EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hi Kids! Biotechnology Is Helping Improve the Health of the Earth By Injecting Poisons Into Our Food!
Monsanto, Dow, Dupont and friends may have reached a new low by bringing their genetically engineered lies into the classroom via their new Look Closer at Biotechnology, an activity book/fairy tale that tells kids about "all the wonderful ways" that biotechnology grows more food, helps the environment and improves our health, none of which is true, but anyway....Brought to you by the Council for Biotechnology Information (sic), a corporate mouthpiece whose sole aim is to make more money for these guys.
"Hi Kids! This is an activity book for young people like you about biotechnology - a really neat topic. Why is it such a neat topic? Because biotechnology is helping to improve the health of the Earth and the people who call it home."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
66 Comments so far
Show AllWe need to write blogs, letters to the editors of local and larger newspapers, and speak wherever and whenever we're able against these bio-tech monstrosities.
The biotech profiteers use toxic bacteria, Agrobacterium Tumefasciens, and other alien DNA to force corn, soy, and other plants they mutate, to accept the pesticides, antibiotics, and their own markers into the DNA of the plants tens of millions eat every day.
For yourself, the only safe way to eat is to eat organic - grow your own as much as you can so it's cheaper than the markets - and teach others by example, in writings, speeches, as much as you can to fight this menace to world health of not only humans, but virtually all other species.
The alien and toxic DNA is expressed in EVERY SINGLE CELL of the forced-host plants, and thus is accepted as FOOD by our bodies, in every single cell of our bodies, as food. Is it any wonder so many people - a majority! - are on some kind of medication?
Genetically-engineered "food" is a monstrous crime against the earth, as well, since it kills micro-organisms in the soil needed for healthy soil to nourish plants and animals.
There is no excuse for these crimes against every living creature on earth, only money for the anti-life corporations. RESIST!
Tiresome fear-mongering.
The anti-science, anti-"GMO" message has been promising apocalypse for years. It hasn't happened. In fact, the use of recombinant DNA technology is on the rise because farmers like it:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/
Farmers love GMO so much they're dying for it: http://www.google.com/search?q=gmo+farmer+suicides+in+india
No they're not:
http://www.biofortified.org/?s=india+suicides&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
All I see is a wonderful example of using scientific techniques and lingo for obfuscation and whitewashing.
You responded to my post in less than an hour. It's amazing that you were able to read all that material under the link in such a short time and get back to me.
Amazing.
I'm surprised it took that long. Atomsk probably didn't get to your post for fifty minutes.
Did you read the Bio bios on the "authors" page of "biofortified.org"? Anything about them suggest the site might have a certain bias?
And did reading the articles confirm or deny that hypothesis?
I didn't read through the entire site of course, just this: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf . (Mainly because most of the rest consisted of personal attacks on Vandana Shiva.) The whole PDF is about fifty pages. I read through the abstract of the article, the 2nd part to see what hypotheses it examined, and skimmed it and looked through the interesting looking parts and figures (particularly the figure on p39). What it says is that there's no statistical connection between Bt cotton adoption between and farmer suicides between 2002-2007. It does not consider anything else, any history, regulations, interests (behind the "perverse government incentives") - just Bt cotton adoption. I spent about 20 minutes on this. I am not a scientist, just like you aren't one (or if you are, you should stop doing the stuff I'll describe later in the post), but this article certainly doesn't disprove the connection between GMOs and farmer suicides in general. Focusing on a narrow segment of an issue to offer people like you an opportunity for overgeneralisation is what I meant by "a wonderful example of using scientific techniques and lingo for obfuscation and whitewashing".
(BTW, you can read this in the article's conclusion: "More generally, a complete analysis of the causes would require an elicitation of each story behind each farmer committing suicide, including the constraints within the household, the personal story of the individuals, and the community and farming issues they may have faced. " I think that is mostly what your hated (more like feared) Vandana Shiva is doing, isn't it?)
