to witness… which consists of lots of people each putting their rubber-gloved hands all over what you’re supposed to soon shovel into your face.

        I’m not a germ-o-phobe, or particularly squeamish, and tend to not mind food being ‘manhandled’ when its an artisan doing things the old-fashioned way… but the dreary, lobotomized way they stick their fists into buckets of shredded chicken and toss it in your burrito-bowl gives off a “Fast-Food of the Damned” atmosphere which i find unappealing.

        Its like a Starbucks version of mexican food. Its sure as hell not fancy, and it is sure as hell not authentic, but rather some mini-mall simulacra of “Fancythentic” which I find gross and distasteful. i prefer taco trucks.

        1. Plus, taco trucks usually do lengua and al pastor.

          Has Chipotle ever offered either of those?

          1. No. Those have too much flavor for Chipotle.

            1. I am shocked!

              I mean, if I can find al pastor and lengua in Northeast Fucking Ohio, Chipotle should be over. OVER.

        2. tend to not mind food being ‘manhandled’ when its an artisan doing things the old-fashioned way

          It’s OK to admit you’re a snob 🙂

          1. I was thinking in particular of Pizza dough. Its not snobby! I just was saying, ‘its not the excessive handling’, its the ‘how’…

            1. Sounded more like the concern was “by whom”.

              To wit, the reason Subway sucks is because the ingredients suck, not because of the morons putting it together or the manner in which they do so.

      2. I’m not a cool kid, but the last time I went to Chipotle (a while ago) there was a tag from an article of clothing in the food. And it pains me to say this because I’d hate to encourage Playa if he shows up, but there you have it.

        1. “there was a tag from an article of clothing in the food”

          AND I BET IT WAS THE GAP.

          Yeah, that sounds right. Not roaches… but rather, “loose change and clothing tags”.

          Because they’re super-corporate, they’re clean as a whistle! but their employees are so lazy and retarded that they’ll drop their gum in your burrito and just go, “ugh… can’t….bother…to…care….”.

          1. Exactly. The worst part was the way we were treated by management. They refunded the food half-heartedly and without an apology.

      3. These cool kids once, somewhere, ate a better burrito. Therefore, Chipotle is shit.

        I am with you though, I enjoy it and Chipotle must be doing something right if they are so successful.

        1. I don’t just hate the food. I hold a short position on the company.

      4. As the coolest kid I support Chipolte and all they stand for. The key is: go commando while eating Chipolte just always make sure to wear the same black, stain-resistant pants each time.

    2. They are tied for the best fast casual burrito place out there

      I’d rank them

      1) Chipotle
      1) Salsaritas
      3) Baja Fresh
      4) Moes Southwest Grill
      5) Qdoba

      And imo there is a pretty big gap between the 2 leaders and everyone else

      1. The only one on that list I’ve ever tried is Chipotle. I now know to avoid the rest.

      2. Oh forgot one.

        Boloco, not sure where they have them, I had never heard of them till I moved back to Boston a couple of years ago.

        I’ve only eaten there a couple of times but I’d actually put them in 3rd not far behind Chipotle and Salsaritas.

        Their food can be a little hit or miss on the quality but they get major credit for being by far the most creative of the bunch taking the general idea of the burrito and expanding it into other cuisines (they have Indian, Thai, and a few other world cuisine inspired Burritos)

      3. I’d put Baja Fresh at the top. Their salsa negra is outstanding. They used to have a shrimp bowl that I’d get once a week, but it’s gone now.

        1. Sounds like garbage. A bowl full of bugs with black vegetables on top?

        2. I am very sad that Baja Fresh got chased out of Ohio. Probably Big Chipotle did it.

      4. I know Salsaritas and I would put it halfway between Taco Bell and Chipotle. I only go there because that’s all there is where I work.

      5. Taco Caba?a is better than all of those.

    3. In a food tundra like Maine its probably OK. You must get tired of lobster and Somali food everyday.

      1. Good restaurants don’t last very long around here because people don’t know what good food tastes like. Seriously. For example if the gravy isn’t instant, most people will recoil in disgust. It sucks.

    4. I like Moe’s when I’m in the mood for 12 pounds of Taco Bell wrapped in one tarptilla, is Chipotle the same thing?

      1. Effectively.

    5. Chipotle is probably good if you live in Minneapolis and can’t get real Mexican food. I don’t have that problem.

      1. I was in Duluth for a good portion of last summer. They had one Chipotle. There was a fucking line stretching out into the mall parking lot with a 45 minute+ wait. All the time, even at off peak hours. I couldn’t get my ice tea fix. It was fucking crazy. Duluth is no food tundra either, between there and Superior you could find decent food.

      2. Chipotle is probably good if you live in Minneapolis and can’t get real Mexican food

        .

        That is Grade-A stupid.

        El Taco Riendo

        Fuck all of you Mex-a-chain eaters. Right up your diarrhea spewing assholes.

  15. Palin’s Buttplug|8.24.15 @ 10:25AM|#

    Down 1.7% now.

    Told you boys not to celebrate too early.

    A little fun at nimrod’s expense.

  16. Palin’s Buttplug|8.24.15 @ 10:25AM|#

    Down 1.7% now.

    Told you boys not to celebrate too early.

    A little fun at nimrod’s expense.

    1. Oh #$%&, now what?! *runs to check stocks*

      1. Up on the day, Swiss! Down UUUUUUGE since nimrod said that.
        http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/

  17. Chipotle is basically bland, yuppie “mexican” for housewives too scared to walk into the taqueria in the mostly abandoned strip mall down the street.

