22 comments on “Maybe Before Believing Every anti-GMO Article & Meme, Do Some Vetting?

  1. I very well written article and extremely difficult to dispute. Which is probably why no one is trying !

    – FO

    • GMO Answers should be mandatory reading before one becomes an activist! If I had started there instead of Institute of Responsible Technology I could have skipped those unfortunate seven months!

  2. I’m not sure how you would explain Dr. Thierry Vrain, a retired GMO scientist with over 30 years experience working with the Canadian govt and biotech companies. He categorically refutes industry claims that GMO technologies are safe, properly vetted, or that they achieve the claims that GMO farming protects soil, reduces pesticide use, and increases yields.

    • Dr. Vrain’s claims are not supported by the vast majority of the science community worldwide, which basically means that the preponderance of evidence does not support what he believes. If his claims indeed have merit, scientists should and would be knocking on his door to repeat and further the research because this would be huge news, and big boons to careers, but scientists are not knocking on his door. Why? Because the evidence leads elsewhere. Good science follows evidence, not beliefs and opinions. There is a thread in FB that completely trashes what Vrain says. If you want to know what science really thinks of him, go here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/345803832225540/

      He is one of a small group who ignore the preponderance of evidence and instead frighten people with scary beliefs that sound impressive but are misrepresenting science. Contrary to popular anti-GMO belief, all plant scientists do not work for biotech. Many are independent researchers, public scientists who LOVE plant genetics and live it every day. They are in the lab every day. Day in day out. They love agriculture and the earth. They want to do more with less – feed more people and use fewer resources. These are the experts I trust.

      If you don’t believe me, go to GMO Answers and ask a scientist your question. See what they say. I am certainly not a scientist, but I trust the scientists I am in contact with – in the same way I trust my doctor, my lawyer and my hair stylist.

      Bottom line is: the technology has much to offer our world and of course, we should be prudent in its use, as we should be prudent about everything done in agriculture.

      • AT one time the majority thought the world was flat. I don’t base science on the majority but on the truth. Industrial agriculture has done a tremendous amount of harm globally. You should consider the source of your information, how they acquired it, question it and hold it under the light.

      • The only ‘science’ that has been conducted on GMOs is industry science. Monsanto et al do not allow independent researchers to study their GMOs. The only studies that exist have been vetted, monitored and approved by the industry that produces GMOs. This is NOT science in the strictest sense of the word; this is marketing.

      • @Robert, simply not true, for several years now.

        I’ll direct to Karl haro von Mogel on biofortified.org to expound. Also, it was never true in Europe and elsewhere as US patent laws have no jurisdiction outside of the US.

      • GMO food is Margarine science. 40 years ago margarine was the new food now look at it. Your choice but don’t mess with mother nature.

      • I don’t go to Facebook pages for definitive answers…

        First there are two very basic premises that folks eager to attack those who have legitimate concerns about GE make:

        1. We’ve been genetically modifying for thousands of years
        2. Recombinant techniques only target individual emzymes/proteins.

        1. We have been SELECTING for thousands of years… this is what nature does, and we do it to intensify desired results… this is not without problems, as the legions of inbred dogs/cats/horses demonstrate, but the integrity of the basic biology is intact. Not so for the genetic sequences we are concocting. We know that genes are not like elements – they are not all stable, and react with the environment. What they can do to entire ecosystems is mostly not known… but the case of the disappearing Monarchs is one example of unintended consequences.

        2. The idea of one gene/ one protein is almost 40 years out of date. The human genome identified about 25K gene sequences. There are at least 100K types of proteins in our system. Manipulating one gene can have consequences on many different proteins, not just the one you are trying to target. Most studies try to find differences in known allergens in GM vs organic soy and can’t find them, not too surprising. Only one study I know of made a an attempt to find new allergens for GM soy vs. organic, and found an allergen in the GM not seen in conventional soy. These are very hard studies to conduct, and of course the corporations are not interested.

        And the only problem that GE food appears to be solving is how agribusiness can improve their profits. The rest of us are left to deal with the consequences.

        And GE hasn’t really lived up to most of the hype:

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

        http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/09/198051447/as-biotech-seed-falters-insecticide-use-surges-in-corn-belt

        Almost all of the hunger issues on this planet are an issue of access (wars, politics, Goldman Sachs speculating up grain prices, etc.) and environmental damage (water, soil degradation and increasingly climate disruption).

