57 comments on “GMO ‘Anti-Expert’ Front & Center on CNN

  1. It seems romanticism and mysticism is winning and the flickering candle in the dark that is science is in danger of extinguishing. Was Carl Sagan lucky to have gone when he did?

  2. Yes, it does. But i’m a bit at a loss as to how. Greenpeace endorses and practices vandalism, Vandana Shiva condones arson and anti-gmo attackers have resorted to baseball bats and pepper spray while, earlier, Marie Mason burned down a Michigan State University GE lab and remains unrepentant.



  3. Julie,as you probably are aware by now, I am adamant about wanting a label on these foods. However, this type of violence IMO is absolutely not acceptable. I also understand why this drove you away, as I was very briefly involved in the feminist movement back in the 70’s (as a young pre-teen) until I met up with really aggressive “man haters”, and quit. (I still don’t like the movement)

    There are no “good” roles models in this debate on either side. I do not approve of any violence & these here are radical groups. Zen is a figurehead who indeed exaggerates at times, but so does the opposite camp. GMO’s thus far are a big disappointment to me. And the acts/reputations of Big Ag do cause harm to the environment (is that not violence? like a firestarter?)

    We seem to be in a very messy “tit for tat” situation….IMO both sides WRONG. Even the scientists are participating in that one with kindergarten slap fights.

    All I really want is a label and believe this “young technology” can be promising….so here I am caught on the fence, but I must align myself up with a figurehead to support my right to choose what to eat & what company to support. I think we both know it just isn’t hard Science. It’s a political and indeed a financial/economic debate for all of us. (and US economy)

    Nice write up & take care

    • For what it’s worth Susan, i’m not against labeling for informational purposes (though, since it isn’t a health issue, the FDA can’t be involved). I mere, “may contain GMO’s”, right after the, “may contain nuts”, or, “dairy”, seems to be fine in my book. But let’s face it, many of the labeling bills out there aren’t calling for that. They would require a conspicuous, larger print, declaration of GMO content. This is for the encouragement of boycotting.

      “in the case of a raw agricultural commodity, on the package offered
      for retail sale, with the clear and conspicuous words, “produced from genetic
      engineering” on the front of the package of the commodity or in the case of
      any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label
      appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which the commodity is displayed
      for sale; or

      (2) in the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language
      on the front or back of the package of the food, with the words “partially
      produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.”

      From the Vermont labeling bill.

      http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/intro/H-112.pdf page 12

      There is also the point that, if a label law requires the divulgence of information for no other reason than people want to know, does that violate Freedom of Speech? Just because someone walks up to me and demands what i had for breakfast, doesn’t mean any right for him to know supercedes my right to remain silent on the issue. His right to know, simply to know, doesn’t preclude my right to remain silent. Likewise, since there is no material reason for labeling GMO’s for just being GMO’s, as evidenced by study after study, what right does anyone have to demand it? Do we have to the right to know what counties of each state tomatoes in a can of sauce were grown?

  4. Forgot…Pro GMO are not the little kids on the playground….they have big government backing and lots of money to spend.

    • Susan, very excellent points raised and I even agree to some extent. As for the ‘kids on the playground’, I’m actually referring to other moms feeling compelled to respond and take action ‘Zen’s way’ out of a misguided sense of duty or guilt. I certainly felt that way when I was in the movement and it really turned me off. I was in no way referring to Big Ag. Yes, they can certainly fight their own battles!

      And great points about feminism. I know exactly what you mean, but I do stand for a lot of the ideals of feminism. I just don’t like feminists!

    • Maybe not the actual corporate structures, but the scientists are, both in industry and in academia.

      “Even when I was at school I didn’t give in to bullies, and at the ripe old age of 40 I am even less inclined to do so now. Moreover, I have been encouraged by emails and other support from globally-renowned scientists who are experts on this issue, and who all said basically the same thing to me: ‘You think you’ve got hatemail? Welcome to my world’.” – Mark Lynas


      And who, while defending GE, hasn’t been on the receiving end of SAS, Shill Accusation Syndrome?