    1. Which is cheaper and likely very much better.

      1. It seems like almost every non-chain Mexican place is better than Chipotle

        1. Agreed. But I happen to live in the Land of Mom and Pop Tacquerias.

          1. How is that possible?

            Don’t you live in the whiteyMccaucasianville suburbs of Illinois?

        2. uh, yeah not so much.

          Come up to Boston, there is no good mexican food here and what passes for decent mexican charges upscale dining prices.

          1. That surprises me. When I lived in MN (where “medium salsa” is too spicy for most people) you could find decent Mexican in the cities at least as far back as the early 2000s.

      2. In my experience, little taquerias occupy both ends of the bell curve, but not really the middle.

        They are either awesome, or terrible. Based on my highly unscientific sample, if you see a grandmotherly-looking Mexican woman in the kitchen or behind the register, your odds are better.

      3. It’s different. I’m under no impression that Chipotle is authentic. It is mass produced, but it is mass produced well and tastes awesome.

        There are are a couple excellent traditional, authentic Mexican places in town that I frequent. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to sometimes enjoy Chipotle anymore than it means I don’t want to sometimes enjoy pizza.

        1. Awesome seems a stretch – but the barbacoa is pleasant.

          1. Barbacoa is about all I’ll bother with anymore.

            A near-clone (Hot Heads?) opened up not too far away from the local Chipotle. They literally do everything almost exactly the same way, but have a bit more variety and offer some intriguing extras and a huge range of sauces (yes, there is more than just Tabasco). They also have a Hawaiian apparently, but I was interested in comparing barbacoa and forgot to ask if it had Spam in it, which would be tremendous.

            The barbacoa itself was almost 100% equivalent, except for some reason tasted better, at least partially due to the additional choice (everything went together better), and yet I have NO IDEA whether there was GMO food involved! I might get cancer!

        2. produced well and tastes awesome.

          We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          1. We’ll agree that he’s wrong.

            1. And yet that won’t change the objective reality. But being a libertarian I respect your right to hold incorrect opinions.

        3. I ate at Chipolte once – against my wishes considering we were in a restaurant paradise. The burrito I had was just – ok.

          But compared to my local dump – run by an all Mexican crew who can barely speak English – the food at Chipolte is weak. Tacos El Corporal, on the other hand, is like the foody’s dream of Mexican food.

          No real link to their restaurant because they don’t have a website

    2. I’ve always pegged it as more of a “bro” destination. Hence the term “Chibrotle”

      Maybe it’s where the housewives go to find a new poolboy.

  18. I don’t care what they put in their food their carnitas burritos are awesome

  19. More propaganda from Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Bailey writes as if there is some monolithic, uncontested, undisputed “scientific consensus” that GMO foods are just groovy and any asseverations to the contrary are just uninformed hokum.

    Well, according the Institute for Responsible Technology, “[g]enetically modified crops and foods are neither safe nor necessary to feed the world.”

    Says Dr. John Fagan, author of GMO Myths and Truths, “[t]he GMO debate is far from being over, as some GMO proponents claim.”

    1. “Institute for Responsible Technology”

      lol, yes they sound like a truly rational, unbiased outfit.

      Your huff & puff would seem less silly if you actually posted a single criticism that showed some actual, documented, health or environmental risk of GMO, rather than this kind of Vague and Sinister serious-sounding garbage that says nothing.

        1. Rational wiki? Are you trying to prove Libertymike’s point?

          I kid (partly).

      1. I guess we’re just supposed to believe jet fuel can melt GMO corn? It that what you are saying “GILMORE”?

      2. Technology that is punctual and finishes what it starts? Probably not what they mean…

    2. Well that settles it then. How about we take a stab at climate change next?

    3. Bailey has always stated that the weight of scientific evidence points towards GMOs being no more or less dangerous than conventionally grown foods. Which is true.

      Whether they are “necessary” to food the world is irrelevant. If GMOs can help safely feed the world more cheaply and reliably, with less resources used, then they are better than the alternatives.

      1. Come on, you know you want to shout “CONSENSUS” and “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED”.

      2. On page 170 of GMO Myths and Truths, one can read: “Reviews of the scientific literature on the health risks of GM foods demonstrate that industry-linked are more likely to conclude that the GM food tested is safe, whereas independent studies are more likely to raise concerns.”

        On page 171 of GMO Myths and Truths, the following is quoted from John Diels, CBQF, Escola Superior de Biotechnologia da Universidade Catolica, Portuguesa, Portugal :

        “In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated with study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favourable light.”

        1. Why are you citing a retarded source? Is that all you have?

          1. A study was conducted in the 1990s in which rats were force-fed genetically modified tomatoes. Many rats developed stomach lesions and 7 out of the 40 rats died within 2 weeks.

            Source? Pustzai, A. et al (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects, published in Food safety: Contaminants and Toxins, pp. 347-372, CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK.

            1. Force feeding rats high-acid foods did damage to their digestive tracts? No shit!

            2. Rats died after being crammed full of tomatoes? Big news. I heard another bunch of rats got cancer after being crammed full of Coca-Cola.

            3. Yeah, and if it were replicated it might actually have meant something.

              People eat billions of tons of genetically modified tomatoes every year and have done since the 1990s. The great stomach-lesion outbreak in the Western Hemisphere somehow failed to emerge.

              I make the same point below = you seem to think these one-off studies conducted by highly partisan cranks are convincing, while the fact that people have been consuming GMO products for *decades* sans any negative effects is completely brushed aside. You’re desperately looking for any tiny contrary evidence while ignoring the preponderance of self-evident data. Not the sign of a ‘rational’ person.

