Published: Monday, June 9 2014 12:16 p.m. MDT
"Scientific American published an article discussing research on the inert
ingredients in herbicides like Roundup in 2009."Scientific
American said "'This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in
Roundup formulations are not inert,' wrote the study authors from
France’s University of Caen. 'Moreover, the proprietary mixtures
available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual
levels' found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn,
or lawns and gardens."In our commercial system we rush products
to market before we know their carcinogenic effects. Half of all cancers have
an environmental component, but we don't know the mechanisms.
Question – are we even able to conduct control group, peer reviewed
studies designed by scientists with no conflict of interest on most of these
products? My understanding is most of these (GMO’s) are patent
protected and therefore cannot be studied by anyone but the companies who own
them, a situation which calls to mind Upton Sinclair’s truism – "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends upon his not understanding it"With the
proliferation of GMO’s over the last 30 years, we are conducting an
enormous experiment on our population – except without proper controls to
isolate other variables from a single independent variable, it may be difficult
to make cause and effect connections.However, since many countries
have already banned these products, this may have the unintentional result of
setting up the experimental group we need - namely, us – with much of
Western Europe acting as the control group. Don’t experimental
subjects typically get paid to play the guinea pig?
In your opinion, GMOs are OK. But you don't know. Neither do I. What I
do know and believe is that it is a good thing to label and then let consumers
make their own decisions. Can't you come out and say that, and push back
on the corporate food industry to allow consumers to be informed?
I've read that several genetically modified crops are made to have their
own pesticides. Now bees are dying off so much so that it is a significant
concern. Could it be that the pesticides in genetically modified crops are the
cause of bees dying off?
When we naturally cross breed one strain of plant with another we are pushing
mother nature along - not changing things up entirely. Genetic modification can
be quite a bit more radical. The possible effects are much harder to model
accurately as often there is no precedent.Does this mean we should
not do it? No. But caution and study first should be the rule.The
law of unintended consequences has never been rescinded (and never will be). We
should text exhaustively and over the long term before allowing GMOs into the
Of course scientific research should continue, but I'd like to point out
one thing... The "scientific consensus" is that GMOs have no greater
risk than other foods.What happened to accepting "Scientific
Consensus"??? We insist people accept "Scientific Consensus" on
Climate Chaos... but on this one... the same people who are pushing Climate
Chaos DENY Scientific Consensus on GMOs...If you Google
"GMO" or "Genetically modified organism" (wikipedia) and read
the "Controversy" section... it states "There is broad scientific
consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk
than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human
population from ingesting GM food."So... who are the
"Deniers" of "Science" and "Consensus" this time???
Dear Marxist, please research the true facts. The GMO Study By Gilles-Eric
Seralini retracted. David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding
of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said it was "clear from even a
superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication".We have been eating GMO foods since Gregor Johann Mendel stated it in
1800's. GMOs are generally crops that are made from plants with superior
genetics found in the nature already. Using modern techniques these traits are
isolated and then seed with the trait is bread more efficiently that waiting for
the randomness of nature. Roundup resistant crop exist in nature already and we
eat them without knowing which ones they are and have no problem with that
ignorance. When a company tells us they are resistant then someone throws a fit
before researching the facts.
It may just be coincidence and there may or may not be any correlation but...
Isn't it interesting as GMO's are becoming more common
place that obesity rates are skyrocketing?
How it works is that a patented GMO is aligned with a specific patented
pesticide so that they must be used jointly. The problem then is two-fold:
One, we no longer can use basic "free" seeds from nature for food; seeds
are now patented by the major food companies so that the farmer (and we as
consumers) must continue to pay those patents, and the seeds of our food supply
increasingly are dependent on a few massive seed providers who control them.
And two, changing the genetic properties of the seeds and food removes them from
nature, so that basic natural processes that have evolved over millions of years
are now disrupted. Will we as a society then have to rely on paying
Monsanto to combat weeds and pests and replace God's natural order?I'm so afraid conservatives, in their zeal for anti-science and
anti-intellectualism for the all mighty short-term dollar, will bypass research
and promote GMOs at the peril of our children and grandchildren.
@Esquire,I have a suggestion. If you don't trust the
"corporate food industry"... and you want to know for sure everything
that's in your food... grow it yourself!Then you would know for
sure what's in it. And you wouldn't have to trust the evil
"corporate food industry". And you wouldn't be contributing your
$$$ to the advancement of the "corporate food industry". The evil "corporate food industry" that made America great, insures
Americans are well fed, and allows us to help feed the world, I might add.But if you don't trust these corporations... the solution seems
obvious to me. Just plow some land in your back yard and grow your OWN food!
Totally organic... no fertilizers or weed killers... I'll bet you'll
get pretty hungry though...