      • In my short time as a GE defender, I’ve been accused several times already, or I should say, it has been suggested several times that I could work for Monsanto. For the record: I DO NOT work for Monsanto or any other Big Ag or biotech company. I want to get this on record because I’m doing an interview with a media outfit next week that is sponsored by a Big Ag company, but no money is being exchanged and I can say whatever I want. I suppose if they don’t like what I say, they’ll just edit it out.

      • @Julee;

        I’ve been accused in no uncertain terms that i’m a paid shill of Monanto, etc, many, many times. After a month or so of that, i decided to come up with a term to accuse them back. That’s how SAS, Shill Accusation Syndrome was born.

        As for me? I do not work nor have i ever worked in the biotech industry. I work in manufacturing of industrial controls. I have no financial interest in Monsanto (though i wish i did buy shares a few years back 🙂 ) I do own 98 shares of Dupont, paying me with a grand total of $44.10 per quarter in dividends, Certainly not enough to retire on.

  5. This is what the Great Debate is about…I am very much so aware of the FDA’s regulations. First Officer, Mark 😀

    So I side with MAAM & millions of others who support labeling. If you side with the bullies (Big Ag) then educated people take sides with MAAM. Simple & it is political (Not scientific), it is about choice & free market enterprise. We don’t want to support him.

    As for Mark L he is known to switch sides often & his talks are focused on what the audience wants to hear. He is not trusted, by anyone at this point.

    • Susan, since it is not scientific, but political, what are you objections to GMO’s? I ask this because you are aligning yourself with, “MAAM”, which states its objections to GMO’s are material (causes all manner of everything) but (re)publishes discredited data and articles to support its objections. MAAM, in turn, is aliging itself with the likes of Jeffrey Smith, Dr. Mercola and Mike Adams. Mike Adams, for one, has blogged several rather radical diatribes against science.

      • Already discussed this Mark. Label the GMO as with the rest of the 40 countries.

    • Susan, if you want to talk bullies, let’s talk about MAAM. They censor discussion from their site, they stop all dialog an refuse to even sit at the table and discuss science. They just know- end of message.

      There are plenty of people to guide this discussion. Your local universities are filled with them. I teach tons on this subject, its strengths and limitations. Of course, many don’t want to learn so they tell me I’m paid off by big ag, blah, blah, blah.

      There is a moral imperative here for me to teach about the science. Zen and company can afford to ignore science. Many others need it. I’m not going to sit and let non-scientists frighten others with lies. Not on my watch.

      • Kevin, Susan may just roll back with a “this is about politics… labeling…not about science or health” but you and i both know that the whole labeling issue is a euphemism for a much more severe agenda. I am curious if you have a ballpark figure of scientists worldwide, I’m talking hard numbers, who support GE technology and consider its benefits to outweigh its risks. Would love to put that number in my pocket.

        As always, ‘preciate you stopping by!

      • No I am not going to talk about a little mom group being the bully. Rubbish too. Label the GMO’s.

  6. Oh….I just wrote a long reply and it went into cyberspace!!!

    Quickly now for a new one. Here is the analogy

    Scientists have aligned themselves up with Monsanto (not to popular) & Big Ag & they all have lousy reputations. (pollution, etc) But they are the power base for sure.

    Educated people like myself, align up with MAAM (not that I do anything with them, rarely go to the site, etc) because they are indeed receiving media support and are wanting Labeling. This is the common bond ….label it. And we align up with with other scientists that are activists that you have not mentioned.

    It really is pretty simple. I deserve the right to know what I am eating & I should be aware of what company I sending my dollars too. It relates to free market practices & the right to choose.

