GMOs and science worshippers are the real global terror threat.

It doesnt take a "study" to determine that when humans mess around with genes they are playing a dangerous unethical game.
Just because you can build an A bomb doesnt mean you should.

Genetic scientists are like infants playing with loaded guns.

No way JoseThe evil giant will let you die first. I'm saddened that you can't find another way to make your point. The current French ban is a sham and no nation should tolerate Monsantos' terminal seeds and tied-in contracts!!! It's madness!!
Bravo Jose for being one of the few with balls!! I pray Europe sees sense. Best wishes.

Merci bou coup, Jose! and hope you drink good water, on your fast, and see from the mountain top clearly...of course GMO Water made from air, is next

Bravo Jose! Thank heavens that the Europeans have functioning brains.

If Mr. Bove goes on a hunger strike, does this somehow prove that there is something inherently evil, harmful or dangerous about genetic engineering?

If Mr. Bove goes on a hunger strike, does this constitute evidence that DNA and protein which is harmless if it got into a plant or animal by random chance is harmful if it was put there intentionally by humans?

If Mr. Bove goes on a hunger strike, does this mean that it is better to spray corn fields with petroleum-based pesticides than to use varieties which have been modified to express a biodegradable protein that is toxic only to certain worms, flies and beetles?

If Mr. Bove goes on a hunger strike, does this mean that it is better to use energy-intensive fertilizers than to use crops that have been engineered to fix their own nitrogen from the atmosphere?

If Mr. Bove goes on a hunger strike, does this mean that poor farmers working marginal soils in pest-ridden or drought-prone regions should not have the benefit of crops that have been modified to be hardier, more productive, more nutritious, and less dependent on chemical inputs than the varieties they have had in the past?

If Mr. Bove goes on a hunger strike, does this mean that all of us who may understand his passion to protect the French small farmer but think his opposition to "GMO" is misinformed and misdirected, should hang our heads in shame and shut up?

Excuse me, but you go on a hunger strike when you have truth and morality on your side. You go on a hunger strike to shame those who know you are right but aren't doing right. You don't go on a hunger strike to win a scientific debate that you have lost because facts and reason are not on your side. That is just attempted bullying, and it deserves to be ignored.

Science is a method of understanding nature. Scientific discoveries can be used for good or evil. Businessmen cheerleaders are usually responsible for its evil applications. That is what Mr. Bove is protesting against.

Could Bove be a roundup resistant weed?
Maybe it's time for someone to give the next var. of roundup resistance
the honorary title of Bove.

anyway,

...what's the news on the FDA and GMO these days?
And what's this thing about roundup resistant soy?
uh., duh, I mean, roundup resistant coca?

heh.e

re 2:13pm

more sophistry from mr. science uber alles, who asks rhetorically if bove's protest renders gmos "inherently evil."

no, what renders them evil is actions such as monsanto's use of intellectual "property" laws to bludgeon poor farmers worldwide into perpetual serfdom; its all-out, scorched-earth fight to avoid labelling its products truthfully; and its cavalier dismissal of the aboriginal right of farmers to save their seed for next year's crops.

what is NOT inherently evil about a blatant attempt to monopolize food production?

Thank you, hazmat! I would challenge Mr. Mark Adams to come clean about who is works for and/or what institution he is shilling for. He is like a record with a scratch in it: the same "science is great" theme, with no social or economic analysis. Doesn't he know GMOs are all about the profit motive in the hands of corporate monopolies? Since when have GMOs led to less use of toxic chemicals? All his statements are at best half truths.

Bravo et chapeau to Jose Bove. The idea is to keep this in the public eye, and show the temporary French ban to be imperfect and a facade. I wish we had more Jose Bove's in this world. We need to clone him! Ha!! (Just kidding.) Food sovereignty and seed saving is critical for the future of agriculture and, indeed, of humanity.

Mark Abram wrote that Jose Bove's hunger strike is"... attempted bullying." ROFLMAO! Anybody who has been bullied by this act of moral courage and Earth wisdom, step forward and present your case.

Ignore Mark Abram! I don't know what rock he crawled out from under, but he is full of nonsense and misinformation. As far as I can figure out he is a troll. DON"T FEED THE TROLL!

