Well, had you bothered with evidence, you would have found no harm from organics: Preharvest Evaluation of Coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Organic and Conventional Produce Grown by Minnesota Farmers in Journal of Food Protection, Volume 67, Number 5, 1 May 2004 , pp. 894-900(7)

Instead, you chose not to post a peer-reviewed scientific study, but a piece by a journalist. Very, very telling.

And not only that, the article points out the embarrassing little reality that organic farmers cannot spread manure on their fields but conventional farmers can. Manure vs. compost? Manure (i.e. conventional farming) is the riskier with respect to E. coli.

Here is a link to a balanced article on organic produce. My critique above was to point out that one can find controversy, even concerning food generally believed to be a safer choice. My point is that such controversy should not stop progress unless backed up by facts/science. A fair and scientific evaluation of safety should be conducted by knowlegable and impartial groups like government agencies that have been formed for this purpose. Please read the article at the attached link. It is not a slam on organic, but it may give some insight on the yardstick by which you judge new technologies.

P.S.
Douglas - If you are going to point out my typos ("if" for "is"), I think it is fair to point out your incorrect acronyme ("PNAC"). Based on your interpretation of the paper, I thought that you might be reading the Proceedings of the National Academy of Compost? I think that this is a jounal that might accept a paper prepared by you.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/June/organic.asp

I notice -surprise, surprise - that you still have not provided references to independent toxicology testing on GMOs you claim are safe (including animal feeding trials and double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials with a focus on sensitive populations). I also notice that you have provided no reference to support your claim regarding E. coli ("After all, you can always find more fictional unkowns [sic] to try to scare folks with. But where are the examples of such studies as conducted with the other food we eat?").

Regarding the caddisfly study, scroll up.

Also, the Lancet is one of the world's oldest peer-reviewed medical journals, not a tabloid. Similarly, the Scottish Crop Research Institute Annual Report is not a tabloid; it is as its name suggests. Nor is the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a tabloid. A further study I did not mention (didn't want to load you down with too much material that you would not bother to read anyway) is Transgenic Expression of Bean alpha-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas
Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry (i.e. not a tabloid). So the tabloid schtick is debunked.

Regarding PNAC vs. PNAS, weak. Very weak. A cartoon character (at least this is what I infer from your name) with an affinity for informal fallacies is lecturing me on how accidentally mixing acronyms on an internet thread is somehow relevant to one's capacity for either doing or interpreting science? Well, at least you didn't try passing off 'if' as a verb this time, so that's something. You did bring up the ominous specter of "unkowns, though...

Anyway, I will mention again that you are being careful not provide any information to prove your claims regarding E. coli or the safety of GMOs (i.e. animal and human feeding trials mentioned above).

Since I already know that you are not going to provide links but instead go off on some irrelevant rant, I think it is fair to say that I am done here. Since I see from your posting history here and elsewhere that you have a need to have the last word on everything, I invite you to knock yourself out. My time is better served elsewhere. In the words of Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin in their September 2006 piece in the journal Argumentation (see springer.com), "Surely we must recognize that some challenges are too trifling to bother with; after all, life is short and crackpots are a plenty."

My life is short, Obvious-sama, and I have things to do. So, knock yourself out and post a plenty.

Mr. Barnes: Yes - I noticed that you provide no references to anything, except tabloids. Oh wait you provide a reference to "PNAC" above. At first I thought it was a typo, but you repeat the mistake. Its PNAS (proceedings of the National Academy of Science). This might be an acceptible mistake from a lay person, but not from an experienced scientist. This is a premier science journal. But since you brought up the Rosi-Marshall PNAS paper on caddisflies, you may want to revisit what the Journal has now printed. In addition to critiques by university scientists, Rosi-Marshall has also printed a letter saying that her group overstated their conclusions. A couple of quotes from her letter follow:

"The goal of our feeding experiments was to determine whether trichopterans were at all susceptible to the effect of Cry1Ab protein, not to determine a safe level of exposure in a toxicological context."

"Regarding the concern of Beachy et al. and Parrot that the final sentence of our abstract overstated the conclusions, we agree that the sentence should have articulated the potential for ecosystem-scale cosiquences within streams, rather than suggesting that such consequences were observed in situ."

However, the most disturbing thing about the paper, is that the authors have field data showing no effect in actual streams near Bt corn fields that they failed to mention or reference. Such behavior is simply not acceptible for a scientist. Cherry-picking data may be acceptible for armchair ecologists to spout in chat rooms, but is inexcusable for scientists.

You can always find more fictional unkowns to try to scare folks with. But where are the examples of such studies as conducted with the other food we eat? Where is your so called proof that organic produce is not more dangerous than conventionally grown produce? Where do you think all the animal manure is going right now? Try commodody crops used for animal feed. Manure is being fully utilized right now on crops. The use of synthetic fertilizer is used because there simply is not enough animal manure available to meet crop needs. While I would not prevent the use of manure on food crops by those that wish to use it in this way, I certainly favor its use on non-food crops where it represents a lower risk. However, unlike you, I believe in letting folks buy what they wish, and if some group can be swayed by clever marketing to pay more for trendy organic food, then let them. By the way, we produce organically grown Christmas trees on our farm, along with high-intensity vegetables grown with conventional practices. So don't spout off about your deep knowledge of organic. Its a marketing gimick and it works!

I notice the complete absence of references to actual toxicological testing. I also notice the complete lack of evidence to back up your E. coli claims (thought that'd be easy considering that it is supposedly "well documented"). I notice a complete lack of evidence regarding your claims to my experience, too.

I do see shifting goalposts, though. And I see new unsubstantiated claims, too. I also see you seem to think that I have made some specific claim regarding the safety in general of GMOs and that I claim to be a better judge than someone else. Not that that is in any way surprising, given your posting history.

By the way, who, exactly (i.e. name names) is an ecoterrorist? And to give you a head start after (and if) you answer that, why is that not a total non-sequitur?

Oh, and you didn't read any of those papers, now did you. For shame.

Dougy, Dougy, Dougy - do you need a nap? Did you stay up past your bed time last night? Where's all the trials that you want showing that organic food is better than any otrher food or for that matter safe? Where are all your trials showing anything that you eat is safe based on blind trials conducted by "independent" researchers. Where's you proof that you are a better judge of what is safe than government scientists trained to determine safety (toxicologists)? If you want additional trials, why don'y you pay for them? Just buy grain at any elevator. Sure companies pay to have their own products tested for safety. Who do you think should fund this research? I sure do not want to fund research proving your next product idea is safe. I am glad that trained professionals are in charge and not unbalanced ecoterrorists.

If the edit didn't take, here's a backup:

Sniff. Sniff. Smells like a stalking troll.

No experience? Prove it.

More and more scientists imported from what countries to what country?

Did you know 'if' is not a verb?

E. coli? I see you are reading the discredited bullshit spewed out of Dennis Avery. Yawn.

Manure on crops? Did you know organic certifying organisations don't allow raw manure to be spread on crops? It must be either composted or aged long enough for pathogens to become inactive. Of course you didn't know that.

As for lack of harm from GM crops, read the Scottish Crop Research Institute Annual Report for 1996/97 (pages 70 to 72). Read the PNAC publication regarding caddisflies (but please, no B.S. about incomplete abstracts about incomplete field studies of an insect with a six week larval stage being tested for only 7 to 9 days and without an adequate control group in a non-agricultural stream and without data on the breakdown of the specimens). Read the PNAC publication that assesses the risk to monarchs - the one in which Event 176 Bt corn was in fact found to be very toxic to monarchs. Read Dr. Seralini's report on Monsanto's own data finding toxicity in rats fed MON 863. Read Dr. Pusztai's research published in the Lancet. That will do for starters.

You seem to think that your opinions, based on rhetoric, somehow are more informed than the university scientists that study these tools. Now it's is time to put your money where your mouth is and show this "well documented" evidence - from independent sources, mind you. The Hudson Institute is an industry-funded joke, as is Avery. Stick to public health offices, please and thank you.

