Anti-GMO founding father Mark Lynas says internet trolls changed his mind

Anti-GMO founding father….ha, ha, ha, ha.

Is that Mark Lyinass?

Most certainly!

Mark had an important insight. If you put out scientifically sound facts you will likely get trashed by folks who don’t like the conclusion. At least Mark had the humility to recognize where he had done the same thing.

Cause nothing says farmer more than commenting online all day every day….

please sign this petition, we havent been paid for our souls yet

https://www.change.org/p/monsanto-pay-pro-gmo-advocates-and-defenders

Good for him.
There is a lesson here for all of us. 🙂

Science matters.
Anti-science, and refusal to acknowledge thousands of papers on this subject, is a scourge.

Ken, you add nothing to the discussion except unfounded accusations. Much like the anti-gmo folks, plenty of blame, lacking on evidence.

So everyone who disagrees with you is a schill?

Where can I get a check?

There’s no such evidence Ken, just biased articles written by some conspiracy theorist or misinformed scared soccer moms.

Ahh another comment from one of those fake profiles the “spokesmen” get issued.

Nice c/p job.

I implore everyone reading this to peruse my comment history and then look at rel0627’s history. I have posted about 7 comments in the last week. I literally could not even make it through the past 24 hours of yours. Remind me who has the agenda again?

Also, you need to go outside, dear. You need sunshine to make Vitamin D. Stay healthy!

LOL. You are obviously not working.

But for some reason it is it not the least bit surprising that an ill-informed conspiracy theorist is also not very good at their job. Hmmm….

This is how I know:

https://disqus.com/by/rel0627/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=comment_author

Right, but you are a farmer, not trained in psychoanalysis.

Dude you are delusional. Have fun wasting your money on trendy overpriced “organic” or “non-GMO” BS.

“Everyone thought of themselves as being tolerant and open-minded,” he says. “But if you said something critical about them, you’d be in quite serious trouble.”

that’s the definition of so many “progressive” people these days.

there’s another one.

Since their first commercial introduction in 1996, the costs and benefits
of genetically engineered plants and animals have generated controversy
among consumers, farmers, advocates, and scientists. Potential risks that
need to be managed include inadequate control (e.g., GMO genes transferring
to non-GMO crops), transfer of allergens, displacement of native species,
and other unpredicted issues. Some stakeholders are concerned about
the emergence of super-weeds, reliance of farmers on agrichemical inputs,
reduced biodiversity, or other environmental and trade issues (Benbrook,
2012; Garcia and Altieri, 2005; Gurian-Sherman, 2009; Liberty Beacon
Staff, 2013). As a result, the technology has been taken up very unevenly.
For example, in the United States, no wheat or rice is genetically modified.
Globally, Western Europe has imposed strict labeling and tracking requirements
that have essentially banned products of the technology there, while
Canada, China, Brazil, and Argentina grow genetically modified crops,
especially for animal feed. Differing standards and timing of approvals
for genetically engineered products has disrupted trade patterns and led to
disputes. Overall, genetic engineering continues to struggle for acceptance
among some consumers and for additional applications, such as in animal
and aquaculture production

NAS 2015
A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System

And yet you don’t even use a real picture of yourself. I bet you’re the only fake profile here. You’re the “spokesmen” that you keep referring to, just on the anti-gmo side. Science doesn’t need spokesmen – holistic pseudoscience does.

Where is YOUR real picture?

Me too please! Do we get a badge?

Brilliant.

Is that why you talk about it vaguely without ever substantiating your nonsense claims?

Oh boy. You just sit there all day waiting to unleash zingers like that one, huh? Notice the distinct lack of evidence yet again. But hey, as long as you get the last word then maybe you’ll convert some easily conned fools, right?

The 1st. thing I thought was …He sold out to the dollar…..I know of a person who work in a top Toronto hospital who was dead set against of having M.S.G. in the food system. Then ONE DAY she published a paper on the merits of having M.S.G. in the food system and the money stated to flow her way..

BINGO!