    I wrote much more, but…lastly

    GMO’s have not really done much at all for society, yet. I am willing to wait for that one and will support gmo’s (If and when G.Rice comes into the world, if and when yields are indeed higher, if taste improves instead of making the fruit/veg flat, if any when this technology improves nutrition)

    So I will continue to make myself well heard for a label even if promises are someday kept. The debate is very political, especially since Monsanto is so intertwined with it all.

    My 2 cents, wish you well. (Again….I do not at all support any violence from either side, however, I consider Big Ags forcing this food on society in such a secret fashion…a form of violence.)

    • Susan, GMO’s have done very much for society. It’s just not that visible. Real world yields are way up and insecticide use is down. Herbicide use has increased but GMO’s allowed glyphosate to be used in place of older and demonstrably much more toxic to both man and beast herbicides. Hence overall toxicity has been lowered. The U.S. is the leader in GMO crop use and has about the lowest cost of food as a percent of income in the world. This is no coincidence. GMO’s, to a large extent are helping to feed the world, even those GMO phobic Europeans, with over 1.5 times the land area of the United States planted with them. GM cotton allowed India to go from a net importer of cotton to a net exporter, a very important development for a poorer country. Golden Rice will, finally, be allowed to save millions a year from the devastating effects from VAD. It can succeed where other methods fall short because it will be much cheaper and be grown where needed. Finally, GMO’s have allowed diabetics to get completely compatible human insulin at far less cost than cow, horse or pig insulin. Clotting factors for hemophilias and a hepetitus B vaccine are also GMO produced. This year a GMO flu vaccine will hit the streets, allowing those with egg and other allergies to get vaccinated.

      The story of GM cotton in India also a prime example how patent control, etc, of seeds will not lead to control of crops, etc. Indian cotton farmers have actually ignored the patents to a large extent. Many have went into the business of hybriding GM cotton to further improve strains. Those that do ignore the patents by saving seed or buying knockoffs do run the risk of getting inferior seeds, so China and Monsanto still manage to have business. However, if push came to shove, any country can (and have done so in the past) suspend patents in their national interest. So, the situation can never grow so dire that a few companies will control the world’s food supply.

  7. First Officer… I don’t know your name but your comments are awesome. Thank you for taking the time to explain some of the things I have discovered in the past few months…hence my change in views.

    I own DuPont stock as well, as part of a complete market sector strategy, and I didn’t pick it, my financial person recommended it. I have no idea how much the dividends pay me per month. Certainly not enough to retire on, as you said. That right there is my full disclosure of any monetary interest in biotech.

    • Thanks Julee! I will tell you this. My name isn’t Mark. For the majority of my finances, i’m a Vanguard and Fidelity guy. Broad based mutual funds that probably do have a smattering of biotech in there somewhere, besides my conscious purchase of Dupont. Can’t beat those Vanguard expense ratios !

      P.S. I admire your greater courage than i to post your real name. Irrationality has always frightened me, even as a child. Unfortunately, i can see this situation taking a nasty turn, like SHAC against Huntington Life Sciences, a company not too far from where i live.


      I think that such acts of vandalism/terror are committed, the perpertrators get a rush of power and control from it.

  8. We are talking about GMO’s in food. The promise of Golden Rice is a couple of years away & just in trials. There are indeed problems in India with growing the cotton related to monocultures, but I will just stick with the labeling of them in food. They have done nothing for humanity except create problems. And please, the US grows 60 -70 % of GMO’s, we will not go into how widely they are accepted…..nowhere.

    Now Julee, no I don’t believe that you own stock, or are a shill, however, there are many minions in this debate. Since you brought name calling into the stream, only you can decide why you & Mark (first officer) switch sides and which one applies, if any. I am proud to be called anti-gmo (although not true) even though I only am adamant about a label. Be proud stand and say Yes I am a minion or shrill 🙂 of the Big Ag or because…..”I don’t believe in peoples rights to know”.