            4. Did they have a control group force-fed the same amount of conventional tomatoes? Were those of similar acidity and other composition? If not, this study can not be used to show what you think it can be used to show.

                1. derp. I was just going to concur with Lynch – but add that the “purpose” of said studies is not to do any real ‘science’… but give the activists something to use in their bullshit marketing materials

            5. What happened to the control rats that were force-fed heirloom tomatoes?

              1. What happened to the control rats that were force-fed heirloom tomatoes?

                They exploded.

                1. At least the explosions were in a wide variety of pretty colors

        2. Kind of like how the beloved Dr Fagan is in the employment of someone who would benefit from GMOs being outlawed?

        3. OMG SOMEONE PUT WORDS IN A BOOK

          Mike, again = nothing there says anything. Its a rhetorical ploy to convince idiotic luddites like yourself that there’s some actual point being made.

          ANY studies of anything could show differences between “industry financed” and “independent studies”…. because most REAL science tends to have some connection to ‘industries’ (as most agricultural universities are well endowed by agricultural concerns who desperately need more students in these fields)

          the implication that “independent” is somehow “more science-y” is a magical presumption made by knee-jerk anti-capitalist morons. Newsflash = “Big Corn” doesn’t want to pour billions into technologies that *actually* kill consumers.

          Both quotes are “Fallacy of Motivation” arguments that try and debunk science itself by attributing sinister-conspiracy plots to anyone who peer-reviews industry data.

          As I originally said = find one example of *demonstrated risk* rather than this bogus ‘insinuation’ that Corporations are poisoning Gaia to make a quick buck.

          1. More…..

            According to a July 27, 2004 report issued by the US National Academy of Sciences, the blanket approval of GM foods by the FDA might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.” The report concluded that the process of gene insertion could damage the host’s DNA with unpredicted consequences.

            The Indian Council of Medical Research had identified a long list of potentially dangerous side effects from GM foods that are not being evaluated.

            1. “could”

              And and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

              As originally noted = cite a single example of a *demonstrated*, sourced, validated problem.

              Everything you resort to is so much “scare words” that suggest ‘unknowns’ (that aren’t unknown)…. effectively, a combination of Fallacy of Motivation & Argument from Ignorance (e.g. “THEY (big evil corporate science) DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW!”)

            2. According to a July 27, 2004 report issued by the US National Academy of Sciences, the blanket approval of GM foods by the FDA might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.” The report concluded that the process of gene insertion could damage the host’s DNA with unpredicted consequences.

              The Indian Council of Medical Research had identified a long list of potentially dangerous side effects from GM foods that are not being evaluated.

              Do you have evidence that there are dangerous side effects, or just assertions that there could be?

              There is a term for what you are advocating: the precautionary principle. I actually don’t think it is a dirty word…there are times when it can be appropriate. But if that is what you are arguing (that there is no evidence but that the risks are so high that we should be cautious anyway), then come out and say it.

        4. Also =

          90% of the crops of Corn, Soy, Canola have been GMO for decades, and billions of tons of the stuff consumed by hundreds of millions of people… with not a single heath impact reliably demonstrated that isn’t equally true for *any* food of its similar type/cost… (i.e. blaming GMO for obesity, diabetes, etc.)

          – to that latter point: you will often find the anti-GMO people eventually getting around to arguments where they blame the very *benefits* that GMO offers = cheap, reliable, safe food supply…. with possible long-term *negatives*… like Obesity.

          Because food is too plentiful and cheap. Which is why it would be better if the planet were starving. Because “Natural”.

        5. Reviews of the scientific literature on the health risks of GM foods demonstrate that industry-linked are more likely to conclude that the GM food tested is safe

          And is there any reason to think the studies were wrong, other than the source of the funding?

          whereas independent studies are more likely to raise concerns

          I don’t doubt that they raise concerns. I want to know if those concerns are justified.

          I’m not dogmatic about this. We live in a complex, multicausal world and it can be exceedingly difficult to design experiments that actually test what you think they are testing. So it is certainly possible that GMOs possess difficult to detect risks that may lead some studies to say they are safe, and some to say they are harmful.

          But source of funding is not in and of itself an indictment of a study.

          1. If the source of the funding is also an agri-business behemoth fed a steady diet of subsidies, that, alone, is enough to cast a lot of doubt upon the credibility of the “study”. Why place any trust in a crony capitalist that is happy to steal your money?

            1. Well, you should stop driving cars because those Evil Capitalist Oil companies don’t think Global Warming is real… they must be lying.

              And those Big Pharma companies and their so-called “anti-biotics”? BULLSHIT. Dude, never take medicine. Use chinese herbs and witch doctors.

              And all those clothes you wear? That’s right = GMO Cotton. 95% of the stuff out there is all *corporate frankencotton*. Which is probably why your balls feel weird. TAKE THOSE CLOTHES OFF MY BROTHER, AND FREE YOURSELF FROM THE SHACKLES OF BIG FRUIT OF THE LOOM

            2. We also have a UK study in which demonstrated that rats fed a genetically modified potato damaged the immune systems of the rats and inhibited the development of their brains, livers and testicles.

              Guess what? When the lead scientist went public with the findings and his concerns, he was fired from his job and threatened with litigation if did not keep silent.

              Source? Ewen, SWB & Putszai, A. (1999) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis rectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354, 1727-1728

              1. “‘Putszai””

                oh, the same guy as the tomato study above? Wow, what a diverse array of scientists you rely on.