Modern genetic engineering techniques also have been a powerful force for change.
Genetically engineered corn and soybeans have led to the most rapid transformation of global
cropping patterns in history. In the United States, 90 percent of all cotton, corn, and soybean acres
have genetically engineered traits (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014) and globally, they are planted
in 28 countries (James, 2012). From a global perspective, the Food and Agriculture Organization
acknowledges that biotechnology can be a useful tool to address the issue of food security when
applied appropriately (FAO, 2014). Potential benefits of GMO food applications include
improved nutritional value (e.g., the incorporation of the vitamin A precursor, β-carotene vitamin
A addition to rice), increased fish yield (e.g., aquaculture tilapia), and tolerance of poor
environmental conditions (e.g., drought-resistant and salt-tolerant crops). Although 60 percent of
the area planted to bioengineered seeds is in the United States and Canada, adoption in
developing countries is expanding rapidly, and 90 percent of the 14 million farmers planting
transgenic crops live in developing countries (James, 2012). This rapid adoption is driven by
higher yields and lower pesticide costs that more than offset higher seed costs, with these benefits
captured by small and large farmers alike (Raney and Pingali, 2007).

NAS 2015
A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System

I can copy and paste from a document that largely supports GMO as well!!

Well, I won’t speak for Mark Lynas, because I don’t know what was going through his head other than a realisation that he didn’t have evidence to support the anti-GM pieces he was writing. That seemed to be the epiphany if you will.

As to feeding the world. The short answer is that organic agriculture will not do it. There is simply not enough fixed nitrogen available to grow the crops needed to feed the world. That is a physical constraint that cannot be overcome.

What technologies will be useful? It will be a mix of technologies. No one technology will be able to solve all of the issues, which are complex. The problems include: a growing population, a growing desire on the part of people in 3rd world nations to live a lifestyle similar to that enjoyed in the US, poor governance, poor infrastructure, limited arable land, climate change, availability of water, and farm land lost to urbanisation.

Being able to grow more food on less land is clearly a goal in addressing the issue of feeding a growing population. The two factors that have increased crop productivity over the past couple of decades have been plant breeding and agronomy. So they would be obvious places to invest.

In some places, GM technology has been an enabling technology for both. Corn and soybean productivity gains in North America and canola productivity gains in Canada due to breeding have far outstripped productivity gains in wheat. This is because companies have been investing in background breeding in these crops, but not in wheat. In addition, for soybean and canola, GM technology facilitated the adoption of no-till agriculture, which has also boosted productivity.

Using GM technology to place useful traits in crops as a means of increasing productivity through both breeding and agronomy would seem a useful adjunct to other activities to increase production.

Then there is the option of changing the nutritional value of crops, so that less food needs to be consumed by animals and (perhaps humans, but I don’t see this being quite as successful due to behavioral reasons).

When you can’t debate the facts…

Pick me, pick me!

Accusing people of being in it for the money, is not as a matter of course an actual scientific position. In fact, science is one of the most massive and time tested revenue generating things ever. You can do good science and make money at it. Though, most of the stuff here is just trying to make sure Africa doesn’t starve. But, then clearly anybody who supports the scientific consensus is clearly a smokesman. All this anti-global warming people, they are in it for the money too, ignoring that all the money is the oil companies.

Or that person stopped thinking with their rectum, embraced scientific fact and became better at their job and started getting promoted and paid more.

Same tired lines? You mean like “You are a shill for Big”?

Yeah same tired lines of someone who has no argument.

We’re told to be open-minded. To be willing to change when we feel like we may not be so sure anymore. And then we’re called flip-floppers, or wafflers when we grow out of old ideas.

Well here ya go! 🙂

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/

Very well stated. Thank you.

Yes, they owe me a lot of money.

That’s old news, albeit most still think Wakefield is credible and has achieved martyrdom 😛 I want to see Tenpenny, Kate Tietje, Joel Lord et al stop spreading cockamamie lies for their own benefit.

SIGNED

Sterling, you have again proven the fact that any science or truth that conflicts with the corrupt cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science agenda will be rejected.

Lynas, was never a major player with Greenpeace. He was a second rate hack writer with no sense of ethics who sold himself to a corrupt industry to better him self financially.

The environmental movement sees Lynas a s a sold our joke.It’s instructive that the GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber would stoop so low as to use someone like him.