    Obviously it has been a very bad past two weeks for biotech as information is surfacing, everywhere and real problems are hitting mainstream, people are becoming more verbal. They need to be labeled for “fair market practices alone”. What you both are saying is that you do not agree.I will continue to support MAAM and any other loud voice in the anti camp & do not think technocracy should be enforced over democracy.Again a political debate based on failure of the crops & consumers rights.

    First Officer, (mark) you get into other details which are irrelevant to “a consumers right to know”. This is pure cheap food, indeed, in many ways to feed the processed food industry and assists in fattening up citizens, Last comment from the opposite side of the fence LABEL THEM.

  9. Susan, I really appreciate your opposing views and that you took the time to post them. Unlike many anti-GMO blogs I’ve run across (like MAAM, for example) I don’t automatically delete comments that run contrary to my position.

  10. MAAM has the right to delete anyone’s comments, as it is their website

    Feel free to delete all of my comments, no problem as I was just trying to help you understand that this is not as it stands, now, with a majority of anti-gmo’ers this is indeed not a scientific debate.

    This uproar is about “RIGHTS” to choose the food that is eaten, for everyone and “Rights to grow” without this kind of violence and assault on thousands of farmers crops http://www.examiner.com/video/frank-morton-on-the-problem-with-gm-cross-contamination. Now this is indeed sabotage with governmental backing. But Monsanto gets all the headlines and we are suppose to feel badly for him & because he has money to spend.

    This is the last time I will invade you’re website, as you indeed are not really qualified to talk about health related information & I do not want to storm your site with negativity. (There are just a few journalists here that back you along with 1-2 Big Ag scientists and a few very young grad. students or new Ph’D’s) You’re motive for switching sides is still a mystery, but one that I will leave up to you manage.

    Take care, and please delete anything that you wish.

  11. Susan. That’s just it, I won’t delete your comments because I stand by my views and am not threatened by someone who sees things differently. As for MAAM, Jeffrey Smith, Mercola, Mike Adams, GM Watch, OCC, Earth Open Source, they are CLEARLY driven by a fear of health effects of GMOs as their number one issue and they hide behind the political agenda. Have you read this: http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/proof_of_gmo_harm.

    For the record, I’m not against labeling, as I said in a comment above so I don’t know what your problem with me is. I may not have a health background but do you? Does Zen Honeycutt? Pretty strong agenda there for one with no health background. I am a mom, shouldn’t that qualify me to write on this topic as it does the MAAM people? Zen said it herself, “Moms just know”.

    Regarding me being backed by only a few scientists… I am backed by the entire crop science and plant genetics field worldwide. Any city, any university. I’m not saying there aren’t a few standout scientists here and there but whatever issue a renegade scientist has with GMOs, you will be able to trace it back to a belief or a prejudice, not evidence.

    When I don’t know something myself, I use my ability to discern to choose qualified experts and I believe them…and soak up as much knowledge as I can from them in the process. What I am against is blind fear about a technology that can help mankind at a time when mankind could really use it.

    This fear-mongering is scaring people into thinking they can’t eat anything and have to go to great lengths to find safe food. My next post is going to cover a REAL environmental danger, supported by science, that goes about its merry way largely unnoticed. No labels required. It’s in our food, the air we breathe, the things we touch. Most people have never even heard of it and it causes cognitive problems and is a true endocrine disruptor. I hope you’ll read it.

  12. The AMA document shared by Robert is quite clear to me. But allow me to address the subject with other words:
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with GE food as long as it has passed QA tests. The decision of eating GMO-containing food is strictly a personal one, as it is eating kosher.
    The idea of having a label “contains goy food” to please one religious group is laughable. So why should we have a label “contains GMOs” to please another?
    People that do not want to eat GMOs for personal reasons have their own special label “organic”, and that is the reasonable option.

  13. I really don’t like that whole “moms just know GMOs are bad” thing. It implies that anyone who doesn’t have that worldview is doing wrong for their children. I’m a mom (almost! I’m 22 weeks pregnant), but I’m also a crop scientist, and I “just know” (based on copious evidence) that biotechnology is a safe, and that the testing process in the US is more than adequate. There’s nothing wrong with these products, and nothing wrong with moms that choose them for their families.