And after that, you can be a responsible proponent and supply the necessary burden of proof for your position (i.e. you say it's safe, you have to prove it). Show us 1) independent animal feeding trials showing all strains of GM crops you are claiming are safe are indeed safe and most importantly 2) independent double-blind, placebo-controlled human trial with a focus on vulnerable groups like children, the elderly and those suffering from HIV, hepatitis or the like showing that each strain is safe. (Good luck finding whjat has not been done.)

Sniff. Sniff. Smells like a stalking troll.

No experience? Prove it.

More and more scientists imported from what countries to what country?

Did you know 'if' is not a verb?

E. coli? I see you are reading the discredited bullshit spewed out of Dennis Avery. Yawn.

Manure on crops? Did you know organic certifying organisations don't allow raw manure to be spread on crops? It must be either composted or aged long enough for pathogens to become inactive. Of course you didn't know that.

As for lack of harm from GM crops, read the Scottish Crop Research Institute Annual Report for 1996/97 (pages 70 to 72). Read the PNAC publication regarding caddisflies (but please, no B.S. about incomplete abstracts about incomplete field studies of an insect with a six week larval stage being tested for only 7 to 9 days and without an adequate control group in a non-agricultural stream and without data on the breakdown of the specimens). Read the PNAC publication that assesses the risk to monarchs - the one in which Event 176 Bt corn was in fact found to be very toxic to monarchs. Read Dr. Seralini's report on Monsanto's own data finding toxicity in rats fed MON 863. Read Dr. Pusztai's research published in the Lancet. That will do for starters.

You seem to think that your opinions, based on rhetoric, somehow are more informed than the university scientists that study these tools. Now it's is time to put your money where your mouth is and show this "well documented" evidence - from independent sources, mind you. The Hudson Institute is an industry-funded joke, as is Avery. Stick to public health offices, please and thank you.

And after that, you can be a responsible proponent and supply the necessary burden of proof for your position (i.e. you say it's safe, you have to prove it). Show us 1) independent animal feeding trials showing all strains of GM crops you are claiming are safe are indeed safe and most importantly 2) independent double-blind, placebo-controlled human trial with a focus on vulnerable groups like children, the elderly and those suffering from HIV, hepatitis or the like showing that each strain is safe. (Good luck finding whjat has not been done.)

It is always great to see do-gooders with no experience in anything but recreational gardening offering their forced wisdom on those that farm for a living. All this highly insightful "science" gives some insight into why more and more of our scientists are being imported from other countries. Neopaganism if alive and well in the west! I am glad in a free country that organic produce can be sold to the trendy but ignorant (right next to the blue corn chips). Maybe the next round of E. coli will wake some folks up, but I doubt it. I do think that the government regulators should require those that use manure on food crops to clearly label their products. Organic techniques can be used safetly, but the chance of food poisoning is well documented by actual sickness, unlike the total lack of documented harm of GM crops (excluding tabloid reports).

I neglected to point out that people are getting a 95% weed reduction by using a no-till roller and that organic farms have access to free labour via WWOOFers.

Farmerne, I think you have left the building and are not interested in hearing what I have to say.

Should I happen to be wrong, I'll offer the following brief ideas:

I assume your buyer is ADM or some similar outfit. If so, you might want to look at selling to others, namely to the final customers themselves.

Cooperating with regional producers is one way to create your own well-paying market. For example, you grow corn. A coop of local organic growers (what the market will pay a premium for) can set up their own processing factory (and others have done this) such as a taco and tortilla making outfit. There is better money in this than having ADM dictate your price.

And make that final product more valuable. In the words of a very successful local farmer (born in the city and farming for just 18 years) in my area, Sean McGivern, "Nothing leaves the farm that hasn't had some value added to it."

Diversify. Two crops on nearly 700 acres is a pest smorgasbord. Higher concentration of primary food source translates into higher concentration of secondary consumers (pests). Mr. McGivern has 1000 acres of organic and transition lands (i.e. not "pissant") and has cashed in on the rapidly expanding market for health grains like spelt, etc., giving him greater pest defense through greater diversity.

For corn specifically, intercropping with Melinis minutifolia and Desmodium uncinatum have given more than 80 % reduction to borer losses for farmers working with no pesticides whatsoever.

Expand market possibilities. Is your final product going to be Kosher? That gives access to several million more customers. Labeling laws in Japan changed in 1999 o 2000 (I don't remember the exact year) so that any soy product containing GM soy had to be labeled as such. The result was a total collapse of the market for GM soy. People had a choice and they made it. They could buy a cube of tofu with non-GM soy tofu for about USD$ 1 or the GM stuff for 15 cents U.S. My local market only tried to sell the GM stuff once. They had a huge pile of the stuff that no one would touch. Now there is a higher paying market for identity-preserved (IP) soy with a market of 125 million people wanting the stuff (the premium is around $160 per tonne on the IP soy). Yields are a little lower, but seed is cheaper, seeding rates are lower. The IP soy also comes in earlier than the GM stuff.
If your farm is an "average" farm, then USDA stats put the market value of a farm your size at about $310 per acre (compared to $6100 per acre on a 5-acre farm – See the 2002 Bureau of Census farm stats, Table 55). This is a huge challenge, as you are well aware. You might look to setting aside sections for things like forest (coppice crop for example, or long-term timber). If there is the population base nearby, you could set aside a "you farm" space for people to come in and tend their own gardens, as one of my clients is doing.

Finally, I am sorry that people attacked you here. This is not an excuse, but you should understand that people are very sensitive about what they eat. The FDA has declared that GM and IP foods have "substantial equivalence" – something the journal Nature has described as a "pseudo-scientific concept" that was "created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical and toxicological tests." The idea of substantial equivalence is based on the long-bankrupt "central dogma" of genetics, which says that one gene codes for the creation of one protein, end of story. This is utterly false. There are genes that don't code for protein creation and there are genes that, through RNA interactions, code for many proteins (the discovered record being 38,016 different proteins from a single gene).

Then there is the known problem of gene order. The order of genes effects outcome. What is the correct order of an artificially inserted gene? Then there is the issue of insertion. The insertion is not precise and can damage, rewrite or destroy existing genes in the host DNA. And there is plenty of opportunity for this because the alien gene may be inserted multiple times within the host DNA.

In short, claims to substantial equivalence are false, so claims to safety are false. Safety is unknown. Perhaps they are safe. Perhaps they had health-boosting properties. Perhaps they have long-term (and possibly even short term) health concerns. No one knows. No one.

Yes, fairly safe. Fairly is a relative term, mind you. There have been others that were far more harmful, that is for sure. However, I am not a fan of biocides, nor will I become on.

Speaking of relative terms, I should not have used the word "large." It means different things to Canadians (myself) and Americans. I should have asked if there was anything over 30,000 nearby.

I have been unable to check email, so I don't know if you send a message or not. If you do, I hope I can provide some info and ideas that might be helpful.

Douglas Barnes- I haven't used regular Roundup for many years. It's too expensive. I use the generic. Also, it's quite possible, hopeful, and in fact likely that the surfactant has been changed, perhaps multiple times, as companies love to come up with 'newer and (hopefully) better' as a marketing tool and profit booster.

farmerne, Nebraska is USDA zone 5, is it not? Are you near any major cities?

If you want some thoughts on increasing profitability and natural control of borers that just might be helpful, I could offer my ideas. Click my link then send me an email.

Indeed. Yet Roundup is the very commonly used. Glyphosate has other issues of acute and chronic toxicity, however.

Douglas Barnes- There are a number of different surfactants used with different glyphosate products. I would certainly hope that this particular surfactant has been discontinued. As the study says, THE GLYPHOSATE PRODUCT ITSELF WAS OK. Thank goodness there are people studying this stuff and sorting out the good from the bad.

How many hysterical posters on this subject have actually put in a crop? How many have actually been ON a farm and had the responsibility for making a financial success of this year's crop? Or do you just read wildly hysterical articles and complain about farmers with your mouth full?

Golddogs I am not an "idiot". I have been farming for 30 years on the farm where my family has lived for 70 years. And there is a big difference between your little pissant organic gardening and farming where you are trying to make a living and support a family. You call me an idiot--I was always taught to be nice to people but too often arrogant ones like you mistake that for being stupid. However, what would you do if it is May 1 and the farm supply cooperative has just delivered $15,000 of seed, $5,000 of fuel and another $25,000 of chemicals and fertilizer sitting in your farmyard. There's the tractor and there's the planter hooked up. Go out and start planting, because you only got about a 2 week window and it takes several days to plant even if the weather cooperates. You are holding in your hand a bank note to pay for the stuff that you backed-up with a mortgage on your property? At least I know what to do to make a reasonable success of it.

Do you people know what pigweed is? Have you seen lambsquarter? Cocklebur? Do you know what foxtail and velvetleaf are? You darn well better because in a space of about 4 weeks in July these weeds can grow from a tiny seedling to a tree 6 feet high, and underneath it is your corn or your soybeans trying to survive. You better get it out fast because it will make harvesting impossible in the fall. Get out your hoe and try to find help to trudge up and down the rows in the July heat and humidity and mosquitoes. "Walking" an 80 acre field with 36inch rows, taking 2 rows at a time is about 40 miles of walking. My dad who passed away last year at 88 had worn out hip joints from doing this all his life. GM soybeans have put an end to all of this.

Have any of you seen a corn borer? It is the larva of a moth. The moth lays its eggs on the corn leaves in July just as the corn is reaching it's full height. The eggs hatch and the larvae enter the plant and start boring up and down the corn stalk, weakening it and causing disease. Then just before harvest, you get a strong wind and the next morning half or more of the ears are laying on the ground, your crop is lost. Yeah there were chemicals you could apply to prevent this happening. Toxic and foul smelling brews with skull and crossbones on the label. But you had to apply them at EXACTLY the right time and EXACTLY the right manner, and even then the control was iffy. Borer Tolerant GM corn has made all that a thing of the past for me.

I care about my farm and my farming life, it is'nt just a business for me. And when I say that GM is better for the enviroment then what we had before, I can say that from my own personal experience. You people who sip your lattes and eat your organic tofu and sitting in your comfortable offices have alot of gall and nerve to say we should throw out all of the gains of GM crops. Which have made the lives of farmers easier.

And to all those who post on this board with such certitude and moral righteousness--I challenge you first, I DARE you--spend a season in the farmer's shoes.

What if Bush and Cheney were cloned?

DOUGLAS BARNES: Many thanks for your erudite, informed posts!

When I consider the following from April 2005, my comments regarding glyphosate make a lot of sense to me:

"The herbicide Roundup® is widely used to eradicate weeds. But a study published today by a University of Pittsburgh researcher finds that the chemical may be eradicating much more than that.

"Pitt assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea found that Roundup®, the second most commonly applied herbicide in the United States, is "extremely lethal" to amphibians. This field experiment is one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural setting, and the results may provide a key link to global amphibian declines.

"In a paper titled "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on the Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities," published in the journal Ecological Applications, Relyea examined how a pond's entire community--25 species, including crustaceans, insects, snails, and tadpoles--responded to the addition of the manufacturers' recommended doses of two insecticides--Sevin® (carbaryl) and malathion--and two herbicides--Roundup® (glyphosate) and 2,4-D.

"Relyea found that Roundup® caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely eliminated and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One species of frog, spring peepers, was unaffected.

""The most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup®, something designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians," said Relyea, who conducted the research at Pitt's Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology. "We added Roundup®, and the next day we looked in the tanks and there were dead tadpoles all over the bottom."

"Relyea initially conducted the experiment to see whether the Roundup® would have an indirect effect on the frogs by killing their food source, the algae. However, he found that Roundup®, although an herbicide, actually increased the amount of algae in the pond because it killed most of the frogs.

""It's like killing all the cows in a field and seeing that the field has more grass in it--not because you made the grass grow better, but because you killed everything that eats grass," he said.

"Previous research had found that the lethal ingredient in Roundup® was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup®, that surfactant is a chemical called polyethoxylated tallowamine. Other herbicides have less dangerous surfactants: For example, Relyea's study found that 2,4-D had no effect on tadpoles.

""We've repeated the experiment, so we're confident that this is, in fact, a repeatable result that we see," said Relyea. "It's fair to say that nobody would have guessed Roundup® was going to be so lethal to amphibians."

I guess the clay is not doing the claimed job...

Genetic engineering is rape of nature. With cloning you only see the finished product, not the animals that have legs that colapse from body weight and many other insane and tragic experiments. First nature and human nature, you live with the suffering whether you acknowledge it or not. It is done behind closed doors for a reason.

I've been wondering for a few years now, why so many of the breeding age, seem to have a problem with infertility?
I don't recall so many couples tragically unable to conceive, back when I was raising my family! ( 45-50 years ago)
Of course our genious, scientific community has a solution for that problem too, in vitro fertilization leading to litters instead of singular babies!
The FDA lack of labeling and use of GM foods, began in about '95/96.
It was my taste buds that led me to learn about GM foods. Campbells tomato soup didn't taste like it had for the first 60 years of my life!!! I called them up to ask questions and of course they sent me coupons so I could get MORE free high fructose corn syrup tomato soup!
without explaining how it had changed! I had to YAhoo ( pre Google) to get some explaination!
Maybe you can't reproduce the necessary artificial light to grow tomatos and pepppers through the winter, they ARE perenniel plants, which if you winter them over in pots, will produce in early spring, rather than start from scratch in June ( here in Maine) and don't get fruit until late summer! My yellow pear tomato plant is in it's 2nd winter, in my (west facing) kitchen window. I have a container of it's late fall crop in the fridge! There is a blooming purple heliotrope, in the window box with the parsley,& a new tomato plant ( for the soul)

So much for diversity, a natural defense, a better chance of stopping disease in its tracks. Just as the Irish potato famine was made much worse by planting very few cultivars, so could the GM meat industry fail from disease.

with cloning of his food source, mankind is doomed.

"farmerne" who sent you here? -"I also do not see any difference between a crop that has been modified with genetic engineering, and one that has been changed through natural breeding. Agronomists have been modifying crops for centuries"(the party line)

Your an idiot, I have books on breeding vegetables as I have been OG gardening for 35 years. Nowhere does it tell me I can, through natural crossbreeding(pollen) cross a pig with tomato, BT with corn, etc. And should I/you/anyone try it, it would not work,EVER.

As Fava beans can be poisonous to humans in genetically susceptible individuals(race) so new unknown proteins created by GM foods could be poisonous to some people, unknowingly, after they are dead. ALSO, will you be able to afford the cost of GM seeds in the future?

If GM meat is to be sold in the USA I will become a vegetarian again IMMEDIATELY, and so will thousands if not millions of others.

http://www.nofa.org

http://www.mofga.org

http://www.fedcoseeds.com/requests.htm

Don't worry too much about the poisoned food, worry about the Arctic methane gas that will kill EVERYTHING when it busts out.

Consumer demand for organic products grew 20 percent or more annually throughout the 90s, and the pace is continuing. By "consumer demand," I mean that consumers intentionally sought out and purchased organic products. No producer/grower of organic products/foods has to bribe (AKA lobby) our legislative officials to provide themselves with a market. The organic market is just there, because consumers are choosing to purchase, use, and eat organic products/foods.

There is no consumer demand for GM products. As a matter of fact, some consumers are asking that they NOT be forced to eat foods that are genetically modified. Producers/growers of GM foods have to bribe (you may say lobby, if you wish) our legislators to provide themselves with a market. Additionally, the GM industry, in order to exist at all, must actually hide that its genetically modified foods and food products are what you are purchasing. The only reason there is a market at all for GM foods is because the industry's lobbyists succeeded at convincing our legislators, using legislative donations to grease the deal, that there is a need for GM foods.