It’s not being a troll if someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about and you say so.

So do you just go around the web looking for random phrases to comment on?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915254/#!po=96.1538 “The paper was peer reviewed by scientists on behalf of the FCT and published accordingly. Hence, it initially met the threshold for publication. In our opinion, there must be a different threshold for forced retraction of the paper, and we believe that this paper did not reach that threshold. The COPE guidelines for retracting articles (Committee on Publication Ethics 2009) provide four reasons for retraction: scientific misconduct/honest error, prior publication, plagiarism, or unethical research. None of these reasons apply to this particular article, and yet Elsevier, a member of COPE, chose to retract the paper.”

http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/press-release

Claire Robinson said, “It seems that the editor of FCT, Dr Hayes, effectively did the job for the GM and agrochemical industry that the expert witnesses failed to do. The witnesses couldn’t demolish the study through scientific argument, so it had to be removed from the record. That is what Séralini’s critics told Hayes to do,[17] and he obliged.

”Additional quotes from scientists on the retraction (all published at endsciencecensorship.org)”The retraction is a shameful violation of scientific and publishing integrity by economic and political interests.” Donald R. Davis, PhD, nutritional biochemist at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University; retired from Biochemical Institute, University of Texas at Austin, USA

“The excellent work of Professor Séralini and his colleagues should be published in all the independent scientific journals of the world, as a form of protest and resistance against pressure of transnational corporations.” Tomás Enrique León Sicard, PhD, Professor of Agrology, Institute of Environmental Studies, National University of Colombia

“Séralini’s study underpins the urgent need of carcinogenic risk assessment of GMO crops, and should never have been retracted from FCT.” Henk A.Tennekes, PhD, consultant toxicologist, member of EUROTOX; Dutch, Swiss and British Societies of Toxicology; Society of Toxicologic Pathology; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)/Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM), Netherlands

“The retraction was clearly based on political and economical interests and pressure, as it does not have a scientifically sound justification. Science is not built upon ‘definitive’ studies. In fact, within a scientific framework, a hypothesis is never definitive; it can always be re-tested and generate new, more robust knowledge. This is what should be done in this case. The article should be reinstated, and its findings can be confirmed or contested by replication and new studies. It is shameful that, in this day and age, commercial interests still have so much influence in scientific publishing.” Daniel Ferreira Holderbaum, MSc, PhD student in Plant Genetic Resources, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

“What has been done regarding retraction of Seralini’s peer-reviewed publication and defamation is outrageous. It is without precedent, and is completely unacceptable.” Richard Doherty, MD, retired Faculty Professor in the Departments of Pediatrics, Genetics, Radiation Biology & Biophysics at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, USA”This study should be reinstated or studies supporting the safety of NK603 should retracted as well: they are no more conclusive.” Vincent Detours, PhD, IRIBHM (a research institute of the Faculty of Medicine), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

“Withdrawal and censorship of the Séralini report is an act of complicity to conceal the flaws of a lethal technology. This is criminal behaviour.” Miguel Lovera, PhD, Universidad Católica de Asunción – CEIDRA (Studies and Research Center for Agricultural Law and Agrarian Reform), Paraguay

“What happened to the Séralini study is not science, it is censorship. Scientific data should not be suppressed merely because it does not conform to pre-determined beliefs or conflicting interests. The Séralini study should be reinstated and if necessary, repeated.” Catherine Greenall, MPhil, MRSC, CChem, C.Sci, MCIWEM, CWEM

“This retraction is politically motivated and ignoring science that is now consolidated in many studies showing that glyphosate is a damaging substance both for human health and the environment generally.” Malcolm Hooper, Professor Emeritus, PhD, BPharm, MRIC, CChem Royal Society of Chemistry, Society for Medicines Research, British Pharmacological Society, UK

“This is reminiscent of trials of Galileo at the hands of the Vatican. These tactics bring shame onto the scientific fraternity and erode the confidence of the public in the scientific process.” Shideh Pouria, PhD, MBBS, BSc, MRCP (UK); Vice President, British Society for Ecological Medicine; Visiting Research Fellow, King’s College London, UK

“Science must remain independent if it is to be relevant and must be evidence-based not results-driven. Elsevier are shooting themselves in the foot as they have lost all credibility as a science publisher and made a mockery of the peer review system.” Vivienne Laval, PhD, molecular genetics, UKContact: Claire Robinson info@endsciencecensorship.org +44 (0)752 753 6923Notes

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

…”BREAKING: 2012 Seralini GMO/Roundup Study REPUBLISHED in Springer Journal of Environmental Sciences.