And really, overall it's not GMOs in themselves either. It is industrialised, centralised high-productivity agriculture, in a market situation where costs and prices are balanced so that small producers cannot reliably depend on small-scale individual or family sized agriculture (even when producing for the market and not sustenance) to support them and only low-labour, high chemical input, large-scale, market oriented production can work. This is the most important reason for the existence of GMOs: centralisation and concentration of control over agricultural production, and of course this is the largest issue with it. GMOs are of course just a part of this general trend. An important part, but still just a part. Farmer suicides aren't the direct result of adoption of a particular GMO - they are a result of a complex set of social changes. In this, I agree with the study you linked (but not in the particular details). But I think it's also pretty obvious that these changes are driven by particular interests of particular concentrations of power and that these fit into an overarching historic trend.
As for the technology itself, of course it's not evil or good or whatever by itself. But this in itself is obvious and missing the point. Since there's always human intention behind the concrete use of technology, moral judgment can be made about this, about how it's actually used in society (and imo transitively also about the people and organisations developing and using the technology in line with these interests and intentions), whose interests it serves, how fast and how democratically it is spread etc.
Anyway. All of this is completely unimportant in your case. That you are not really looking for a detailed and in-depth discussion is pretty obvious from the demagogical non-arguments you keep on using and from the fact that you reliably don't respond to substantive arguments, only to posts that you can nitpick with based on secondary issues (these may be the wording of the post or even the time delay as in my case etc). I've had discussions with people like you and frankly I'm not willing to submit myself to your manipulative tactics any more - you're never going to take any substantive response into consideration and you'll never respond to any posts but the ones you have special (non-substantial) "techniques" against. (Ie. mostly stuff you can attack because of its form or substantial stuff that you have a pre-packaged argument against.)
These techniques are mostly various forms of ad hominem, most importantly based on the claim that anyone opposing GMOs is an anti-science reactionary. They include consciously and reliably ignoring everything related to the social effects of GMO use (or rather, complete technologisation of agriculture, as GMOs are just one - although important - part of this) - and focusing on the more extraordinary claims and maybe exaggerated fears of the effects of their consumption. (In your case this includes stooping so low that you ignore entire posts based on a single word. And then you pretend to be on the side of science. Ridiculous.)
They also include overwhelming your opponents with (your own) science without having the willingness (or capacity fwiw) to discuss it in detail. Just like everything else, science can be abused, especially by people who don't actually have any respect for it and just think of it as a source of power. That is actually pretty disrespectful towards real science, as manipulation of opinion as opposed to straight fact- and logic-based debate is the clearest form of anti-science.
Basically, what your kind does and keeps doing (I'll apologise if you turn out to be different, but so far you sound bad even compared to your fellow believers) is to spout your own bullshit, call people that you disagree with "anti-science" "cranks" - and then be offended when people respond similarly - and avoid all substantive discussion and just look for technical or wording problems with posts and nitpick with them. A pretty predictable and obvious pattern, whose effect is just to destroy discussion and manipulate people in several ways.
It's not that I'm uninterested in this discussion. And it's not like I think GMOs are necessarily evil by design. It's just that I've seen this pattern many times now and I know that you guys aren't really interested in anything else but spreading the word. I don't care if you get paid to do this or are an honest idiot. But anyone who comes into a thread, starts by calling people anti-science and using these dishonest and manipulative techniques is an asshole in my book.
Thank you for this incredible comment! Notice how Mbendzela came back after you had written this comment to make three more comments that only "look[ed] for technical or wording problems with posts and nitpick[ed] with them" by using logical fallacies, but then completely avoided the "substantive discussion" you and a few others have written about here.
"[It's] a pretty predictable and obvious pattern, whose effect is just to destroy discussion and manipulate people in several ways."