I see you did totally ignore the evidence, evidence that was directly posted (on at least one of the other threads), not a "loony link." And since we are mentioning "loony link[s]," it seems to me based on your history of posts that rather than either present evidence or use logic to state your case, you prefer to try to brush aside rebuttals with humor (going on about "red trucks" and such). In other words, you use logical fallacies. Might I suggest you pick up a copy of T. Edward Damer's Attacking Faulty Reasoning: Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. I admit it is pricey, but well worth it.

And we area still ignoring the fact that there is no material need for GMOs. And to introduce a new element, their the antidemocratic way in which they are being forced onto people. And for good measure, why not mention the precautionary principle. Have not the last 50 years shown use that it is better to proceed with too much care than it is to discover that the latest unnecessary crap being released into the environment is harmful. If GMOs disappear tomorrow, there may be some initial inconvenience, but the only ones who will miss it in the long run are Monsanto and their ilk.

Esteban Bartlett wrote:

> "I would challenge Mr. Mark Adams to come clean about who is works for and/or what institution he is shilling for."

I speak the truth. I don't get paid to do it. How about you?

> "He is like a record with a scratch in it: the same "science is great" theme,"

Dude, science is science. It's the organized accumulation, testing, and coalescing of knowledge. It informs and empowers us.

> "with no social or economic analysis."

Can we at least agree that biology and biotechnology is one thing, social and economic analysis is something else?

> "Doesn't he know GMOs are all about the profit motive in the hands of corporate monopolies?

How does this distinguish GMOs from certified organic corn flakes, solar panels, lingerie, bicycles and health care? Don't you know that everything is all about the profit motive in the hands of corporate monopolies? Or does your social and economic analysis begin and end with genetic engineering?

> "Since when have GMOs led to less use of toxic chemicals?"

Since Bt corn and glyphosate-resistant crops were introduced, for two examples.

> "All his statements are at best half truths."

Wrong. You put all my statements together, they still amount to much much less than 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of the truth, but they are true nonetheless. There is no basis in science for Mr. Bove's (or anybody else's) fear of genetic engineering in agriculture.

I don't want to buy seeds from Monsanto to grow food for my family. I don't use chemicals to grow my food and there is no way to take thier chemicals out of thier seeds. If someone is trying to grow plants on bad soil they should ammend the soil or choose a more suitable condition. There are so many alternatives to multi-million dollar research patented propriatary developed seeds. Take all that investment money and you could feed everyone in the world.

Is the resident proponent still ignoring the cited evidence (on other recent threads) showing conclusively harm done by certain GMOs? And is he still ignoring the fact that there is no material need for GMOs? Just curious.

Yes.

And if your a Monarch butterfly better start thinking "museum quality" replica.

Treefrog -

Years after the headlines announcing the imminent demise of the beloved monarch butterfly due to evil GMO corn have petered out and gone away, we know that the original research on which this dire warning was based was flawed (Bt was not expressed in the pollen that the butterflies might eat), and that transgenic Bt crops have had no measurable impact on the butterfly population. Does Bt kill some butterflies? Maybe, but probably not nearly as many as were formerly killed by the pesticide sprays that transgenic Bt crops have rendered unnecessary.

Douglas Barnes-

I cannot possibly review every loony link on the web, but if you would like to pick out just one example of "evidence showing conclusively harm done by certain GMOs" I would be happy to address it; for now I'll reiterate that there is no scientific basis for the claim that genetic engineering in itself is harmful or particularly dangerous (especially as compared with alternatives).

Mark

The pollen from Bt corn does kill Monarch caterpillars and in the study of your reference it killed 44% of those that ate it. In the same study where no insecticide was used 0% died from corn pollen. That is what bt does it kills things. An otherwise fairly safe bacteria used in farming is being exploited and resistance has developed in some species like moths.

See this is what an honest attempt to address the issue looks like.

This is what you support:

Monsanto - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Treefrog -

No studies have shown any impact from Bt maize production on Monarch butterfly populations. Bt maize might kill some butterflies but actually it is probably not very dangerous to them because the Bt toxin is not expressed in the pollen, but in other parts of the plant which the butterfly caterpillars don't eat. In contrast, spraying a field with a standard insecticide will kill butterfly caterpillars and every other bug.

I doubt you really care to learn you're wrong about this, but here is a quick review from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis

"The most celebrated problem ever associated with Bt crops was the claim that pollen from Bt maize could kill the monarch butterfly [18]. This report was puzzling because the pollen from most maize hybrids contains much lower levels of Bt than the rest of the plant [19] and led to multiple follow-up studies. In the end, it appears that the initial study was flawed; based on the way the pollen was collected, they collected and fed non-toxic pollen that was mixed with anther walls that did contain Bt toxin [20]. The weight of the evidence is that Bt crops do not pose a risk to the monarch butterfly [21].