PRESS RELEASE:
Paris, 24 June 2014

Republication of Professor Séralini’s study: Time to be responsible.The 2012 study on the chronic toxicity of Roundup herbicide and the genetically modified Roundup-tolerant maize NK603 by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues has been republished by the Springer group, with open access to its raw data. Now there will be a few embarrassing questions for the authorities.After two years of controversy and pressure that led to the retraction of the study in November 2013, which was first published in 2012 by the Food and Chemical Toxicology (Elsevier group) journal, the research team of Professor Séralini has announced that they have republished the study in the Journal “Environmental Sciences Europe”, published by the Springer Group. By republishing their study with some new data which are available online, the team of Professor Séralini confirms that the world’s best-selling pesticide, Roundup, causes severe liver and kidney deficiencies and hormonal disturbances, such as breast tumours, at low environmentally relevant levels. Similar effects were observed from the chronic consumption of Roundup-tolerant GM maize. This is due to residues of Roundup and to the specific genetic modification of this maize. The formulations of Roundup, as well as Roundup-tolerant GMOs, should therefore be considered endocrine (hormone) disruptors and shoud be re-evaluated for safety by the health authorities.Winfried Schröder, editor of the journal Environmental Sciences Europe of the Springer Group, stated: ‘’We want to enable a rational discussion about the study of Séralini et al. (Food Chem Toxicol 2012, 50:4221–4231) by republishing it. This methodological competition is the energy necessary for any scientific progress. The sole purpose is to enable some scientific transparency and on this basis, a discussion that does not try to hide, but focuses on these needed methodological controversies.”

The research team of Prof Séralini made the choice of an open access publication in a peer-reviewed journal, which arranged the third peer-reviewed assessment of the study. The researchers have published online the raw data of the study with free access for the entire scientific community – something that the industry has always refused to do, claiming commercial confidentiality or intellectual property restrictions. But is there any real secret to keep? How could the results of a health study violate an industrial secret? Is industry hiding the actual toxicity of compounds that accumulate in our bodies and our environment? Dr Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, medical doctor and President of CRIIGEN says, “Pesticides such as Roundup and agricultural GMOs cannot be ignored in the explanation of the epidemic of environmental pathologies”. In addition, he emphasizes “the deficiency of the regulatory assessment of pesticides and GMOs, which endangers public health.” CRIIGEN is asking for free access to toxicological studies which have authorised the placing on the market of different formulations of Roundup, the free access to raw data on the toxicological urine and blood analyses for all products, and urges the legal authorities to undertake further public research, with a commitment to placing its findings in the public domain, regarding the possible toxicological and endocrine disrupting effects of GMOs and Roundup, as other pesticides, using long-term exposure periods to ensure the real protection of public health.
Jun 24, 20

Don’t you mean “victory for a small element of the scientific community working on GMO, who may be a wee bit biased” Jemma?

Will it be a “victory for science” when, many years from now, the unintended consequences of GMO crops are unleashed on what’s left of our native ecosystems?
It’s already happening with ‘conventional’ crops and supposedly “100% safe” herbicides, such as Glyphosate.
France has just banned the domestic sales of Roundup.

But why? After all, the scientists developing it at the time said it was “100% safe”.

Problem is, some other scientists have now disproved this.

See the problem here?

http://gmoinside.org/debunking-gmo-myths-feeding-world/

Debunking GMO Myths: Feeding the World
By Michelle Kim •

When sorting out the myths and truths surrounding genetically modified foods, one of the most common arguments you’ll hear is that GMOs are the key to “feeding the world”.