              2. The Rowett Institute and the Royal Society reviewed Pusztai’s work, concluding that the data did not support his conclusions. The data were published in the The Lancet in October 1999, and reported significant differences in the thickness of the gut epithelium of rats fed genetically modified potatoes (compared to those fed the control diet), but no differences in growth or immune system function were suggested.

                Source

                It doesn’t sound like he should have been fired, though.

                1. I dunno. A scientist who publishes results that aren’t supported by his data shouldn’t be fired?

                  Why the hell not?

                  1. Well, from what I read, it sounds like he made some statements in an interview, but he qualified them and they were unequivocal. More along the lines of “these results make me concerned”. The paper itself was peer reviewed and published but I don’t think it made the claims he did in the interview.

              3. In a French study, rats fed with GM corn had problems with blood, cell, kidney and liver formation.

                In another study, mice fed with GM soy had problems with liver cell formation and pancreatic function. This study was conducted by Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Gavaudan S., et al, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyzes of Hepatocyte Nuclei From Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean”. Cell Structure and Function, Vol. 27, (2002), No. 4.

                1. Mike, your copy-paste skill are not a replacement for Logic, Reason, Argument.

                2. Are you citing Seralini? That study that has been roundly debunked?

                  After the paper was published, scientists and regulatory agencies found the conclusions of the paper to be invalid on the basis of the experimental design; each arm in the study had too few rats to obtain useful data in a lifetime study of Sprague-Dawley rats, which get cancer at a high rate over their lifetime.[4] Other publicly funded long term studies uncovered no health issues.[3][4]

                  In November 2013, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), retracted S?ralini’s paper after the authors refused to withdraw it.

                  Source

                  1. From your Wiki link, did you read where there are those who dispute that which the debunkers had to say?

                    How about the fact that another journal published the study last year and was not moved by the retraction of Food and Chemical Toxicology?

                    1. Yes, and I read the summary of his own response here.

                      I find the criticisms to be completely valid, and his response does not adequately address most of them.

                    2. Why do you find the criticisms to be completely valid? Upon what basis? Are you referring to each and every criticism?

                      Upon what basis do you conclude that his responses do not adequately address the criticisms?

                    3. The criticisms of using rats that are prone to tumors, using too small a sample size, and the fact that there was a lower incidence of tumors in rats fed a 33% GMO diet than an 11% GMO diet, which would seem to run totally counter to the claim that GMOs are the cause of tumors, unless you accept that the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions, or you are claiming a very odd mechanism that is toxic at low levels.

                      Those are the ones that stood out to me the most.

                      His response was mostly “procedures were followed”. He didn’t address the dose response at all.

                      His defense of the sample size was also hypocritical. He used a sample size in accordance with guidelines for a 90-day toxicity study but then explicitly states that his study is important because it looks at effects over a whole lifetime, not just 90 days. He criticizes the 90-day studies for being too short but uses samples that are appropriate for them.

                3. I can’t find any information about the other study, so I’ll remain agnostic on that one.

            3. If the source of the funding is also an agri-business behemoth fed a steady diet of subsidies, that, alone, is enough to cast a lot of doubt upon the credibility of the “study”.

              No, it is not. The credibility of the study rests on the quality of the experiment, the data, and the conclusions drawn from the data. If any of those are in doubt, point it out. Otherwise you are arguing based on a logical fallacy.

              1. No, you are engaging in your own logical fallacies of moving goalposts and inserting a false premise.

                I said that if the study was funded by a crony-capitalist, subsidy fed entity, that, alone, is ENOUGH TO CAST A LOT OF DOUBT UPON THE CREDIBILITY of the study. Note, I did not say that the aforementioned criteria mean that any such study NECESSARILY is wrong.

                1. I said that if the study was funded by a crony-capitalist, subsidy fed entity, that, alone, is ENOUGH TO CAST A LOT OF DOUBT UPON THE CREDIBILITY of the study.

                  And I am saying that it is not. The credibility of a study (i.e., the degree to which it is convincing and believable) has to do with the things I pointed out above. Full stop.

                  If the source of funding makes you want to look at those things a little more closely, then OK. But you still have to cite actual criticisms with the experiment, data, or interpretation if you want to cast doubt on the study itself.

                  1. if the study was funded by a crony-capitalist, subsidy fed entity, that, alone, is ENOUGH TO CAST A LOT OF DOUBT UPON THE CREDIBILITY of the study.

                    What if the study was funded by a proggy/government entity that bases its funding on confirming its biases? What then?

                    1. Doubt should be cast upon the conclusions.

                      R C, you know me. Do you really think that I would be inconsistent?

                  2. According to Dr. Andrew Mercola, GMOs are not safe. He cites Dr. Mae-Won Ho of the Institute for Science in Society in support of this proposition.

                    Dr. Ho has concluded that there is no way that GMOs can be safe.

                    Dr. Mercola also cited a 2012 analysis comparing the nutritional value of non-GMO corn with GMO corn. The non-GMO corn had 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium and 7 times more manganese than GM corn. In addition, GM corn was found to have 13 ppm of glyphosate, a pesticide so toxic that it can be carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range. The non-GMO corn had no glyphosate.

                    1. All you are showing is that you are highly swayed by small studies from dubious sources that make tiny criticisms and try and pretend they support gigantic, sweeping conclusions.

                      All while ignoring the huge body of science, and the massive amounts of GMO that is being safely consumed by millions and millions of people.

                      You’re a hysterical luddite who thinks copy pasting claims made by fringe wackjobs makes you sound ‘informed’.