[18] Losey, J.E., L.S. Raynor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214
[19] Mendelsohn, M., J. Kough, Z. Vaituzis, and K. Matthews. 2003. Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotechnology 21:1003-1009
[20] Hellmich, R.L., B.D. Siegfried, M.K. Sears, D.E. Stanley-Horr, M.J. Daniels, H.R. Mattila, T. Spencer, K.G. Bidne and L.C. Lewis. 2001. Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis -purified proteins and pollen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:11925-11930
[21] http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/

Dude, I don't "support" Monsanto. I oppose this mindless campaign against a Green technology with important benefits both to the environment and to humans.

Mark

There is more than one type of Bt Corn and at least one type that carries the bt toxin in pollen. It is one of the issues with Starlink corn and the reason it is not used independent of other procedures. It does pass on the traits to wild species. It is true that Monarch caterpillars do not feed directly on corn pollen and that other factors co-exist but there is bt pollen and it does kill Monarch caterpillers. It is a larvicide. I'm not making this up I could post all sorts of linear studies here. New ways to slow resistance by requiring non-engineered plants be included. It just isn't the way you say it is and there are lots of other consequences besides the fact that in some areas 74% of Monarch butterflies use agricultural areas for reproduction. I havn't read you links but I will. I wonder if you read the one I posted. If you did read it, then you would understand that you cannot seperate monsanto out of this technology.

An after thought here is that I'm not a dude and for some people this stuff is not just statistics or words on a page. It's real and it has consequences.

Treefrog -

There are many varieties of Bt crops and none of them has any documented impact on Monarch butterfly populations.

The only issue with Starlink corn was that it hadn't been approved for human consumption. Nobody ever got sick from it and there was never any reason to think anybody would. But something like $200M worth of perfectly good food was destroyed just to make a point, and it does show how excessive the concern about and regulation of GM crops has been.

Passage of genes from GM corn to non-GM types other than by mixing of seeds has not been documented. The famous Nature paper alleging such transfer of genes was discredited and withdrawn; see:

# ^ Quist D and Chapela IH. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543
# ^ Editor, Nature. 2002. Editorial note. Nature 416: 601
# ^ S. Ortiz-García,* E. Ezcurra,*† B. Schoel,‡ F. Acevedo,§ J. Soberón,§¶ and A. A. Snow. Absence of of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004) 2005. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 102(35): 12338–12343.

Yes, the campaign against biotechnology is real but the alleged dangers are imaginary. The benefits of this technology for humans and the environment are real and so are the consequences of denying people the use of this technology on the basis of dangers which are not real.

Again, there is no material need, medical or nutritional, for GMOs. GMO's might make the production of certain medicines a little simpler, but there are two immediately apparent problems with that. The first is that the current work into producing insulin, for example, is being done in corn, which is an extremely bad idea for reasons that should be readily understood. The second reason is the unforeseeable affects of modifying a species that is not directly consumed by humans. What affect will there be on individual species within the ecosystem to which the new organism is introduced, immediate or tertiary? How might this hinder the stability of the ecosystem as a whole? Individual species? What possible knock-on effects could occur? In a system with the complexity of nature, these are only questions that can be answered by creating the damage then observing it once it already occured.

Thus we come once again to the precautionary principal. The wisest course of action is not to introduce a risk that potentially could be very great. To barge ahead anyway might be called "Green" (or "Green TM") as the public relations industry uses the term, but not "green" as is meant by the people who started using the term.

PS. Dr. Arpad Pusztai study shows GMOs being harmful.

PPS. A recent study out Indiana University published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences shows that GE corn has the potential to harm aquatic ecosystems (increased mortality and reduced growth in
caddisflies). Here's the brief:

"Corn (Zea mays L.) that has been genetically engineered to produce the Cry1Ab protein (Bt corn) is resistant to lepidopteran pests. Bt corn is widely planted in the midwestern United States, often adjacent to headwater streams. We show that corn byproducts, such as pollen and detritus, enter headwater streams and are subject to storage, consumption, and transport to downstream water bodies. Laboratory feeding trials showed that consumption of Bt corn byproducts reduced growth and increased mortality of nontarget stream insects. Stream insects are important prey for aquatic and riparian predators, and widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences.

In other words, your claim is false.