-- This sentence deserves attention because this is exactly what these types of people are doing here. George Monibot wrote a little bit about this in his essay, "The Fake Persuaders". I have seen this guy come here for over a year now to do exactly as you have described. (if he replies to my comment to deny this I will take the time to copy and paste the links to the years worth of articles where he has done exactly as you have described here.) When he is called out on his bullshit here he becomes silent on the matter and ignores the comment, but then at the same time he continues on with derailing other discussions by using logical fallacy after logical fallacy. The use of logical fallacies is the only type of argument that these people know how to use because underneath they are completely empty and lacking the ability to substantially argue a point in honest ways. I personally feel sorry for people like this...
LOL GREAT reply, really shuts him down!
"The anti-science, anti-"GMO" message has been promising apocalypse for years."
-- Did you know that Einstein lobbied for the ban of all nuclear weapons? Does that mean Einstein was 'anti-science'? No. It means he was against a certain technological PRODUCT of science. GMO is a technological PRODUCT of science. One can be against a PRODUCT of science while still being FOR science. The fact that you are still coming here to denounce and undermine people who are against GMO as anti-science is quite telling of your dishonesty. And the reason I can confidently state that you are being dishonest is because I and many others on CD have called you out on this a handful of times throughout the past year or so. And, yet, you continue to repeat this garbage corporate public relations talking point.
Why did France recently ban GMO corn if people love it so much? Are their gov't and scientists "anti-science" too? I think they banned it because their scientific studies indicated that it is a "significant risk for the environment" http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFP6E8DT00B20120316?sp=true
One of the significant threats to the environment and the people is: "GM technology permits companies to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. They can patent the seeds and the processes which give rise to them. They can make sure that crops can’t be grown without their patented chemicals. They can prevent seeds from reproducing themselves. By buying up competing seed companies and closing them down, they can capture the food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all."
The Seeds of Distraction
http://www.monbiot.com/2004/03/09/seeds-of-distraction/
But you don't want to talk about THAT part of GMO, do you?
Thank you for injecting some sanity into this thread Eric. The real motive behind the Chemical companies who took over our food suppy is not to save lives nor to improve them "with vitiamin A" as claimed elsewhere in this thread, but rather to monopolize consumption and to force injestion of expensive, dangerous propriatery creations in the lab. "The Biotech Century" by Jeremy Rifkin warned us about this plot when it was hatched in the 90's. His objection back then was the same as mine today: That this dangerous experimentation on the public is unlabled and virtually unregulated.
Excellent essay on your part.
Bravo.
"The anti-science, anti-"GMO" message has been promising apocalypse for years."
Do not ever use this kind of retoric if you have any self-respect. It is the intellectual equivalent of swimming in a pool of shit. Being opposed to GMOs *as they are actually used in real life* is not "anti-science" in any way. You have no way to substantiate this claim - you are just smearing (your own, btw) shit on others. Seriously. You're only showing, and very clearly, your own level of ignorance and irrationality with this.
"In fact, the use of recombinant DNA technology is on the rise because farmers like it:"
Whether the American agricultural industry (or even some farmers) like GMOs or not is beside the point. The organisation of American agriculture, with its 400+ acre average farm size, super high productivity (and thus huge material waste), dependence on finite resources (fossil fuels) and so on is not exactly healthy in any way. Of course some farmers can make money off this and so they like it. But most of what makes GMO based agriculture good for some farmers is exactly what makes it really bad for everyone else.
"Fear mongering" is a term used by right wing fear mongerers against people who tout real science. I see you have bought into right wing propaganda so well that your words are chosen from it. Notice the people you accuse of "fear mongering" do not sound like they are following a script? Accusing people of calling for an apocalypse... so right out of the RW playbook - the same RW that actually forecasts apocalypses with things like, gay marriage.
How dogmatic. You assume I'm right wing? I'm a gay atheist liberal farmer.
So there.