                      The obliviousness you maintain to being repeatedly refuted and debunked is almost… Kunstler-esque. You cling desperately to bogus science while wrapping yourself in a cloak protecting it from criticism because its “Not Corporashuns!!”…. as though science is only valid when freed from its service to capitalism… never mind the fact that has been the source of all human technological advancement for the entirety of history.

                      Who are you trying to convince, btw? is there a single person here who seems to have been enlightened by your case-studies? Or is it all to reinforce your own, dogged determination to deny the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

                    2. or, perhaps clearer =

                      for every single, isolated small-study you might cite, there are not just hundreds of larger-scale, far more-validated research studies demonstrating the opposite…

                      …but that the claims made in these small studies aren’t even consistent with the demonstrated reality = GMO has been demonstrated safe for human consumption for decades… and if any of the scariest risks claimed by the fringe had any merit, there would and should be ample evidence out in the general human gmo-consuming population for them to point to.

                      yet there’s nothing. and never will be. Because the reality is that the finished GMO product is for the most part nutritionally and chemically *indistinguishable* from the non-GMO item.

                      Its trying to pretend that the human body treats the slight genetic variations in types of “tomato” as some hugely important thing. Which is a complete myth. A tomato, GMO or otherwise, is just a tomato.

                      And there is far less risk to human health eating slightly different varieties of tomato…. than there is eating the SAME kind of tomato all the time, albeit one far more prone to bacterial infestation because its “organic”

                      (aka “refusing to use technology to make it healthier and safer”)

                    3. No, what I am demonstrating is that it is wrong to assert that “the science is settled” and that it is wrong to claim that “there is no evidence to contradict the proposition that GM is great and has no harmful side effects.”

                      No, I am not showing that I am highly swayed by “small studies by dubious sources”. All I am showing is that you crony-capitalist, subsidy loving, Monsanto fan boys do not have a monopoly on the truth.

                      I note your propensity to make generalized, undifferentiated asseverations and think that the same are carrying the day. To wit, “you’re a hysterical luddite who thinks copying and pasting claims made by fringe whack jobs makes you sound ‘informed'”. First, the claim I am some kind of “hysterical luddite” is false. If you think that you have some kind of evidence for that, show me. If you think my citing of studies and analyses critical of GM food and crops constitutes such evidence, you just do not know how to debate. In fact, if that is all the “evidence” that you have to support your characterization of me as being a luddite, you are worse than a high school debater, worse than shrike and worse than Tony.

                      Second, what evidence supports your assertion that the authors I cited are “fringe whack jobs”? Is that a proven fact? Does everybody agree with your unsupported ad hominems? The fact that you resort to the ad hominem so frequently in your screeds only tends to support the view that you do not know how to effectively argue.

                    4. Capitalism is not Monsanto or any other agri-business on the receiving end of a subsidy. What part of that does Gilmore not get?

                      Capitalism is not lobbying Congress for special exemptions from litigation. If you make a product that harms another, why shouldn’t you face ruinous damages? Even to the point of bankruptcy? If your product is so good, why lobby Congress so insulate yourself from liability?

                    5. “‘what evidence supports your assertion that the authors I cited are “fringe whack jobs”?

                      The fact that two of the studies you cited were denounced by the leading scientific peer groups and subsequently retracted? Did you not notice that part?

                      Everything i said is true, Mike. You’re only trying to convine yourself, and you’ve routinely ignored/shrugged off the obvious points being made by people here why your “evidence” is mostly hokum and wild precautionary-principle fear-mongering

                      you havent addressed any of it.

                      Try the point re: glyphosate below, which you wildly misrepresented… showing you don’t even understand the fundamentals about the science you’re citing.

                    6. “you do not know how to effectively argue.’

                      Apparently you consider lies and ignorant misrepresentation of facts “sound reasoning”

                    7. Gilmore, my original post was that there is more to the story and that there is not some kind of monolithic, undisputed consensus that GM foods and crops are safe and do not have any harmful side effects.

                      That there is no such consensus is demonstrated by the fact that some 300 scientists have signed a statement stating that there is no consensus as hyped by the industry. The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (October 21, 2013).

                      So, am I a luddite for citing the fact that there are hundreds of scientists, not just one or two whack jobs as you assert, who do not agree that there is some consensus and that the science is “settled”?

                    8. Please cite the source for your claim of glyphosate toxicity, and I will show you an example of where the science behind your claims is bogus..

                    9. See below.

                      Perhaps it is you who are full of shit.

                    10. The problem is that almost every study you cited so far has been criticized or even withdrawn by the journal that published them, with good cause in my opinion.

                      Meanwhile, the only criticism you have offered of the actual studies that can’t find evidence of harm from GMO crops is that they were funded by crony-capitalists. Which is not an actual criticism of the studies themselves.

                    11. ” there is more to the story’

                      Yes. As repeatedly noted = you tend to ignore the giant elephant in the room, which is that millions of people eat GMOs daily with zero ill effects. And that every major scientific body that has looked at GMOs have routinely declared them entirely safe.

                      “there is not some kind of monolithic, undisputed consensus that GM foods and crops are safe’

                      No. Because THERE IS

                      And despite your petition-signing in the agricultural-protectionist-driven EU… they don’t have any studies worth a damn.

                      Yes, you’re a luddite who doesn’t even understand the underlying science of the topic he moans about. And you refuse to even acknowledge the problems people point out about your basic reasoning. The weakness of your case is self evident to everyone but you.

                    12. No, I am not ignoring any elephant in the room.

                      You make the sweeping claim that millions of people eat GMO foods everyday without any ill effects. So, unless you can prove that shriek and Tony do not eat GMO foods, you should reconsider your statement.