    For people who prefer foods that don’t include ingredients that have biotech traits, there’s plenty of options – they are welcome to buy organic, certified non-GMO products, or shop at companies that have stated that they don’t use GMOs. This is exactly the same as my preference to avoid animal products. I can buy foods labeled vegetarian, or do my research to find which ingredients and products meet my particular preferences.

    • Exactly! The if-you-care-for-your-kids-you-wouldn’t-dream-of-feeding-them GMOs mentality of MAAM is a form of bully tactics. I’m a mom too and I “just know” that I choose to believe crop science experts on this issue.

  14. By the way, Julie, I appreciate that you don’t over-moderate comments, but sometimes people are just too rude to warrant keeping their comments. No offense to your blog at all, but seeing rude comments and baseless accusations makes me not want to participate in a comment stream 😦

    • Anastasia, You raise a good point but truthfully, I don’t get a whole lot of super rude ones… although recently there have been a few for sure.

  15. There ya go feel liberated, it is your website. And call in all the people you choose via other social media sites to gang up on the one that disagrees. It’s that systematic ganging up on people that Smith & others say happens. Of course Bodnar the new Ph’D working for the USDA doesn’t want people to have the rights to choose.

    Of course focusing on religion is a great way to de-focus the point. You all have more power than MAAM & want to keep it without compromise. A democratic society you do not promote. (Now delete this comment too, but people are watching)

    Of course the first year grad student disagree’s, ….. and yes, I have much more education than all of you. Delete go ahead….but you will eventually loose the labeling debate.

    That is the focus of the majority & they will be heard loud & clear.
    Again, call in the minions and shills, Julie.

    • I once had a problem with my foot, a painful swelling just below the second toe on my left foot. At first i ignored it, hoping it’ll heal on its own, but it didn’t, so then i tried cutting a relief hole for it in my sneaker and that didn’t work. So i researched it on the internet and in a few days, finally made an appointment with a podiatrist. In the meantime i continued to research the problem and, after two weeks total, actually came to my own diagnosis. By that time, my appointment came up and i went in to the doctor. Inside of 5 minutes she came to the same diagnosis (no i didn’t tell her) and in just another minute, she whipped out a special shoe for me to wear and also told me to avoid gardening (all that deep knee bending stretches the toe joints). I took to wearing that special shoe (which i dubbed the sympathy slipper) and in two more weeks the swelling and pain was gone. What took me two weeks to just come up with a diagnosis (though correct), only took her 6 or so minutes to diagnose, prescribe and provide prognosis !

      The moral of this story is that, yes, we can all look up our own facts and even come to some correct conclusions. But it really takes people who spend many years studying these complex subjects to chart the best courses and in a much more timely fashion. Anastasia Bodnar is one such person. We are a democracy but we are also a meritocracy by necessity.

    • Susan, it is not just recent PhD graduates that think “labelling” is inappropriate; very senior researchers think so too, and molecular biologists that have no relation whatsoever with Agri-business. Anyone who understands biotechnology and labelling will think so. Compulsory labelling must apply only to nutritional and allergy issues (real, confirm, allergies). All the rest is fancy marketing, not a health issue that the state must regulate.
      A GMO label will be used by pressure groups to instigate guilt and remorse into the hearts of people that don’t know anything about science. If anything the state must protect those people from hysteric activists.

      • This is the dividing line Ariel, and why the two camps disagree & so many people are following MAAM. We all disagree with you along with many educated scientists that a label is “the lowest requirement for these crops”

        I am aware it isn’t just the newer grads. It is no longer “hysterical activists” as a matter of fact biotechs promoting GMO’s with such vigor are extremists and activists and the more you do, the more folks like myself pick a side.