You are a troll. Many Monsanto GMO crops work on the principle of chelation -- the don't allow the "weeds" to absorb minerals necessary for life. Some Monsanto GMO crops can resist the chelating effects of roundup, their plant killer. Other Monsanto crops, like Bt corn, produce their own pesticides internally, and people eat these pesticides.
In Canada, researchers found the Bt toxin in 93% of pregnant women, 80% of fetal blood samples, and in 69% of non-pregnant women.
Amerika and its sheeple like MBendzela, suck up the corporate lies like milk from their mother's teat. In Europe, they make the corporations prove their products cause no harm. But in Amerika, corporations can put anything on the market and individual consumers must sue mega-corporations in federal court at vast expense to stop anything. That has worked well.
If researchers look for a toxin or a potentially harmful substance in humans, they will pretty much always find it. Science has the tools to find incredibly tiny amounts.
It is this very fact that the egregious, abominable "Environmental Working Group" take advantage of. Scientists can now detect just about any level of anything, so the EWG screams, "Contamination!" Dose doesn't matter to them. They're idiots.
"In Canada, researchers found the Bt toxin in 93% of pregnant women, 80% of fetal blood samples, and in 69% of non-pregnant women."
You should try reading the studies you cite sometime.
Those engaged in the study you reference did not even bother to determine whether women had indeed eaten genetically modified corn. Therefore, they could not possibly have had a control group, either.
They did not bother to check whether the source of the Bt toxin allegedly found was from organic sprays or from natural sources (B. thuringiensis is ubiquitous).
Finally, the test they used to detect the Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) does not give reliable results in the presence of blood serum.
This all goes a long way to showing why the alleged findings were never replicated.
Like I said, read some of these "studies." You might be entertained.
Source?
I thought you were the guy that ate that steak made out regenerated human feces.
This is crazy talk. Like the right wingers and their diatribes against stem cell research, the left has its big blind spot, too -- genetic engineering.
It ain't going away. It's the fastest growing segment of agriculture. It's used to create insulin, vaccines, medications and plants that grow under adverse conditions.
Even the maligned tobacco plant has been redeemed by genetic engineering.
"A line of genetically engineered tobacco plants has been developed that carry all the genes required to encode the entire biochemical pathway necessary for producing the potent, but expensive to produce, antimalarial drug artemisinin."
http://www.biotechdaily.com/?option=com_article&Itemid=294738686&cat=Genomics%252FProteomics&ui=50013175&vrf=18247522da5a455f63e68852988a7e87&end=%2520
Biotechdaily.com?
Come off it. It's like you're quoting religious dogma to demonstrate the existence of deities.
Abby, I expect better from a former Maine resident!
Quoting the "Organic Consumers Association" is not the most objective way of gathering information. In fact, it's rather pathetic. Ronnie Cummins is a notorious zealot. He claims any farmer who is not "organic" is "literally poisoning our children."
On the issue of food, farming, and pharmacology, the "left," liberals, whatever you want to call them, is simply off the rails. They sound as silly as the right does when they talk about abortion, gay rights, and evolution.
Be smart. Look at the science. Read "Tomorrow's Table" by Pamela Ronald and "Mendel In the Kitchen" by Nina Federoff.
There's also a few excellent websites out there:
http://www.biofortified.org/
http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/
Mike in Maine.
Only just got to this one. You're taking an shot at Abby for quoting from sources that are not objective?
As an aficionado of fine irony, I stand awed in the presence of true genius.
If you are claiming that Ronnie "I hate anything that isn't organic" Cummins is "objective," you are out of your friggin mind.
Cummins is an "activist."
Federoff and Ronald are PhDs.
What's your problem?
I make no claims of objectivity for anyone.
My problem is that your sources are no more objective than the people you criticize for a lack of objectivity, and that the industry perspective is being put to schoolchildren as if it were an unbiased view.