                    13. “You make the sweeping claim that millions of people eat GMO foods everyday without any ill effects.”

                      They do.

                      Are you so ignorant as to not understand that this has been the case for quite a while now?

                      over 90% of corn, soy, canola has been GMO for decades. Sugar beets, for just about as long. These ingredients go in everything.

                      did you miss this, somehow?

                    14. You mean this analysis:

                      A report given to MomsAcrossAmerica4 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE corn.

                      But don’t take my word for it. From MomsAcrossAmerica itself:

                      There has been quite a stir this past week about the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro posted on this site on March 15. Keep in mind this is a report, NOT a scientific peer reviewed study and I do not have any other information other than what is in this blog.

                      As for your claims about glyphosate, I can’t find anything to back that up beyond these blogs.

                    15. In case you don’t quite get why I find this…less than convincing, let me be explicit. There is no information about which strains of corn were compared. Nor about the soil quality of the two samples. Nor the sample size. Nor was this reviewed by an independent body.

                      In other words, it is the claims of one group that has not provided any details about what in the hell was actually being compared.

                    16. glyphosate, a pesticide so toxic that it can be carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range.

                      Glyphosate, a herbicide, is one of the most widely used and researched chemicals in all of agriculture. Read a summary of the research methodology in the well footnoted Glyphosate Fact Sheet. In one study

                      Researchers gave beagle dogs capsules containing 0, 20,100, or 500 mg/kg/day of glyphosate for one year. No effects were observed

                      They even cite the EPA’s assessment of it’s carcinogenicy:

                      The U.S. EPA classified glyphosate as Group E, evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans. The U.S. EPA does not consider glyphosate to be a human carcinogen based on studies of laboratory animals that did not produce compelling evidence of carcinogenicity.

                      In summary, you are full of shit.

                    17. The EPA, on two occasions has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.

                      One company was Industrial Biotest Laboratories. The Justice Dept. shut down the fraudulent operation and many of the company’s officials were convicted of falsifying statements, falsifying test results and mail fraud.

                      The other company was Craven Laboratories. Its owner, Don Craven, along with 14 employees were convicted of falsifying data, making false statements and the like.

                      In 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising regarding the safety of Roundup. Monsanto, the big, fat crony capitalist socialist entity, had advertised that Roundup was biodegradable and left the soil “clean” after using it. Monsanto was fined 15,000 euros as was its French distributor. Monsanto also had to pay damages to several consumer organizations. In 2009, the French Supreme court upheld the verdicts on appeal.

                    18. Recently, several jurisdictions, citing the toxicity of glyphosate, have banned it. The jurisdictions include:

                      (1) El Salvador;

                      (2) The Netherlands has banned it for consumer, individual use;

                      (3) Sri Lanka has banned the import and use of it;

                      (4) Bermuda, this year, has temporarily suspended importation of it pending more research;

                      (5) Colombia, next month, shall stop using it in the destruction of coca plants, citing complaints from farmers that aerial fumigation of it has destroyed entire fields of coffee and other produce.

                    19. People ban stuff because activists use their leverage to threaten the viability of their export markets.

                      Not because those things are proven to be “bad”. They ban them because its better than the alternative, which is a fucking boycott.

                      Europeans managed to get a bunch of African countries to ban GMOs or else they’d stop importing their agricultural products.

                      Basically, saying they’d be willing to starve africans to assuage their irrational fears.

                      The fact you need to point to Sri Lanka and El Salvador, and the fact that their governments were easily strong-armed by luddite anti-capitalists, is sort of pathetic. Basically you’re conceding you have no argument on the basis of science, and need to resort to politics for your “proof”.

                    20. 2, 4, and 5 did not actually ban it. 5 did not even ban it because of any effect on human health, but because it is so damn effective at what it does.

                      You realize you are making claims that are contradicted by your own posts?

                    21. There’s still nothing there about the toxicity of glyphosphate.

                      You seem to think you can make claims that “Monsanto is bad”… and that therefore your wild, baseless claims about *the scientific basis for the viability of GMO* should be taken more seriously.

                      They have nothing to do with one another. Its like you leap from “Enron is Evil” to Electricity is Bad.

                    22. Good on you for finding problems with some actual test results (even if you do insist on continuing to indict the funding source).

                      There are 75 studies cited in the fact sheet that Shrubber linked to. You still have some work to do.

                    23. Some observations:

                      (1) Note that many of the commenters injected ad hominems with respect to the authors, scientists and studies I cited.

                      (2) Note that they have not, including you, refuted the proposition that the science is not settled. Gilmore, for one, moves the goalposts, injects ad hominem, makes sweeping, nuance free assertions and thinks that that constitutes effective argumentation.

                      (3) Funding sources do matter in real life. As a matter of logic, if the funder or any of its paid hacks or affiliates, have ever been convicted of falsifying data, making false claims, etc., one would be on solid ground in presuming that the results of their “studies” should not carry much weight.

                    24. “they have not, including you, refuted the proposition that the science is not settled’

                      There is no such thing as “Settled science”. Science evolves. At any given time there are dominant ideas which have the preponderance of evidence on their side. Currently, the vast, overwhelming majority of evidence shows GMOs to be safe. You are ignoring it, and are refusing to accept “science” at all, instead resorting to nitpicking on a fringe, while asserting that Arguments from Ignorance be taken more seriously.

                      yes, i’m “ad homming” you. Because you are acting like an idiot. And the sooner you come to the realization that your “evidence” sucks, the less you’ll moan about it here, knowing that people will throw it in your face and laugh.

                      “”Funding sources do matter in real life.””