Undoubtedly, the world we are trying to feed is under a lot of stress. The climate is changing. Intensifying weather events, record-breaking temperatures, devastating periods of drought – these issues do not bode so well, especially when talking about food production. To add to the laundry list of problems already plaguing our warming planet, the global population is projected to reach 9.6 billion by the year 2050. Considering these extreme pressures on Planet Earth’s capacity to sustain us, it is clear that avoiding a global food shortage will require creativity and innovation.

Biotechnology companies like Monsanto rely heavily on the claim that genetically modified crops will solve world hunger. Monsanto’s marketing strategy says it all: “Produce more. Conserve more. Improve lives.”

Is genetic engineering really the best solution to feeding the world? Here are a few important factors to consider before putting all of our eggs in biotech’s basket.

10357748_754971374542675_8257260623606072815_o
-Tyler Lorenzen, Vice President of Business Development, World Food Processing
1) Genetically modified crops have not shown to dramatically increase yield.

In February, the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) released a report on GMOs, which found no increase in yield potentials for genetically modified crops in the past fifteen years. The report also stated that “yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties.”

In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a report titled Failure to Yield, which evaluated the benefits of genetically engineered crops and their supposed ability to feed the world. The report compared the intrinsic and operational yields for insecticide-resistant (Bt) corn and herbicide-tolerant corn and soy to those of conventional crops – “intrinsic” meaning production under best possible conditions and “operational” referring to production under typical environmental stressors like pests and drought. In their study, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that none of the genetically engineered crops increased intrinsic yields, and that both the herbicide-tolerant corn and soy failed to increase operational yields. UCS does not deny the potential role of biotechnology in boosting crop yields down the road, but the report recommends against supporting genetic engineering at the expense of other technologies, some of which have already shown to improve yields at little to no cost to farmers. The report advises a greater dedication of research and development to such technologies, including modern plant breeding and organic and sustainable farming.

2) The majority of GMO crops are not feeding hungry people.

The US is the largest GMO producer in the world, with 70.2 million hectares dedicated to growing soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papayas, and squash. Despite the astounding land area used to grow these crops, 40% of US corn goes to fuel, and a majority of US soy is purchased by the animal feed industry. On a global scale, soy, corn, cotton, and canola make up 99% of all GMO crops – with a similarly unbalanced distribution between people, livestock, and non-food industries.

The high volume of GMO crops diverted to animal feed is not necessarily all bad. Christopher Barnett, an economist at Cornell University studying international agriculture and poverty, explained in an interview with NPR that cheap feed crops help drive down the cost of meat in industrializing countries like China and Brazil, providing greater access to high calorie proteins. On the other hand, Barnett also explains that the cheap commodity crops–like corn and soy–are not providing the nutrients that hungry people need. If more corn in the food supply drives down the price of cornmeal, lower income populations will end up purchasing more cornmeal and less of nutrient-rich foods, like produce and dairy. One could also argue that increased meat consumption is not part of a sound solution to food security. Shenggen Fan, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute, describes the need for meat consumption to decrease in order to reduce the impact of high energy and natural resource inputs necessary for meat production.

3) GMO-fueled agriculture is diminishing diversity and sovereignty in our global seed supply.

Seed diversity plays a pivotal role in securing a stable food system. Greater genetic diversity allows for greater variety in plants’ response to unfavorable conditions, leading to increased stability in crop production. In a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the diversity of crops and seed varieties were identified as “as a key element in people’s livelihood strategies…crucial to their ability to adapt and survive in unfavourable environmental conditions.” Seed diversity is intertwined with the importance of seed sovereignty, which harnesses the ability of communities to maintain crop diversity through the saving and exchanging of seeds. By providing a means for preserving cultural heritage and identity, seed sovereignty is especially meaningful in third world farming communities.

With biotechnology companies peddling their patented GMO varieties to the global market, and increasingly in the global south, crop diversity and seed sovereignty are both put at risk.

In 1995, the UN estimated that 75% of all agricultural diversity had been eradicated and replaced with “modern”, monocropped varieties. Much of the loss in diversity is attributed to the Green Revolution, when farmers began to plant a smaller selection of high-yielding crops in monocultures – which unfortunately, rules growing practices today. With genetically engineered corn, soy, cotton, and canola taking up the lion’s share of biotechnology’s attention, there is reason for concern that GMO monocultures will continue to expand at the expense of more diverse and better-adapted crop varieties.