  16. Nice mix up of another cliche

    See what happens, when a simple explanation of “why the educated are supporting MAAM and a label.” I get your point “I am entitled to my own opinion, not my own facts.” Many choose to listen, read, and give credence to people that have many more years of experience, knowledge & have at least some understanding of the Precautionary Principle. (This is not at all acknowledged in the US standard of biotech today & the only point I a making is that a LABEL is the current dividing line between camps.)

    You probably have seen this film or least will call it pseudoscience, but he is not alone. I will listen to his meritocracy http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9hjy-CJlzbM#at=13

    All current studies are indeed confirming their reports.

    • Activists use the precautionary principle like Marx used dialectical materialism, or mystics revelation; it can be used to oppose anything and there is no way to argue against it.
      For scientists the precautionary principle means “beyond any REASONABLE doubt”. For activists, who don’t use reason, it means “beyond ANY doubt”.
      I dare you to prove to me that “organic” food is safe under ANY circumstance and ANY time (I’m warning you: it won’t be easy because I will use an activist’s rationality).

      • Julee,

        Again Ariel, your wisdom…..this post is no longer worthy of my time. The line has been drawn & this is why there is so much resistance. You’re like a child playing with his chemistry set. And regulations of biotech need to be looked into by the FDA & USDA. Not to mention what this is all doing for your reputations as Scientists “mad ones at that”.

        I have gotten into these demands with impulsive children too many times.

        Come Julee call in some more of your gang to cover up the post!

    • Of course precaution is practiced in the US. Technically the FDA doesn’t require testing of GMO’s but, by law, testing is still required for approval and commercial use. But the strong version of precaution that the Greens insist upon, i.e. no new tech is to be implement if even the slightest chance of, “irreparable damage”, is forseen, regardless of the the amount of benefit such tech would bring, is, frankly, unacceptable.

      One, i haven’t seen any good definition of what constitutes irreparable damage. Two, not implementing such tech can also cause equal or greater damage. For instance, not implementing Golden Rice will cause the damage of 100’s of thousands of children and about again as many adults dying from VAD a year. If irreparable damage is defined as that which cannot be undone, then those VAD children not being able to ever walk the earth again constitutes such damage. Note, a new gene in a species may be an irreversible change, but that doesn’t make it irreparable damage.

      It is sad that David Suzuki has taken such an anti-scientific turn in his career. He reminds of another very intelligent man was has also walked down a similar path, Ben Stein. I didn’t watch the whole video but one of his comments did catch my attention, that we’re moving genes between totally unrelated species. Well, the only difference between 2 species and 2 strains believed to be within a species is only the amount of divergent evolution between them. Since all life on Earth is related, there are no totally unrelated species on this planet.

    • First Officer, Mark is a master at copy/paste. This is the debate Mark & why many scientists disagree. Two bad the both of you have switched sides. Lines have been drawn, even with a little baby label on the foods.

  17. I just started reading about GMOs due to, of course, a FB post and being much like you I had to do some more research. I just came across your WordPress article and totally agree with your opinion of MAAM. But I’m still , to be honest, slightly spooked at the grocery store. I read the paper posted in the comments on reasons why the FDA doesn’t require labelling and can see some good points, but also know that the Biotech companies have bought their way into government, hence the Monsanto Protection Act of 2013. I also understand through several none too worthy sources that bp has been found to survive the digestive process and can pass through to the fetal blood stream. This reminds me of the BPA regulations the FDA once heartily backed and then had removed from the bottles and cups of babies. Also in my research I have found that glyphosphate can be harmful and does not biodegrade. It merely builds up and alters the soil composition. That’s also main chemical in Roundup and that which the GMO crops produce themselves. I read on the Monsanto website that long term studies are not in the works as they’re not needed and keep hearing others echo the sentiments. I do not agree as most of the studies available are performed by the companies themselves and that seems hardly unbiased scientific research imo. I am no expert by any means, but the crop up (lol pardon the pun) of super bugs, weeds and evidence of Bt and glyphosate in surrounding waterways for months (which I’ve read kill the amphibian populations) after harvest seems enough to warrant suspension and reevaluation of the effects on the environment and the human population that is being used as guinea pigs for giant biotech companies. But then again with the alarms going about radiation from Fukushima and the EPA raising the acceptable limit of radiation good for the general public, hearing about pus in milk and rbgh, the deplorable and unkept standards in domestic chicken and cow production and slaughter, who knows who to trust or if there is such thing as unbiased research anymore…

  18. The so called Protection Act: (HR 933)

    “Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.”