While the organic industry uses its marketing dollars to educate consumers about the many benefits of purchasing and consuming their foods and products, the GM industry uses its marketing dollars to pay powerful lobbying firms, to legislate against providing consumers with informative labelling, and to ridicule or otherwise attack legitimate consumer concerns about its foods.

Which of these two industries reflects a free market, with consumers making their own choices about whether to purchase its products, and consumers paying the actual costs (plus a reasonable profit) of the industry growing and producing marketable products?

GM crop farmers and industry shills would be out of a job if they couldn't bribe the government to prevent labeling of GM foods. Everybody seems to be going organic and the GM people are trying to change that labeling too. Meanwhile, organic farmers are doing great.

Douglas Barnes-Your insinuation that glyphosate is polluting watersheds makes no sense. Glyphosate binds to clay particles in the soil. Other chemicals which do cause pollution to watersheds are greatly reduced by the use of glyphosate and gm crops. Trying to apply the organic bt pesticide to corn when needed is difficult and doesn't work nearly as well as more toxic alternatives.

Some would have you believe that by introducing a gene into an organism, the effect will be predictable. The reality is that context matters. The article mentions Monsanto's MON810 Bt corn. It has a gene introduced to express the d-endotoxin Cry1Ab. Event 176 Bt corn also had a gene inserted to manufacture the insecticidal toxin. However, the pollen from the Event 176 Bt corn was more toxic by nearly two orders of magnitude making it very toxic to non-target insects (e.g. monarch butterflies). [See Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment, Mark K. Spears, et al. www.pnas.orgycgiydoiy10.1073ypnas.211329998]

Were it a simple matter of putting in a gene and getting a fixed result predicted through theory, one would expect a constant or nearly constant level of toxicity from the plant. We see, however, from the Event 176 Bt corn that context matters.

Consider also the following excerpt from the magazine of Lester Brown's respected World Watch Institute [January/February 2005]:

"Hidden inside Hilgard Hall, one of the oldest buildings
on the campus of the University of California at
Berkeley, is a photograph that no one is supposed to
see. It's a picture of a crippled and contorted corncob
that was not created by nature, or even by agriculture,
but by genetic engineering.qThe cob is kept in a plastic
bin called "the monster box," a collection of biological
curiosities put together by someone who works
in a secure biotechnology research facility.

"What the photo shows is a cob that apparently
started growing normally, then turned into another part
of the corn plant, then returned to forming kernels,
then went back to another form—twisting back and
forth as if it could not make up its mind about what
it was. It was produced by the same recombinant DNA
technology that is used to create the genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) that are in our everyday foods.
When I saw this photo, I knew it was saying something
very important about genetic engineering. I thought
it should be published. But the person who owns it is
frankly afraid of how the biotechnology industry might
react, and would not agree. In order to get permission
even to describe the photo for this article, I had to
promise not to reveal its owner's identity.

"What the distorted corncob represents is a mute challenge
to the industry's claim that this technology is
precise, predictable, and safe. But that this challenge
should be kept hidden, and that a scientist who works
at a public university should feel too intimidated to discuss
it openly, told me that something more than just
a scientific question was being raised. After all, if the new
agricultural biotech were really safe and effective, why
would the industry work so hard—as indeed it does—
to keep its critics cowed and the public uninformed? Was
there something about the way genetic engineering was
developed, about how it works, that was inviting a
closer look—a look that the industry would rather we
not take? I had gone to Berkeley to see for myself what
was going on behind biotechnology.

What does that mean? It means that there is no certainty in the practice of genetic engineering. One might get the predicted results. One might get something totally unexpected. There is no reason to expect that a given genetically modified food would have an unforeseen detrimental effect on health; there is also no reason to expect that it would not have a detrimental effect on health. Each new genetically modified organism is a new organism with previously unseen and unstudied properties. Acute toxicity is usually readily apparent, though a minority of individuals may be subject to sensitivities that the majority do not have, as in Aspartame where some get immediate headaches upon consuming it and others with phenylketonuria face problems when Aspartame breaks down in their bodies. Long term effects are harder to detect.

Imagine that bloodroot (Papaver sanguinaria) was just discovered and people started ingesting it. They would find that its alkaloids have a sedative effect. Too much would be fatal, but, in the correct dose, they might use it rather frequently as some use valerian. A proponent of the use of the plant would say that results show that when used properly, it is helpful, not harmful. It would only be after prolonged use that one would find that the plant is carcinogenic; and this could only be verified if the carcinogenic effect was pronounced and defined enough to show up statistically.

There is only one way to know about the long term safe of a food or medicine. One can only be sure after careful long term study. The long term safety of a substance that has only appeared within the past decade or decade and a half is unknown. Perhaps it is safe. Perhaps it even has a beneficial health effect. Perhaps not. It is simply an unknown. Were someone to claim otherwise without pointing to several, publically available, long term, peer-reviewed studies from independent researchers on the exact given organism in question (i.e. MON810 Bt corn and not Event 176, Event 11, etc), then that person would be stating opinion and not fact.

Finding these studies (which I have yet to do) would take some work. In Ferbuary 2002, Health Canada announced it would be watching the Canadian public for signs of any problems, acute or long-term, from genetically modified foods. Less than one year later, they made another announcement: they were abandoning the search saying that monitoring was too difficult.

Some might argue that natural foods could evolve and take on undesirable and even harmful qualities, yet natural foods undergo no mandatory testing. True enough. However, it is known that acts of nature occur. When a landslide occurs and kills people, the mountain is not liable judicially or ethically. The acts of man are.

That aside, no one has even tried to tell me why there is a legitimate need for genetically modified organisms. I recognise that there are benefits for the producers of the products. Bt corn gets the producer a patented product that they can license out to growers. Same for "Roundup Ready" products that have done wonders for Monsanto's sale of glyphosate and have done a bang-up job at polluting watersheds. No one seems to be willing to point to independent, peer-reviewed studies showing significant yield boosts of needed – as opposed to profitable – crops. No one has shown me why millions of dollars had to be spent on engineering corn and cotton to produce constantly a useful, organic pesticide thereby risking pest adaptation to this otherwise useful pesticide which can be applied with little risk conventionally when it is needed.

Daniel David, I agree that cloned animals are not a health concern. The concerns I have are 1) further loss of genetic diversity in animals and the increased threat of animal epidemics that goes with that and 2) the colossal waste of money from cloning. One can create a whole litter of pigs easily - indeed a whole region of farmers can create a market glut for pork products just by putting male and female pigs together.

farmerne-you better watch it. Most of the folks at this site have a hissy-fit if anyone says anything good about gm crops. I'm a farmer too and when I've tried explainations much like yours, I've had to duck the brickbats that nearly tore my head off. It's best to sit quietly and maintain the politically correct attitude for the uber-liberals who know it all.

Folks--I am going to play the devil's advocate here. However I feel I have a right to because, unlike most in this discussion group, I am actually a farmer (in Nebraska) where I grow 640 acres of corn and soybeans.

I plant Roundup-ready Soybeans, and Borer-tolerant (BT) corn (but not the Roundup Ready corn). All I can say is that GM crops have been a godsend for me. They have greatly REDUCED the inputs of fuel and chemicals from what I had to use 10 years ago. Soybeans, in particular, are very sensitive to weeds. I used to have to apply a whole cocktail of chemicals to suppress weeds. Now I just spray once with Roundup herbicide. No longer do I have to "walk" soybeans with a hoe to get weeds--backbreaking work in the hottest part of the summer.

With corn, I no longer have to apply insecticides to control corn borers. Also, I used to have to cultivate my corn and soybeans each twice in a season. Now I don't have to cultivate at all, saving a large amount of fuel.

In short, GM crops have allowed me to reduce exposure of myself and the environment to dangerous chemicals, and helped save on fuel, while increasing my income and reducing physical labor.

I also do not see any difference between a crop that has been modified with genetic engineering, and one that has been changed through natural breeding. Agronomists have been modifying crops for centuries, GM just allows it to happen much faster and not hit or miss.

There is nothing more heartbreaking for farmer than to have half his corn crop fall to the ground because of a corn borer infestation, or to lose a soybean crop to out-of-control weeds. I have experienced both of these. GM crops have put an end to that for me. Are you saying I need to throw all of that out and go back to the old way?

For those who have such certitude in denouncing GM crops, I just want to know how many of you have been within 50 miles of a corn plant, or have had your financial well-being depending on how well a crop is going to do this season.

"US Consumers Oblivious"

That says it all.

WE HAVE ALL THE FOOD WE NEED IF WE STOP BURNING IT IN THE GAS TANKS OF CARS AND RUINING THE SOIL TO PRODUCE THE CORN AND SUGAR.

Only a fool or arrogant human would think GM foods are safe. Scientists ARE stupid--they play with things they know little about and pretend they know everything about it.

GMOs arent necessary--we have all the food we need if we manage it properly.
That means not having a meat and dairy industry which wastes huge amounts of water and land for crops(as well as being a major contributer to climate change, deforestation, pollution, wildlife extinction).

This is simple math. If there was a god it could not have picked a better ad campaign for what foods human should eat than making fruits and vegetables the colours of the rainbow and meat the colour of excrement.

Since evils like GMO's, war, global warming and all the rest are products of the richfilth's money grubbing, I make a motion that we stop using the root of all evil as a medium of exchange and go back to barter.

Failing that, I make another motion that by direct democratic decision, we cap personal net worth to around 1 to 10 million dollars per person, including assets. Any electronic money past that amount will be deleted automatically from his bank accounts by a cancelbot. Deleting an ultrarich person's money in excess of the cap would raise the value of the dollar for everyone, increasing it's buying power.

Further, by limiting personal wealth/power direct democratically, there would no longer be an oligarchy or any other form of dictatorship. We the People would cap it high enough to keep the profit motive, but low enough to prevent the formation of an oligarchy or hegemony. We would have competition and cooperation. Capitalism and socialism, in harmony.

I also move that we make the wealth/power cap inversely proportional to the birth rate. The lower the birth rate, the higher the cap, and vis. This would give people an incentive to have less children to control overpopulation humanely without having to kill each other for diminishing resources.

All those in favor, please signify by signing below:

All opposed?

Yes, Yes, Yes, to so many comments above, the people who know very well the slippery slope all Americans share and also know how much the level of toxicity in the environment done by the corporate world in the American reality completely out of control. The corporations in the USA produce 73% of the world's toxic chemicals for the United States and the global community to enjoy. These corporations destroy the very basic human needs necessary for human survival. I did a series of interviews two years ago in Europe very many people there was doing there best to block genome tampering with food.

I was working with scientists and groups who were quite disturbed by the USA trying to open their markets for the production of food that was designed to make money rather than care about the sickness to people and damage to the environment and bio diversity.

Most of you may know that the cancer rate has doubled in ten year. But Cancer in the USA is another mega business the result of the chemicals dumped into this environment in so many surreptitious ways. Cancer is an industry that will not be cured until these abuses stop including the use of petroleum. The health industry and those who make the nuclear tools and the chemicals to hold cancer in remission want this disease to continue it is extremely profitable.

There will be many who would look at these statements as paranoia, ask for proofs. The proof is the damage done to the USA and the world by the executive branch of the American government The sickness and killing visited upon the world in the name of truth that was a cover for the most cynical of lies. They as the business elite in power simply display the corporate ethic to the world run by Wall Street ethics.

This is the state of this world of economics before the health welfare of humanity. Most ignorant people want to come her because they are prepared to gamble their health and shorten their life for a way of living that gives them all the goods called progress.

Such is the world the USA has created not only in America but everywhere. Most people want all the technological marvels that have been produced but there is a cost, your life and that of all life on this globe through climate change. Rojoice look at the great inventions that have been created. The human being could have been a great species that would have endured for a very long time with the evolutionary brain that was given to it but for the regressive greed oriented tendancies.

The objective of American capitalism is to have a docile, ill-informed, and non-judgmental consumer population that will buy anything that is promoted by advertising. That has been the case since the post-Civil War period when mass production began and new markets had to be created via the PR industry. The dream of the capitalists has been largely realized now--they have their captive audience audience from whom they hear narry a peep of protest most of the time.

"US Consumers Oblivious to GM Food Fears"

Huh. Just what are the US consumers not oblivious to except Bush-induced fear, Football, American Idol, Paris Hilton, and…and…wow, nothing else comes to mind.

It's not just Monsanto and vaccines, check site:

http://www1.environmentalhealthnews.org/

It's the plastics, the teflon, and all of the other goodies used to get us to buy products.

AlexLawyer

As you posted, cloning animals and crops leads to decreasing biodiversity. A decline in biodiversity (or genetic diversity) also leads to a much greater possibility of new pathogens sweeping through and destroying large amounts of genetically similar farm animals or crops.

In fact, this may have been one of the reasons so many Native Americans succumbed to Euro-African diseases at a much higher level than did European plaque victims (die-off rate)

It is now know that Native Americans possessed a narrow range of genetic diversity before Europeans and Africans introduced new pathogens into their population.

Because of the lack of genetic diversity, many Native Americans could be felled and killed by any new pathogen that breached their collective immunological system.

A deadly new pathogen found no limitations once it breached this collective wall. In other words, a population with a genetically different configuration (that would've blocked its advance) did not exist, as a result, it would rapidly spread and kill a very large percentage of the host bodies.

Of course, the huge die-off rate of Native Americans was caused by several variables (mass killings, mass enslavement and physical abuse, ethnocide destroying cultural moorings, etc.), but the lack of much bio- or genetic diversity was probably a major contributing factor.

Shop at local farmer's markets.
Prepare and cook our own meals.
Teach our children,better than we were taught.
Educate those close to us.
Run for local office.
Join the PTA.
Continue to have discussions like these in order to hone our thoughts and arguments.
Practice what we preach.

"These our the times that try men's soul's."

"Wow, I'm really impressed by the mature and thoughtful comments of those who've disagreed with me by name."

I'm sure you are -- personally I'm amazed at how otherwise-bright/progressive commenter's didn't show any Outrage at the racist/silly personal-attacks heaped on you. Disgraceful...
However, as much as my science-background inclines me to find your posts, here and elsewhere, "reassuring" -- I know better than to 'trust' commercialized/Corporate Scientists. Americans have yet to 'wise-up' to even the real-Intent behind fluoridated-water.
Science 'could' produce even-healthier/'better' foods/medicines by applying known methodologies at the corporate-level. But our corporations, quite obviously, have Priorities of a different mindset guiding their choices to-date. Mercury in vaccines (even after their own Testing and statistics/'blowback' have established high-risk re: Autism), just to save pennies-per-dose for multi-dose vials? It's absurd -- as SO much else is regards GM-foods/fertilizers/insecticides/etc. or 'bad'-drugs'/pollution/dumping/etc. These can't hardly be 'unintended consequences', alone, that are currently harming us, and the remaining-world.
There's some 'taint' and underlying Evil-intent coming out of our Corporate-Agenda -- and I fear it relates to a need for overall 'population reduction' and/or American/Globalistic 'full-spectrum-dominance', or both.
I reach that conclusion because, essentially, I agree with you -- Scientists are NOT stupid, and they HAVE the tools/sense to avoid these commonly-faced 'issues' by now. But instead of decreasing their Incidence/Onset-levels, it seems that these 'mistakes' and poor-judgments are multiplying-exponentially. Worse, and increasingly, all sensible 'roads-home' or safety-reserves are being 'burned as bridges' during a military campaign.
The Public (who they are charged to Serve) seems to be the Enemy. And the first Casualty in any-'war' is the Truth...

To control the world you need to control the money (Fed/IMF/world central banks), the oil (Big Oil/OPEC), food (Agribusiness/WTO/TRIPS), health/population control (CDC/FDA/Big Pharma/UN/biotechnology) and of course, enforce your domination with military (Pentagon) and intelligence (DHS/CIA/world intelligence/technology). A lot of the cards are in place now.

GM seeds are the food part, and maybe even the health/population control part. In case things go wrong, we have all the worlds original seeds in a seed vault in the Arctic. That's comforting.

More about the GM seeds and the NWO here.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/04/reviewing_f_william_engdahl_s_seeds...

Above the word "disingenuous" was used. I vote to change the epithet to "corporate whore". Any other suggestions?

Hey, Kernel, I'm with ya but for one small problem: Grow your own food on a small plot within two miles of an agribusiness rape in progress, and your food is soon as much a GMO as theirs is. The wind doesn't care what it blows, and the bees don't care whose pollen they carry so long as the nectar is sweet.

The beauty of nature is grand, but stick some molecular biologist into the mix and things get ugly fast.

Thank God we are able to distinguish the "reptillian" minds here from normal human beings. Sorry Mark, try to find your conscience. You are lucky some people still fall for your line of manure. That won't last for long as humanity slowly awakes from your nauseating dream.

Wow, I'm really impressed by the mature and thoughtful comments of those who've disagreed with me by name.

I'm impressed also by the careful scientific research cited by the anti-biotech arguers here. Reminds me of similar discussions on creation science / intelligent design, cold fusion / perpetual motion machines, and global warming denial science BBs.

Well, I guess anything goes if nothing matters.

The "safety" discussion of cloned food appears to be a strawman argument introduced by the corporations while they stealthily weasel their patented products into the system. The "patented" food chain seems nothing more than a means of ensuring control of populations in the future and the money accrued is likely simply a benefit of that. To the corporate government scum which trys to rule the world their top priority, to which all other considerations are subservient, is to maintain control of the populations. And that will get ever more complicated as technology progresses and the dominated peoples become aware of just how rotten are the kind of human scumbags who disdain human rights so that they can perpetuate their undeserved privilages as they play their "game".

I am horrified by the prospect of meat from cloned animals. Asked why they couldn't even require labels on meat was from cloned animals, an FDA spokesman said that they had no authority to do that because meat from cloned animals is identical to meat from regular animals. This is almost certainly not true! It's well known that cloned animals are more prone to diseases- if they are genetically identical how could this be? Wouldn't just a little caution be prudent when it comes to the nation's food? The FDA is the worst consumer watchdog possible- from GM to mad cow to now this Americans should have zero confidence in the FDA.

The vast majority of Americans have NO IDEA 85% of supermarket groceries have GMO ingredients. Nearly ALL processed foods have TVP, soy, canola oil and high fructose corn syrup. Since 100% of all conventionally grown soybeans, canola and corn is genetically engineered crops - unless these 3 crops are certified organic - they are GMO. But since the USDA refuses to force manufacturers to LABEL the products as GMO farmed - consumers have absolutely no idea about the food they are eating.

I don't believe there is public apathy - I believe there is a MEDIA BLACKOUT and CENSORSHIP about the issue. Most of the people I know buy processed food from the supermarket - when I inform them about corn, canola and soy being GMO grown they are horrified - THAT is when I tell them about shopping at the coop and going organic for their groceries and BOOM the light bulb goes off in their head.

The recent bad news that Congress has made it legal to clone animals will result in shoppers REFUSING to buy this crap - supermarkets will wind up not ordering cloned meat and dairy - the bottom line is consumers, if they are INFORMED will make healthy food choices.

BTW - the vast majority of Americans also have NO IDEA their food is irradiated. Irradiated food is not labelled and therefore, there is no huge outcry of protest from the public. But the media would spin this as "public apathy".

GM should stay out of the food business and stick to making crappy cars. Sorry, bad joke,,,,or is it? See "interlocking directorates".

The media, and the committee that made the recommendations, are missing the real issue. It is almost certainly true that eating meat from cloned animals poses no unique hazards from the meat itself. However, there is a major risk from this practice: a natural herd has some measure of genetic diversity, and with it varying resistance to specific pathogens. Not so a cloned herd, who all share identical genotypes. As a result, epidemics can quickly sweep through a herd of cloned animals kept in close quarters, as they are in modern agriculture. This can lead to the spread of foodborne infections such as E coli H7O157, Salmonella, and multidrug-resistant pathogens. Since most emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, the threat to the public health is real and frightening.

spartacus: Your theory that GMO crops have something to do with colony collapse in bees is definitely being researched. One complication that they have run into is that many/most GMO crops are "Round-up Ready". This means that these crops use MORE herbacids than regular crops. It's hard to figure out if the additional toxic load has anything to do with it. Also, are the "weeds" that are being destroyed part of the bee food chain. Than you have the impact of corn with a built in Bt virous that kills catapillars. This Bt virus has already affected butterfly populations.

If this is something you would like to find out more about, go to this link:

http://organicconsumers.org

Organic Consumers Asso. is where I started my activism and how I found Common Dreams. They are a great organization and I suggest that everyone visit their site regularly. They now have forums where you can discuss relevant topics.

Remember, pollination happens.

GM pollen freely moves outside human-designated boundaries and alters what it pollinates. You can buy organic and get GM.

Corporate testing of GM stock is being done in open fields leased from farmers who do the work and ask few questions. Even pharmaceuticals.

These "experiments" are being done without human feeling by deconscienced actors.

SPARTACUS: thanks for raising the vaccine issue. What defies all statistical probability is the rising rate of autism in otherwise perfectly healthy babies... all this run to push a number of questionable chemicals into NEW babies lends credence to PAYPLYER stating we're all lab rats now! Talk about child abuse! To knowingly introduce into healthy tissue these quasi lethal cocktails on the SUPPOSITION they prevent disease. It reminds me of the way the forest department decides on random burns. MOTHER nature may well send lightning bolts, but for people to think in all hubris that they can predetermine WHERE she intends to send the fire bolt and obliterate that portion of the woodlands is the same game of cerebral roulette that predetermines the entire population has the same odds of getting some contagious disease, and thus puts this hex (a/k/a vaccine) on everyone IN case. And that no one has freedom to NOT take these, that is, if they want their children to attend public school, land of the free? Free enterprise? Where?

Daniel David does not even come close to Mark Abrams disingenuous garbage. DD is just a devoted democrat that still believes that the Dimwits actually can represent "we the people". DD just hasn't reached the same stage of disillusionment that many of the rest of us attained. Mark Abrams is an evil schill. DD isn't at all.

Pacplayer: Thanks for your post. I didn't realize you were so informed on this issue. I get so tired of fighting this battle alone. It's nice to have company.

"Abram's disingenuous word-smithing is below contempt here."

Mark Abram has been found to be disingenuous on other issues as well. I've written him off along with his bud, Daniel David. Two pees in a pot.

The bottom line for me on GM food is that there is no good reason for it, other than to provide the agri-chemical industry with another product to force down farmers' throats. Just like bovine growth hormone. No need for it. Why do we have it? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question.)

I would like to see people like Mark Abram go find something useful and productive to do to earn a living. Simply coming up with an unnecessary product that has a lot of problems inherent with it, and then developing industry talking points for it, and bribing our legislators to agree to their use, does not count as useful or productive.

Siouxrose,

What I appreciate, on the other hand, is your common sense perspective. But I must correct you on something. Nothing in Mark Abram's post has anything to do with logical science. Only deceit. Many studies of GM modified substances have shown that in great amounts laboratory mice developed chromosomal damage which leads to cancer. But his gun analogy, however, may be accurate. To compare an obvious gun in a consumer's hand with GM foods, while not quite the same thing, is very telling. When you pick up a gun, if your smart, you know not to point it at anyone, even if it's believed that it's not loaded. You know that you hold a dangerous product that could enter your body and kill you. When you pick up 70 percent of processed food items in the supermarket, you might as well be putting a gun barrel in your mouth because that's the same kind of Russian Roulette you're exposing your body to with Genetically Modified foods. Unfortunately this danger is unlabeled, so the consumer is like a small child in a gun store surrounded by loaded guns on the counter.

Abram's disingenuous word-smithing is below contempt here. Yes, many natural foods (like coffee beans for example) have toxic or allergenic substances in them. But what Abrams fails to tell you is that they are not in lethal concentrations to affect you permenately. And they sure as helll don't inadvertently modify the bacteria in your gut by accident like GM food has been found to do. They sure as hell don't inadvertantly modify your DNA piles (your chromosomes) causing you problems reproducing daughter cells like GM food has been found to do in large amounts (in surpressed industry data that our rubber-stamp FDA refuses to force these big food mafias like Monsanto to reveal.)

Yes natural food can cause alergies. If I eat 100 oranges this morning, I will have a reaction, but it still will not damage the ability of my cells to reproduce themselves! Unstable Genetically Modified food has been known to do this.

The problem here is choice. Big organized crime sydicates like Monsanto, do not want you to have any choice so they have contaminated FDA and the white house to accept an honor system whereby they swear they will tell you if they see any dangerous side effects before they dump this poison on the American food supply.

This whole arrangement reminds me of the nightmare of Axis Chemical in the movie Batman. Unfortunately in our sad tale, there is not one homocidal "Joker", but rather 500 of them on wall street.

The poor guy at the frankenfood market is now screwed. His choice is GM chromsomal damage from mountains of processed poison in plastic bags or GM chromosomal damage from GM gene spliced frankenproduce.

Megacorps like Monsanto have only been playing God with your food for a few years now. Nobody knows the mortality rates or Cancer incidence that will crop up ten years from now.

We all are now lab rats.

The biotech industry's claim that the genetically modified food already consumed has not made anyone sick cannot be proven. Do you know anyone who has suffered from unexplained health issues????How would it be possible to determine whether or not it was the gm food or something else that makes one sick, since it is impossible to know what food has the altered genetics in it. It would be impossible to isolate it as the causative agent. There have been no post-market epidemiological studies to back up the claims of food safety. In fact there have been few if any long term feeding studies on the products' safety at all. Most of the animal studies have been extremely short term and done in the closed labs of the industry and not available for peer scrutiny because the contain "proprietary" information.

The claims that "genetically modified food is already subject to more than adequate requirements for testing and approval before products are released for human consumption" are made by the biotech industry, but rarely do they mention that those tests are done by the industry or paid for by the industry.

Bovine growth hormone (a gm product used extensively on dairy cows in this country) was not approved for use in Canada or Europe because of safety concerns. You're still drinking it. I have my own cow.

There are a couple of problems. One is that most people have no idea of how or why these foods would be harmful. The other is that people are so overwhelmed by (often contradictory) warnings about everything we eat, drink, use or breath---not to mention the new, improved medicines that end up killing people.

phatkhat: Forget the grow lights! Build a hoop house (small green house) and grow food all winter. Don't fight Mother Nature. We humans cannot replace the sun's red spectrum light sustainably. Flowering plants like tomatoes and peppers should be grown in the appropriate season (summer). And while you are going through those seed catalogs, look for open pollinated varieties that will breed true so you can collect the seed for the next year. And try to stay away from hybrids (F1) because the seeds you collect will give you unknown results. By the way, ALL heirloom varieties are open pollinated. Have fun in your new garden!!!

MARK ABRAMS: I appreciate your logical pro-science perspective, BUT... many things introduced to human beings don't show ill-fated side effects until the NEXT generation comes around, you know, little things like Thalydimide. The industries that profit from introducing artificial substances are enthralled by profit, whereas NATURE did it all for love, over eons my friend, trial and error in elaborate laboratories sponsored by Gaia. Nature seeks to weave from the greatest pool of possibility, so this narrowing of content as per STERILE seed stock is NOT a wise thing, what with global warming, etc.

EZE: Trust Monsanto, now there's a pejorative question (rhetorical, I presume) if ever there was one. Monsanto, the KILLER chemical corp that profits from designing the likes of Agent Orange and 2nd generation defoliants that leave a toxic, cancer-based residue behind.

Trust science... how about the legacy of human growth hormone, the constant Keystone Cops legal tragi-comedy as drugs introduced to the marketplace ring up millions thanks to being "sexed" up by high calibre PR, only to be recalled 5-10 years later AFTER the damage is done. PUULLEEAASSEEE... it is NOT nice (or wise) to try to fool Mother Nature.

I, too, am ready to start MY garden. The fact that such a high percentage of our foods have GM elements is beyond disturbing.

First off, ignore anything Mark Abram writes on the topic of GM food. He is a corporate schill spewing their talking points.

Also, DK is a vegan and only eats organic.

On topic, one of the things that strikes me about the whole GMO issue is the concept that life itself can be patented. How is that possible? Monsanto is patenting life itself. At some point in time they will "own" all major food crops. Does that inevitably lead to them "owning" the deaths by starvation of those people that cannot afford their seeds or their food? And what is Monsanto's liability for contamiating the open pollinated and/or organic crops of others through indiscrimate polination by their GMO varieties? Shouldn't Monsanto have to pay for this contamination?

Further, I don't think that Americans are as uninformed about the GMO issue as this article leads us to believe. The huge growth in CSA's, organic produce and farmers' markets in the U.S. is proof that Americans do not want pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, or GMO's in their food. Buying local is also a huge movement. The problem is that organic foods cost more and often times are beyond the reach of many families. Also, how organic is produce certified in China?

It's a little late in the game at this point. The only power we have now is as consumers. And without labeling we are really left in the dark. As I see it, the only alternatives we have is to grow our own and/or buy only from ethical stores like you're local cooperative and at farmers markets.

I'm making up an order for seeds from a non-GMO seed company that sells a lot of heirloom varieties. This will be the year I finally get off my duff and have a garden again. I'm also going to try turning part of the barn into a winter garden with grow-lights.

I am also going to get some heirloom breed chickens from a local farmer, and maybe a goat. It's time to pull back from commercially raised food. With the prices WalMart is charging for food, it is just an even greater incentive.

Stuff I can't raise enough of to last all year - like wheat - I will buy from an organic co-op. This is my promise to myself, my family, and Mother Nature. I'm lucky, we live on 3-1/2 acres, and I can do this...

Haven't you noticed that the "top candidates" are all about CHANGE...albiet elusive and nebulous CHANGE. Questions on issues of substance are not likely to be answered even if they ARE asked.

It is too bad that none of the questions to the top candidates aren't about this issue.

I may be wrong but I havent seen it yet.

I am sure Dennis has good position on it, but that is why the others aren't asked about it... They always leave the hard stuff to Dennis to talk about.

It's a matter of trust. Do you trust Monsanto and GM industry shills, or don't you?

In France, even the right is progressive.

Our publicly owned corporate run media keeps us informed, don't they?

"US Consumers Oblivious to GM Food Fears"

How would the consumer know? The FDA is in league with Iblis.

Perhaps this is a natural selection process to remove those who intentionally ignore the laws of nature. Perhaps the biological mandate at this point is to look for ways to preserve heirloom human genetics as well as the necessary natural support system DNA while those who have intentionally closed off their organic feedback loops....... self destruct.
It's time to stop going to stores!!!!

The following link contains about 30 articles related to GM foods:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=24

Right now there is only one type of banana commercialized in the world, the Cavendish.

If Monsanto and their ilk get control of cloning livestock, they'll figure out the breeds or crossbreeds that stand up best to cloning, that is, make the most money no matter the textures or flavor.

Eventually we could end up with just one or two species of everything we eat, meat, fish, fruits and vegetables. We're already getting close to that with insipid tomatoes, and other pretty looking fruit that has nearly no taste at all. Not to mention with climate change increasing it would be wise to cultivate variety in all we produce to eat, and to KEEP all the seeds even of the ugly fruit and vegetables that often have the best flavors.

There are two specific problems with genetic engineering that I didn't see in this article.

First, a few people get sick. Not many, just a few.

Do you want a society where the food is unsafe for, say, 1% of everyone? Moreover, do you want a food supply that might make, say, another 1% sick every generation? 1% here, 1% there, pretty soon 50% of the population gets sick.

Smokers have accepted the lung cancer problem for over a century. With smokers it's always someone else that has three months to live, but not you. You're special. That doesn't make smoking right.

The second problem is that genetic engineering may last forever. Once the inappropriate fish genes get loose in our environment, they never go away. It reminds me of extinction, which is also forever.

I don't eat GM foods. Organic regulations require that organic foods cannot be genetically modified, cloned, or irradiated.

For more information on GM foods, see:

http://organicconsumers.org

One of the frightening things is that a few companies are producting GM versions of staples - rice, corn, and wheat. The seeds that sell are "terminator" seeds, meaning that saved seeds will not germinate the next year. This gives a few companies control over the food supply.

> "The US Consumers Union is calling for mandatory safety checks before any GM food is able to be sold, citing research by the National Academy of Sciences indicating that toxic or allergenic substances may be introduced through genetic engineering and that it may be difficult to "predict and assess unintended adverse effects on human health."

First, genetically modified food is already subject to more than adequate requirements for testing and approval before products are released for human consumption.

Second, I don't know what "research by the National Academy of Sciences" is being cited here, but of course "toxic or allergenic substances may be introduced through genetic engineering." Likewise, metalworking can be used to make guns that can be used to kill people. However, this is unlikely to happen by accident. And toxic and allergenic substances already exist in "natural" foods and are not always known, nor are they subject to any mandatory testing. It is possible for allergens to be introduced to "natural" foods by "natural" gene mixing and this is not controlled or subject to any mandatory testing. Modern genetic engineering techniques are much MORE controlled than traditional breeding in the sense of knowing exactly what you are putting in. You may not always know what the effects on the plant or animal will be, but you know if you are putting in a gene that produces a known toxin or allergen.

Finally, anyone can say "it may be difficult to predict and assess unintended adverse effects", and one may say this about just about anything humans do. There is, however, no particular reason to expect adverse effects from genetic engineering. This is the reason why the overwhelming consensus of scientists today is that the hyped-up fear of genetic engineering is unfounded and it is reflected in the relative lack of public concern despite widespread prejudice against what is seen as "unnatural".

pidorf___ Just remember that the majority of people can be misled by the use of a few scare articles put out by some person or group that may have some agenda to push. A good example of this is the rush to war in Iraq that convinced a majority that we were threatened and it was a pack of lies.

A good start for anyone concerned about the food they eat, is to read Kingsolver's book: Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. Each of us would be wise to take more personal responsibility for the foods we purchase and consume. Before adding anything to our grocery carts, examining the packaging and distance traveled is necessary, making decisions to avoid excessive packaging and to buy locally. Observing the season and purchasing fresh foods only, makes a great deal of sense. Do we really need to eat tomatoes, that taste like plastic anyway, in the winter? And the bred-for-long-shelf-life of strawberries being shipped out of California only look good. Their taste is terrible!

On a good note: PCC, an 8-store consumer cooperative in the Seattle area, has banned high fructose corn syrup. When one begins reading the ingredient labels it is obvious that corn syrup is put into almost everything, even things one wouldn't suspect -- hams, bacon, energy bars, crackers, muffin mixes, and on and on...

it would be "NEWS" if the govt did something the majority support

"65 per cent of Americans were opposed to eating such products — a level of concern matched in Europe.

Despite the opposition though, on Tuesday the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved meat and milk from cloned animals"

:-|

I think we ought to be far more worried about GM food than cloned-animal food. A clone copy of something from nature is a copy from nature. A genetically-modified plant or animal raises the possibility of introducing unintended consequences. Eat now, learn truth maybe decades later.

But peaceman above raised a perhaps even bigger issue about GM stuff. If GM brings improvements BUT you have to pay tolls to an incorporated patent holder to get the improvements (possibly even unsafe or unpredictable
one) what did people in society gain by the GM?

It is all about making huge amounts of money and having patents on everything in Nature where the monopolistic corporations will sue a small family farmer who "dares" to harvest and "let go to seed" their own crop for a future planting.

Monsanto successfully sued a small canola seed farmer in Canada several years ago.

The Europeans are right when they call "genetically modified foods" (GMO) "Frankenfoods", as they are not part of the natural food chain.

And now with the cloning of animals? How sick are these scientists, anyway?

Greed is destroying this planet. The Grim Reaper is smiling.

Why is it news that U.S. consumers are oblivious about GM foods? U.S. consumers are oblivious about their food purchases and consumption in general! Whether a food product is genetically modified is the LEAST of U.S. food consumers' problems. We are a nation of fat, diabetic, artery-clogged slobs.

Proof: Even after decades of legitimate scientific research linking trans fats with cancer and heart disease, there had to be a FEDERAL ACTION to get U.S. consumers to stop eating the stuff. The only reason we've finally cut our consumption of trans fats is because the government told food producers to stop putting it in their processed foods.

Take a look at corn syrup. Reliable scientific research is telling us that the high fructose corn syrup that our food manufacturers dump into their processed foods has created an epidemic of diabetes and obesity in America. Have we stopped purchasing food products that contain this ingredient? Nooo! There's gonna have to be ANOTHER federal action to block food manufacturers from putting this into all their processed food products.

And how many decades do you think it will take for consumer health safety to become a higher priority than the profit margins for the agri-business industry that relies on the production of high fructose corn syrup?! I've got an answer to that question. As soon as ADM and the rest of the agri-business giants open international markets up to this disease-causing food product, they will relent and take it out of our American foodstuffs.

We farmers would probably just as soon go back to the simple life we had before all of the new "progress" took place also. However, now that GM seeds have proved their worth in crop production, it is highly unlikely they will be discontinued in the forseeable future. With input costs going up at an astronomical rate, higher yields are necessary to make crop farming pay. It would be nice to have many of the products in the superstores thrown out also, and millions of polluting vehicles parked, but that will not happen, either. Once the benefits of GM crops are noted, it is not just the chemical companies wanting them used, as now they are planted on many more acres than the regular varieties. I guess the best answer , if one is worried, would be to grow one`s own food in a small plot.

Reasons to question the wisdom of GM foods:
(1) Allergens are transferred at the molecular level. New allergies are on the increase, with number of cases increasing dramatically.
(2) Cross-pollination of organic crops by GM crops.
(3) Possibility that crops' increased resistance to pesticides will transfer to undesirable plants, creating resistant "superweeds," resulting in need for use of more and more toxic ag chemicals, a perpetual ratcheting up of growers' need to use ag chemicals, has not been adequately studied.
(4) Possibility that botanical properties of GM plants are altered in ways about which we have little understanding has not been adequately studied.
(5) Transferrence of animal components to plant foods.
(6) Inadequate study of long-term projections of GM plants with capability of producing their own pest protections.
(7) Inadequate study of impact of GM crops on projected adaptations of insect populations.

Reason to accept GM foods:
(1) Lots of money for chemi-ag industry.

spartacus-since soils vary so much for so many different reasons the greenhouse study you mention would have to be repeated a great many times with different soils from different places to have any credence. Do beware those of you planning on growing open pollinated crops in your gardens. You will likely need more space because of smaller yields and in some cases, such as tomatoes, you may experience crop failure from disease problems. Do make sure you rotate crops from one year to the next, and not just a particular crop, but those included in each crop genus. The precautionary principle says I have a better chance of getting hurt if I get out of bed in the morning so I'm seriously thinking about moving my computer and other toys to my bedroom.

Glyphosphate is a fairly safe herbicide. It certainly can't be compared in toxicity with, for example, 2-4 D which mimics hormones. Or with Atrazine which has a 12 month residue in the soil. Roundup has no residual.

Also I don't know if many of the anti-gm horror freakouts realize that you are required to plant 20% NON-GM corn to provide a "refuge" against borers developing tolerance to the product.

I am located 100 miles west of Omaha, not near any large cities.