It might put things in better perspective to understand exactly how many people
have died because of GMO technology, and compare that number with estimates of
how many people would have died of starvation or been killed in wars and social
unrest that would have resulted without the added food produced from technology.
My thinking is that the ratio would weigh vastly in favor of technology.The world has a food surplus today thanks to improvements in the
technology of food production. Changes introduced by scientists ever proved to
be a mixed blessing, but the downside of feeding a world of billions of starving
people is not quite as clear. The further science investigation that is needed
should not be aimed at condemning the technology, but rather with a focus on
continuing to improve it for the benefit of a hungry world.
cjb states"I've read that several genetically modified crops are
made to have their own pesticides. Now bees are dying off so much so that it is
a significant concern. Could it be that the pesticides in genetically modified
crops are the cause of bees dying off?"What you are referring to is
the recent reports that neonecotinacides are killing bees. that
"research" has really made it's rounds in the press BUT it is
seriously flawed and does not prove anything. Dosages given to bees were 50 to
over 100 times what they should of been. Bees were made to directly digest it
which is not the way bees get it in nature. Many, many independent variables
were not factored in the research. Actual bee researchers are reviewing it and
totally disagree with the conclusions.
@2 bits – “So... who are the "Deniers" of "Science"
and "Consensus" this time???”These two (climate change
and GMO’s) are not analogous for a couple of reasons.First,
GMO is a word like “drug” – there’s aspirin and
there’s heroin. What these have in common is only that each affects our
physiology. After that, the commonalities largely disappear.GMO’s are like this and are rapidly changing all the time. Just because
one genetic modification may be safe doesn’t say anything about all the
others.Second, and most importantly – no one has a patent on
the climate so it can be studied by disinterested scientists from around the
world without the corrupting influence of tremendous financial gain.This distinction makes all the difference in the world when it comes to
science, which is not to say that GMO’s are unsafe – only that they
have not been studied with anywhere near the objectivity & rigor that
climate change has.
Mister J - You hit the nail on the head. GMO's, along with herbicides,
pesticides, and fertilizers, have one purpose--increase the amount of food that
can be produced by an acre of land. For much of history, mankind has been
afflicted by starvation and famine across the vast majority of the world. Today
these problems have been largely eliminated in most of the world, and are mostly
limited to areas where they farm without GMO's, herbicides, pesticides, and
fertilizers. So yes--our waistlines are increasing because we have more food.
For the first time in history, mankind is not starving. We need to stop the
witch hunt and start recognizing these modern miracles of science for the
blessings that they are.
I just hope that people don't come to some conclusions without true facts.
They might blame GMOs for autism, ADHD, and a host of other illnesses. They did
the autism thing with vaccinations, and now children are dying because of this
paranoia. Using the scientific method is the way to prove if some things are
Environmental Idiot you are mixing up GMO's and crop breeding. Crop
breeding is a natural process where the desired traits are selected an used for
breeding to make genetic improvement naturally. GMO's are not done
naturally, the plant is altered genetically. It is like playing God with crops.
Baron Scarpia, You are naive to consider this a conservative vs. liberal issue.
This is a big government in cahoots with with big business issue, that includes
scientists being paid, coerced or encouraged to give the "correct"
answer. I am a conservative who has marched against Monsanto and believe in
freedom of information, including the freedom to know whether I am eating GMOs.
Please don't label this fight as something it is not.
jcobabe 8:56 a.m. has a good point. We may want to compare the number of
people who have died from eating GMO crops yearly... with the number that die
every year in this world from starvation.====Quote from
"2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics"..."The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that
nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in
eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012. Almost all the
hungry people, 852 million, live in developing countries, representing 15
percent of the population of developing counties. There are 16 million people
undernourished in developed countries (FAO 2012)". We live in
America... so we don't suffer as much as people in other nations (because
of our Evil "corporate food industry". But starvation is still a
problem (worldwide).Should we go back to the agricultural methods
used in other countries?... I say "NO"!We make sure what we
are doing is safe (and it is) and we keep insuring our food supply is safe... We
do NOT give in to these granolas and move backwards!
@2bits. How can you prove it is safe? Just because people do not die instantly
from gmo foods doesn't mean it is safe. Cigarettes were also deemed safe 50
re: 2bits "We insist people accept "Scientific Consensus" on
Climate Chaos... but on this one... the same people who are pushing Climate
Chaos DENY Scientific Consensus on GMOs...You raise a very
interesting point. Just speaking for myself, I place the bar for GMO's
higher than for climate change because I am sticking the GMO's in my mouth.
I've worked in epidemiology so I know how complex the etiology of cancer
is. This has made we extremely wary about what I eat.Frankly, the
science of climate change is a whole lot easier than most of epidemiology.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments