READER COMMENTS ON
"European Scientists Say Debate Over GMO Safety Far From Over"
(11 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 10/25/2013 @ 6:44 pm PT...
What news editors fail to tell you;
*The climate change consensus was a 30 year old consensus of “maybe” and never “will be” a crisis.
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations.
* Not one IPCC warning explains the tropical fossils under both polar caps proving this climate of today has obviously happened before.
*Not one IPCC warning isn’t drowning in “maybes”.
* The poor little polar bear was indigenous to as far south as Minnesota upon settlement but called the yellow bear because it retained its summer coat longer, but still the same fr&^^% bear.
*Science gave us the pesticides they denied for decades as being toxic and made environmentalism necessary in the first place after they apparently poisoned the planet with their evil chemicals.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 10/25/2013 @ 6:55 pm PT...
I came VERY close to deleting your comment, as knowing disinformation in violation of our few rules for commenting at The BRAD BLOG. Specifically, for the first several completely bullshit bullet points you offered.
But I actually believe you may believe that bullshit. So, please let me know how a 95% confidence by thousands of scientists, as documented in the latest IPCC report does not represent a consensus of man-made global warming. If you're unable to offer independently verifiable evidence for that, the privilege you currently enjoy in posting here without restriction will soon end. I'm getting really tired of bullshit garbage like that.
Thanks in advance.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 10/25/2013 @ 8:06 pm PT...
Perhaps I may be mistaking Meemine69 for someone else Brad, but I think Des has called this individual out previously for posting disinformation. If so, he/she should, as a minimum, be moved into moderation.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2013 @ 3:16 am PT...
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 10/26/2013 @ 7:39 am PT...
While you, and the article you cite, Paulo Andrade, correctly note that science does not work "by consensus," it is scientifically unsound to claim that the debate is over and that GMOs are safe on the basis of deficient studies that do not substantiate claims made by those with a vested financial interest that GMOs have been scientifically proven to be safe.
Curiously, while insisting that science does not work by consensus, the authors of the linked article insist that the proof of GMO safety lies in the fact that all the national academies of science agree that GMOs are safe.
Like the developers of a new prescription medication, companies like Monsanto have the burden of proof. What the ENSSER statement reveals is that, to date, that burden has not been met. It is not just scientifically unsound but irresponsible to claim a food product is safe on the basis of junk science.
And, while we're on the subject of food safety, Paulo Adrade, have you considered the possible impact of biotechnology with respect to the need to introduce chemical pesticides, such as Monsanto's Roundup? See Argentines Link Health Problems To Agrochemicals.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2013 @ 1:23 pm PT...
Dr. Andrade @ 4 said:
Please check a detailed discussion on ENSSER statement at http://genpeace.blogspot...ic-consensus-on-gmo.html
Thanks for the link. However, that's not a "discussion", detailed or otherwise. That's your statement, posted on your blog, in response to the ENSSER study. Perhaps there's a language difference between American English and your equivalent in Brazil?
In any case, I see that you show up all over the place in vigorous support of GMOs and claim to be a Professor of Genetics at the Federal University of Pernambuco in Recife Brazil. You don't note it anywhere on your blog that I can find, but is your research or your blog or any of your work undersritten by pro-GMO corporations like Monsanto by any chance? Some transparency would be very helpful there. So please feel free to share, so we can adequately appreciate your point of view.
Particularly curious about that, since it looks like many of your colleagues routinely dispute your assertions. For example, here are some of them who have replied in some detail, with excellent sourcing, to you in this comment thread here: http://www.bioscienceres...d-gm-crops/#comment-8029
I note you did not reply in turn in that actual discussion.
So, for the sake of science and transparency, please let us know who the interests are who fund your work, and we can go from there. Beyond that, thanks for stopping by!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 10/28/2013 @ 10:43 am PT...
The vigorous opposition to GMO foods is not a position taken by most scientist in the field. The most valid complaint, IMO, is the control that Monsanto and their ilk has on the industry which is, in large part, the result of US patent law and its recognition of patents on living organism's genetics. Opposition to GMO is a luxury of the well fed.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 10/28/2013 @ 11:06 am PT...
Carver @7 wrote:
Opposition to GMO is a luxury of the well fed.
I'm afraid, Carver, that you've have bought into another Biotech industry myth --- that GMO crops produce higher yields.
As noted by Tom Philpott at Mother Jones, USDA funded research revealed that while some GMO plots revealed modest gains, others did not. "Several even showed lower yields than non-GM counterparts."
In that same article, Philpott points to a Washington State Univ. study which "demonstrated that the net effect of GMOs in the United States has been an increase in use of toxic chemical inputs."
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 10/28/2013 @ 11:54 pm PT...
Thanx for weighing in on this topic BB!! In regards to the last final comment by Ernest, the the increase in herbicides on GM mono-crops to fight the super weeds that have cropped up resistant to the herbicide/insecticide requires MORE herbicide and now A 2ND APPLICATION is used when the crops are cut. The herbicide known as glyphosate is also in the seed of the plant so the toxin is ingested by the American consumer and builds up in the human body. This is a secondary dangerous health concern in addition to the known and unknown health risks of GM food since it HAS NOT BEEN TESTED PROPERLY AND LACKS ANY LONG TERM STUDIES ON HUMANS BECAUSE THAT TAKES APPROX 30 YEARS!
If GMO's were so good for people, then why would Monsanto of Agent Orange fame, Dow, Dupont, Bayer, Sergenta, and the corporate CONGLOMERATE known as the Grocery Food Manufacturers ie. (including Coke and Pepsi) care if it said GMO on a label??? Why spend million and millions of dollars on a dirty campaign of lies and disinformation to defeat the labeling amendment like the 48 million spent in CA last year?
The fckers took GMO's out of Europe's food when they said no way but in this country where politicians are bought and paid for, they got their people in high places. 1 of Obama's 1st term appointments was former lawyer VP of MONSANTO michael taylor as the head of the FDA. That should explain a lot why the average American eats 150 lbs of GM food a year in 2013.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 10/29/2013 @ 12:04 am PT...
FYI, to get the bigger picture, people should also investigate how the US Pentagon and Pfizer Pharmaceutical are also behind the GMO producers.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 11/1/2013 @ 3:08 pm PT...
GrizzlyBearDancer - I'm trying to imagine dancing with a Grizz. I'd think rather dance with a great white.
I agree. Just label the damn stuff so WE can choose.
For example, in my opinion, altering DNA may be ok and not much of a threat in my digestive acids but may wreck havoc in the environment and for that reason I don't want to buy it.
From what I have seen the facts are not all in yet - there appears to be cross-pollination or some other form of genetic transfer to other or similar species in the vicinity of these modified plants and I'm really uncomfortable with that.
Also, DNA, once modified, doesn't affect just one gene, it is likely to affect a whole host of genes.
There is only 1 reason you would not allow your food to be labeled - there IS something wrong with GMOs, they know it, and a lot of us out here know it.
Right wingers, brain dead doesn't even come close.