In developing countries, seed diversity and seed sovereignty are particularly important, as climate change hits the poorest the hardest. The biotech industry takes special care to market its work with farmers in developing countries – take Monsanto’s Water Efficient Maize in Africa (WEMA), for example. Initially borne out of conventional breeding methods, WEMA has been re-created as a genetically engineered variety, field tests for which are already underway in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda.

But Patricia Muir, a professor in the Botany and Plant Pathology department at Oregon State University, wrote:

“Few plant breeding or biotechnology efforts are aimed at helping to enhance properties (agricultural and nutritional) of crops that can be grown in much of Africa, as most such efforts are devoted to private sector, economically lucrative enterprises. Yet the native biodiversity in African crops is a valuable resource that could be utilized to enhance food production there, along with providing access to sustainable agricultural practices, including water harvesting, zero tillage, legume rotations, crop-livestock systems, and so forth.“

Overall, genetically engineered seeds have continued to narrow the scope of seed diversity already diminished by the Green Revolution. With increased dependence on a smaller variety of crops, more and more of them genetically engineered and grown in monocultures, other practices like the ones Muir mentions–zero tillage, legume rotations–lose their due value. It doesn’t help that genetically engineered crops are strictly patented and prohibit farmers from saving seed, effectively cutting farmers’ ties with community-powered, regional, sovereign food systems.

Keep in mind: This is just a snapshot of the issues contained within the larger problem of food security. But even with this partial analysis, it is clear that the global puzzle of seed supply, crop production, and food distribution has been a particular challenge, not even taking into account the advent of genetic engineering. How will we feed over 9 billion people? With our finite natural resources, how will we be able to meet these ever-increasing demands on land, water, and energy? The answers aren’t easy, but perhaps we should look to a number of diverse solutions – rather than the singular deliverance promised by biotechnology.

Claims That GMOs Will “Feed The World” Don’t Hold Up
Contact: Shannon Van Hoesen
(202) 667-6982
shannon@ewg.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2015
Washington, D.C. – A report released today by Environmental Working Group delivers a stinging rebuke to conventional agribusiness’ argument that genetically modified crops are the answer to future global food shortages. A thorough analysis of recent research conducted in the United States and around the world shows that genetically engineered crops (often called GE or GMOs) have not significantly improved the yields of crops such as corn and soy.

“Biotech companies and proponents of conventional, industrial agriculture have touted genetically engineered crops as the key to feeding a more populous, wealthier world, but recent studies show that this promise has fallen flat,” wrote Emily Cassidy, the EWG research analyst who authored the report.

She points out that while genetically engineered crops have been a mainstay in conventional agriculture in the U.S. for roughly two decades, they “have not substantially improved global food security” and have instead increased the use of toxic herbicides and led to herbicide-resistant “superweeds”.

Over the last 20 years, yields of both GE corn and soy have been no different from traditionally bred corn and soy grown in Europe, where genetically engineered crops are banned, she found.

Corn and soybeans account for roughly 80 percent of the global land area devoted to growing GE crops, and both are overwhelmingly used for animal feed and biofuels, not for food. This is unlikely to change in light of increased consumption of meat around the world and the U.S. biofuels policy requiring production of millions of gallons of corn ethanol to blend into gasoline.

“There is a way out of this mess that will produce enough food for the world’s burgeoning population with minimal impact on our environment,” said Cassidy. “In combination, smarter use of fertilizers, a dramatic shift in biofuels policy, a significant reduction in food waste and a better diet could largely address the need for more calories in the future.”

The Just Label It campaign, which advocates for mandatory federal labeling of GMO foods, provided funding support for this new report. Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Just Label It, said, “Biotech companies and their customers in chemical agriculture have been attempting to sell the benefits of GMOs for two decades. Between exaggerated claims about feeding the world and a dramatic escalation in the use of toxic pesticides, it is no wonder consumers are increasingly skeptical.”

Traditionally bred varieties have been the major source of improved crop yields in recent years, her report concludes, and this trend is likely to continue. Moreover, investment in genetic engineering is no substitute for solving the real causes of food insecurity and poverty, such as improving access to basic resources and infrastructure in developing countries.