                      Sure. But the presumption that you can throw out the vast majority of science based on the funding sources alone is merely a ruse to avoid actually debating the science. But because your science sucks, you desperately try and shoot the messenger, and pretend that Monsanto is actually hiding all the Truth by spending billions getting all the scientists in the world to lie… because everyone will agree to poison humanity provided a small fee from time to time.

                      its so stupid, it deserves nothing but mockery.

                    25. You are playing from the global warming crowd’s playbook.

                      Just because you say that the “vast, overwhelming majority of evidence shows GMOs to be safe” does not thereby confer it to be true. I have just cited several authors and studies that contradict your sweeping generalization.

                      Did I claim that “Monsanto is actually hiding all the Truth”? Show me. To be sure, I am critical of Monsanto as I am of any crony capitalist socialist subsidy fed entity. Apparently, you are not. Then again, you are not a libertarian. If you are, you would be critical of Monsanto and any other company feeding at the public trough.

                      Moreover, I have not “thrown out” the vast majority of evidence regarding the subject. Once again, all I am doing is arguing that there is more to the subject than what you claim there is.

                    26. “you are not a libertarian. If you are, you would be critical of Monsanto and any other company feeding at the public trough.’

                      Classy. You lack any scientific argument, so now you’re resorting to some kind of desperate claim that people who “defend GMO” are de facto defending corporate cronyism

                      No, its not possible to simply accept the best science. No, you have to believe in this anti-capitalist hogwash, or else Mike will claim you don’t get to be in his Left Libertarian Club. Boo hoo.

                    27. I do not belong to any Left Libertarian Clubs – I am a thin, not a thick, libertarian.

                      Talk about intellectual dishonesty? I am not claiming, as you insist, that “people who ‘defend GMO’ are de facto defending corporate cronyism.” One can defend GMO and simultaneously be critical of Monsanto, in particular, and other socialist crony-capitalists, in general. Show me where I specifically avowed otherwise.

                    28. Then again, you are not a libertarian. If you are, you would be critical of Monsanto and any other company feeding at the public trough.

                      We aren’t debating Monstanto. We are debating the science of GMOs.

                      That you continue to conflate the two indicates that you either don’t want to debate honestly or can’t tell the difference.

                    29. ” you either don’t want to debate honestly or can’t tell the difference.’

                      Never rule out “both”

                    30. Actually, go back to my original post. It was not about Monsanto, was it?

                      All I stated was that there is no monolithic, undisputed “consensus” that GMOs are just groovy.

                      I agree that Monsanto, itself, and the science of GMOs are two different items.

                      However, to the extent that the science upon which you rely is funded by Monsanto, and that Monsanto has been convicted by multiple courts of either false advertising or its hired labs have been convicted for mail fraud and falsifying data regarding glyphosate, for example, Monsanto is relevant.

                    31. All I stated was that there is no monolithic, undisputed “consensus” that GMOs are just groovy.

                      Yes, there is. You haven’t cited anyone except discredited cranks and hacks from fringe organizations. Like Mae-Wen Ho and Joseph Mercola.

                      The two papers you cited were both discredited and retracted (or never published in the first place).

                      Your sources come from activist groups with openly anti-GMO agendas.

                      By contrast, virtually every major scientific organization in the world, including the National Academy of Science, the World Health Organization, and ever leading professional organization of plant biologists and microbiologists has issued statements saying the crops are safe.

                      THERE IS A CONSENSUS. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

                      And I don’t give a fuck if you think that’s a “playing card” from the AGW crowd, because I happen to think that AGW is true too.

                    32. Just this year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic in humans” predicated upon epidemiological studies, animal studies and in vitro studies.

                      Sure, there are studies and assessments that reach a contrary conclusion.

                      Above all, the primary thrust of my argument is that one is a fool to conclude that there are problems with the use of GMO foods and crops and that the “science is settled”.

                      Note that Gilmore and others are playing from the global warming crowd’s playbook.

                    33. You keep pretending to be the tone police, victim to so many other people’s “unfair” and unkind debate-tactics…

                      …yet you never once in the entire thread here do you so much as even *acknowledge*

                      a) that your sources are completely debunked, had been retracted, and never considered valid by anyone outside the fringe activist-sphere…

                      b) that despite the occasional “study”, that healthfulness of GMO has is an *established fact* through decades of human consumption…

                      and c) consistently resort to the same logical fallacies, trying to smear scientists with corporate associations, trying to claim there are dangerous “unknowns” (appeal to ignorance), and pretending that these various coalitions of Activist Scientists represent any legitimate body of research in their Biotech field…

                      no, after doing all that, you’ll then roll over and start crying about how *everyone is so unfair to you*, and how everyone else is actual fanatical, and YOU are the rational one.

                      Its classic intellectual dishonesty. And the remarkable part is that you seem entirely unaware of how ridiculous and unconvincing you are.

                    34. What about the study of Daiane Cattani, Vera Lucia de Liz Oliveira Cavalli, Carla Elise Heinz Rieg, Juliana Tonietto Domingues, et al, published last year in Toxicology?

                      Their paper is entitled, “Mechanisms Underlying The Neurotoxicity Induced by Glyphosate-Based Herbicide in Immature Rat Hippocampus”. The study tested the neurotoxicity of Round-Up in the hippocampus of immature rats following acute and chronic exposure.

                      The paper’s findings include a conclusion that acute exposure to Round-Up induces calcium influx into neurons “leading to oxidative stress and neural cell death.”

                    35. “cute exposure to Round-Up induces calcium influx into neurons “leading to oxidative stress and neural cell death.””