    Yes, it’s hard to read but where does it protect Monsanto?

  19. How I see it, it might not seem like a lot, but when a company can run a provisional statement (wonder what they’ll come up with in the next one?) in a bill (passed by congress with their help writing it) barring even the federal govt. from holding them to liability of any damages and allows them to continue on unabated if anything harmful were to come to light and pass during the status of the bill. Also it’s allowing deregulation of the industry, at will, of a Secretary of Ag who has shown oversupportive of big business and Biotech. Sect. 411- of the PPA is basically about keeping the bad weeds from taking hold in the country and the Round Up resistant weeds are certainly not getting any coverage. I’m pretty sure 735 is a gross abuse of power considering the only people that are being protected under it are Biotech corporations and the farmers that grow their crops. It is a safeguard keeping them from not being able to sell or plant said crops if a court (even SCOTUS) ruled they were somehow wrong or ended up harming someone. Merely protecting their interests and bottom lines. They’re able to bypass the laws of the country with their money. If there was no possibility that they could harm someone why would they need it? But then again I’m still on the fence, not for or completely against the GE crops because I have yet to hear one totally damning, or one completely redeeming quality that isn’t negated by the environmental impact of pesticides and herbicides but I will admit I am skeptical.

    • I am not even against GE….yet being attacked. These are activists here on the opposite end of MAAM.

    • For one, the sec 735 expires in a few months. You’d think if this was some dead of night power grab, it would be a bit more permanent.

      Two, This was largely in response to Big Org suing that GM Sugar Beets didn’t go through enough envirnmental testing before approval. When, the lower court in California agreed, it was ordered that no future plantings occur and present plantings be destroyed. This would’ve thrown the whole supply of sugar into turmoil, causing widespread shortages.

      As bad as that was, if this was a ruling against GM corn, that may have lead to a global shortage of food, considering the US’s dominance in that market.

      So this law simply says, let’s review it scientifically before we cause hardships. Nowhere does it provide liability protection nor does it say to the FDA and USDA that, if they find the crop in question to be faulty, they still must permit it. NOTE: This applies to all crops and organisms, not just GM.

      • Mark you would GM would get much more support from the general population, if there was transparency. Yes the debate is very political. The FDA must recognize that any crop that is altered is indeed “not natural” and change policies. Until then, simple moderates like myself, requesting a label that can track the proteins altered & pesticides will open up independent reviews. Therefore, middle of the “roaders” will side with MAAM, Organic’s etc.)

        And, of course, the systematized attacks on those indpendent Scientists will have to stop. (Big Ag, Shills, minions alike) They are repressing Science. GE has the “potential” to help but has created more problems than really helping anyone but Big Ag. No GE crop is feeding any hungry person thus far & Golden Rice is years away…..if proven no harm…& people will eat the food this will indeed be a great plus for GE in Ag. Nutrition & Taste need to improve along with causing no harm to the environment (waterways, soil, mammals, insects, fish, etc). I am all for applying this concept to Organic farming. FDA/USDA need to step up to the plate & protect its land & citizens.

        So, I will promote NO NEW FOOD & a Label until they begin to start evaluating & also require longer term studies on the affects on human health. They have to stop rubber stamping all GM crops & studies done by Big Ag as there is an obvious bias. (I am not too thrived that glycophsate is being metabolised and passed thru my system….at all)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s