        Better farming practices that would have an immediate benefit to local farmers and the local economy in almost all cases. Rotating crops can solve root worm issues without Bt insertion into the genes..

  3. He is not the only scientist who says GMO’s are not doing us any benefit at all. Anyone that opposes this technology with science of their own can expect the incredible backlash from a powerful industry with a shoddy reputation. I would like to see REAL evidence that any of these products have done anything other than filling their pockets. I have had enough evidence of my own AND personal experiences to back them up that I will never believe this is anything else than an industry fueled by pure greed.

    • Sheryl – I would suggest that you thoroughly research golden rice for starters. No greed there whatsoever – only the desire to help people. One of the original co-founders of Greenpeace is totally in favor of furthering golden rice research and getting to the people who need it. http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/

      • Golden Rice is nonsense — it’s been shown that a poor child lacking vitamin A in their diet would need to eat some 20 bowls of rice per day to benefit from it. Greenpeace actually spoke out AGAINST Golden Rice. Please do your research…

      • Robert, you are woefully out of date. The current strains of Golden rice will provide sufficient betacarotene to prevent most ravages of VAD with just a half a cooked cup. 1/2 cup is far less than what those kids do eat in a day.

  4. I KNOW that Greenpeace has made Golden Rice their poster child against biotech. If you did your research you’d know that one of their former own, Patrick Moore, is now describing Greenpeace as lacking a moral compass because of their opposition to Golden Rice.
    http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/about

    The opposition to GR is a moral travesty. Makes me sad. Must be easy to wave your beliefs around and make decisions for whole populations when you have your sight and your belly is full.

  5. Robert I used to be just like you… recited all the stuff I learned from GM Watch and Institute of Responsible Technology. I was fresh from Genetic Roulette and ready to wave my flag against GMOs. I was a great soldier for the movement but after looking deeper into it than just what came up in google and butting heads with reputable scientists, I learned that I did not have the slightest idea what I was talking about. There is SO MUCH more to this than the lies the activists are feeding you. I don’t even know where to begin. I hope you will take the time to visit GMO Answers and Biofortified, or poke around http://kfolta.blogspot.com/ where an INDEPENDENT, NON-BIOTECH EMPLOYED plant geneticist tries to set people straight about what’s really going on with GMOs and occasionally other topics. Also try http://www.gmosf.org/wiki/index.php?title=GMO_SF_Wiki%3AHeadliners

  6. “looks like it stepped write off the pages of the old style tabloid” Really, you call yourself a writer ( or should I say righter? ). Typical supposed debunker that offers nothing in terms of evidence.

    • Jean, my blog offers evidence all over the place, in addition to links to evidence all over the place via links to studies, quotes and interviews with reputable scientists who work in the field of genetics, molecular biology, statistics, etc (and NO, they don’t work for Monsanto). The question is, would you consider the evidence or would your fear of GMOs cloud all judgement?

      First of all, nothing can be proven 100% safe. There are always exceptions. Take something as basic as water, for example. It is necessary to life and yet even a small amount of it can kill you if it gets in your lungs. The danger is in the dose and/or the method.

      The kind of doom and peril that activists preach about GMOs just isn’t there in the science. I found that out through my own digging. So now, yes, I poke a bit of fun at the memes that are created to scare people because I used to indeed be one of those people. Knowledge set me free.

  7. Hi I’m neither for or against GMOs at this point. I am simply trying to gather information. Can you point me to anything that has studies regarding uterine cancer and roundup and/or other GMO info. I have gone to the GMO answers site you suggest. I just looking for everything I can find on uterine cancer, roundup and other GMO info and uterine cancer. thanks

  8. Mr or Mrs “JK”, who is paying you for this foolish but well-placed propaganda? Do you honestly believe that subjective half-research presented in some blog on the “those activists are liars and fools who put aluminum foils on their heads and think 911 is some conspiracy theory” basis will divert people from questioning and being skeptical? From realizing that money and profit are the utmost goals of big corporations, some of which just happen to be in food industry? That they won’t blink knowing that their maximization of profits / reduction of costs results in harmful poor quality nutrition?

    • Well to be honest, I have cut way back on blogging because I DON’T make any money and it is very time consuming. I simply learned how to ‘science’ and it changed me. My positions in all things are science based, evidence based. I don’t know how to be any clearer than that. Good luck to you.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s