                      Yes, and Water is a poison too…if you drink too much. Everything is toxic at *certain levels*

                      Show me where the amounts people are exposed to in practical use mean anything at all? Particularly compared to traditional agricultural practices?

                      Your copy-pasting of ‘studies’ without any actual understanding of whether those studies say anything significant or not is a bad-habit. You don’t convince people by saying, “LOOK! SCIENCE WORDS”…. you should know what it means and why it matters.

                    36. “Note that Gilmore and others are playing from the global warming crowd’s playbook.’

                      Not at all, my moronic friend.

                      Because i think the preponderance of evidence IS correct about both GMO and global warming.

                      the problem is that idiots in both cases believe that we should apply a precautionary-principle POV to both, and put strict limits on either Carbon Emissions or GMO use…. even though neither present any problems whatsoever.

                      I believe global warming is real, but that policies limiting economic growth are idiotic because they would do nothing to prevent any ultimate warming, while hamstringing people’s ability to develop adaptive technologies.

                      In both cases, I reject the extremist, anti-technology, anti-science crowd who wants to use government to restrict capitalist enterprises from improving human live, as they have always done.

                    37. Okay, I think that we can agree that we do not want any crowd to use government to restrict capitalist enterprises from improving human life.

                      Is there one word, in any post of mine here (I have been here for 8 years), where I advocated using government to restrict capitalist enterprises?

                      Do you think I favor the cab / taxi position vis-?-vis Uber and other ride sharing options?

                      Do you think I favor restrictions on the use of robotics to replace humans?

                      Have I expressed any support for government mandated LABELLING of food?

                    38. You’re still wrong about everything else. So what?

                    39. So what?

                      Just trying to transition from this contra-temps upon an agreeable note. Is that okay?

                    40. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument that glyphosate is mildly carcinogenic.

                      That means absolutely NOTHING for the safety of GMOs because GMOs can be anything, not just herbicide tolerance. The position all along has been that the safety of any conventionally bred of GMO crop must be assessed based on the nature of the organism, not based on how it was produced. You can’t go from “glyphosate is bad for you” to “GMOs are bad for you”.

                2. I said that if the study was funded by a crony-capitalist, subsidy fed entity, that, alone, is ENOUGH TO CAST A LOT OF DOUBT UPON THE CREDIBILITY of the study. Note, I did not say that the aforementioned criteria mean that any such study NECESSARILY is wrong.

                  And yet the fact that a study was literally retracted and debunked by numerous scientific researchers ISN’T? Have you taken a look at the turds YOU are citing? And you think they are more credible? because ,. what? The entire scientific establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to protect Monsanto?

                3. I said that if the study was funded by a crony-capitalist, subsidy fed entity, that, alone, is ENOUGH TO CAST A LOT OF DOUBT UPON THE CREDIBILITY of the study. Note, I did not say that the aforementioned criteria mean that any such study NECESSARILY is wrong.

                  And yet the fact that a study was literally retracted and debunked by numerous scientific researchers ISN’T? Have you taken a look at the turds YOU are citing? And you think they are more credible? because ,. what? The entire scientific establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to protect Monsanto?

  20. So is “California Woman” the smug leftist counterpart to “Florida Man” now?

    1. Thats actually kind of an accurate analogy

    2. awsum – yes

  21. Oh completely off topic

    Am I the only one that thinks Ron looks like a 50 year old Joffrey Barratheon?

  22. Colleen Gallagher sounds like a person I would never want to meet.

  23. upscale taco vendor

    Upscale? Surely you jest.

  24. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  25. Literally everything libertymike says in this thread is utter horseshit.

    First of the Arpad Pusztai study was on POTATOES, not tomatoes. Secondly, the whole point of the study was to assess if a particular snowdrop lectin would still be poisonous if it was in a potato. The potatoes used were never intended for human consumption. It was a genetics experiment, not a food-crop breeding experiment. Yes, if you insert a gene for a poison into a plant deliberately, you can make the plant poisonous! Duh! But nobody was actually planning to sell these potatoes to people to eat!

    Then of course, he went on television and made a number of stupid sensational statements about his unpublished research, a major breach of professional conduct. He suggested that the plants engineered with the lectin gene were somehow more poisonous than just mixing the poison into cooked potatoes. Something which could not be concluded because of the inability to assess dosages and other factors between the two groups.

    After independent review, the reviewers felt it was such shoddy research that nobody wanted to publish the paper. Eventually, it got published only because of the “controversy” and as a Letter to the Editor of the Lancet. Not an actual research publication. It was accompanied by six reviewers who published statements criticizing the work.

    See? This is the giant turd of a piece of research that the anti-GMO retards have to cite, because they have nothing better to go on.

    1. And do you know how I know all this without even looking it up ?

      Because the anti-GMO retards have been citing the same goddamn paper for the last 16 years.
      No matter how many times you point out how utterly discredited it is, they keep citing it, because they’re fucking retards who have nothing better to point at. I have this shit memorized by now.

      You know what else I have memorized? The fact that Mae-Wen Ho is a total charlatan who promotes homeopathy, and that “The Insitute for Science in Society” has literally been cited by Quackwatch.org as a questionable organization.

  26. On page 171 of GMO Myths and Truths, the following is quoted from John Diels, CBQF, Escola Superior de Biotechnologia da Universidade Catolica, Portuguesa, Portugal :

    Oh my GOD, a random guy from some obscure Portugese University is critical of GMOs? Well, that’s definitive! There is no consensus until you literally cannot scrub the global academic establishment for a single dissenter.

    Seriously, how many rocks did they have to look under to find this guy ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.