“Seed companies’ investment in improving the yields of GMOs in already high-yielding areas does little to improve food security; it mainly helps line the pockets of seed and chemical companies and producers of corn ethanol.” Cassidy writes. “The world’s resources would be better spent focusing on strategies to actually increase food supplies and access to basic resources for the poor small farmers who need it most.” http://www.ewg.org/release/claims-gmos-will-feed-world-don-t-hold

Please read my comments….

Bring them on! Please post just ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) preferably multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other caveat~ it must be a GM variety currently on the market today.

Okay then this should be easy then…Please post just ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) preferably multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other caveat~ it must be a GM variety currently on the market today.

everybody that changes their mind or disagreed from the start is automatically a shill right?

way to deal with facts instead of attacking persons.

Well, see who has learnt how to copy and paste.

But seriously you should read what you copy and paste first.

“One Organic Rooftop Farm Can Feed 9000 People”

What a completely ridiculous statement. Unless you had a 9000 acre rooftop at your disposal I suppose.

Anyone who makes such a claim is clearly off with the fairies, a few sandwiches short of a picnic, or a few stubbies short of a sixpack.

The fact that you have to call people sheep is hilarious. I can’t take people seriously when they do that – even if I agree with them on things, I have to laugh at them and distance myself. It’s so sad.

So basically, all you have is “no u r wrong & u r a sheep”?

Ha!

(And it’s “you’re 180 degrees” – you’re wrong about that, but it’d still be “you’re”, since it’s a contraction for “you are”. Not sure if I can trust “scientific facts” from a person who doesn’t know the difference.)

The “Alliance for Natural Health”? That’s your idea of a reliable source? It’s not like only individual scientists broke down the study, regulatory organizations did as well.

The European Food Safety Authority heavily criticized the study.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

As did the Australia/New Zealand Food Standards Authority.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/seralini/pages/default.aspx

As did the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.

http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2012/29/a_study_of_the_university_of_caen_neither_constitutes_a_reason_for_a_re_evaluation_of_genetically_modified_nk603_maize_nor_does_it_affect_the_renewal_of_the_glyphosate_approval-131739.html

As did Health Canada.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/seralini-eng.php

As did the French Academies of Science.

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/presse/communique/avis_1012.pdf

The funny thing is how Seralini remains so ignorant on the fact that it is the very length of his study that is one of its major problems. The fact that he did a 2 year study using those rats rather than a 90 day study is what makes his study so bad. And it seems that he’s just been putting his fingers in his ears every time that’s been pointed out.

It’s actually funny the blatant lie in that press release. It was not peer reviewed again, it was merely checked to make sure no changes to the paper had been made from when it had been published previously. Seralini, to this day, continues to claim that the paper was peer reviewed by the new journal, in direct contrast to what the very editor of the journal stated.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/

And here we go down the rabbit hole that is the anti-GMO idiotweb blogosphere echo chamber

Link to scientists disproving “this”?

Apparently you are not any better at recognizing logic than you are at seeing the difference between real science and corrupt cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science.

By your logic anyone who see’s through the corrupt industry disinformation and junk science must be working for the organic industry.

Go and get your self some education and learn how to actually evaluate things instead of spewing your GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber cognitive bias all over these pages.

If you reject his study, you would logically have to reject all Monsanto’s studies as well…

You mean, “Victory for Scientism!” don’t you?

I think you meant to say, “Scientism matters.”

They can’t do it TZ, because they know that no such study exists. If there was even one such study, there would be no debate. Alas, the biotechs march on completely unregulated and no one to hold them accountable for illegally foisting their products on the market.

Silly and pathetic…

says the GE spokesman…

Hilarious FAIL!

You’d need more than 9000 acres, it’s producing organic milk too. I’ll bet getting cows up there and keeping them from falling off is a bit of a challenge.

Oh dear, the shill argument again.

How original.

Why? Those studies were done properly, with proper OECD guidelines.

No you would have to have brain cells that are actually working which apparently you do not posses…there are actual COURT documents PROVING his case….go to the links and READ!

No, read for yourself!