Academic qualifications are not relevant to questions of objectivity. "A typical example of ignoratio elenchi is the argumentum ad hominem, that is the attempt to link the validity of an argument to the reputation (broadly speaking) of the person or the people who support it." [Wikipedia : Ignoratio elenchi]
Part and parcel of the Gates-Broad assault on public education is their alliance with Monsanto.
Not just kids either, they're hitting the commons as hard and fast as they can by insidiously trying to manipulate public opinion,
I heard on a tv show recently "the coolest hack is hacking nature" referring to biotechnology. Coincidentally a lot of crude Microsoft Windows product placement on the same show.
Apparently Microsoft has lost 1/3rd of their market share recently so they're diversifying, and there is no low to which they won't sink,
Sure. By all means, look at the science. Of techniques that haven't been around all that long, in terms of plant evolution. Look at the science of an industrial movement that is not regulated, not required to provide label information, and not required to inform producers and consumers about the "nature" of their bioexperiments being done on anyone who eats. Look at the science of transnational corporations whose only duty is to make a profit; to release "proprietary" information on genes they own would breach their corporate security. The huge agribusiness complex is not about feeding anyone - it's about vertically integrating the development, production, processing, transporting, and marketing of products. And Congress does whatever it can to help, as do the USDA, FDA, FTC, and DOJ.
The trouble with these all encompassing pronouncements that GMO equates to Frankenfoods, is that it's wrong - there are good uses of biotechnology and there are bad ones. Making a crop resistant to RoundUp so you can slather pesticides on a field would be a bad use (speaking as a chemist, you really should eat organic). However, inserting the gene in rice to make Vitamin A to prevent blindness in places like Tibet and India is good and a great example benefits of using biotechnology. Technology is like that - it can be put to good uses and bad.
"Making a crop resistant to RoundUp so you can slather pesticides on a field would be a bad use (speaking as a chemist, you really should eat organic)."
Speaking as a farmer, it doesn't matter.
Organic farmers use pesticides. Full stop.
All pesticides residues are strictly regulated. You are exposed to far more natural toxins in foods than to pesticides, organic or conventional.
It's the dose that matters. You should know that, being a "chemist."
By the way: Farmers don't "slather" pesticides on fields. They cost money. They are time-consuming to to apply. They expose workers to hazards. They are strictly regulated.
However, MBendzela, if you were a chemist, then you'd be much, much less cavalier with regards to pesticide use. Quick! - name a compound that is a known causative agent for autism. Any ideas? No? How about chlorpyrifos - an organophosphate just as RoundUp is. It's one of the only known causative agents for autism. The fact that chlorpyrifos was approved by the EPA shows how limited and pathetic their testing is. Sure, they can screen for acute poisons and carcinogens, but what about something subtle? - say something that screws up embryo development in say, the brain? - No and as a result we have an epidemic of autism as a result.
I pointed out to you that pesticides are carefully administered (not "slathered") because a) they cost farmers money; b) they expose farmers to hazards; c) their applications are regulated; d) they cost the farmer in time as well.
Where do you see "cavalier"?
I've had to get a pesticides applicator's license to farm in the state of Maine. That can also hardly be considered "cavalier." Even "organic" farmers are required to go through the training (yes, they use pesticides, too).
Then you bring up chlorpyrifos. Why, I don't know.
It looks pretty well-regulated to me:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=494&tid=88
"However, inserting the gene in rice to make Vitamin A to prevent blindness in places like Tibet and India is good and a great example benefits of using biotechnology. Technology is like that - it can be put to good uses and bad."
-- Now that is an incredibly intelligent insight! We should be asking HOW certain powerful corporate interests are using this technology... is it really for the common good? Or is it being used to monopolize the food supply?
Yes, from my point of view I no longer use the full body suit tyvek (or what ever they are) to keep really nasty chemical dust off my clothes. I don't have to use the truly nasty stuff anymore. Technology can be very good.
Biotechnology is a worthless sector whose main contribution is to allow corporations to patent life. There is no problem with the food supply or human health that cannot be solved with traditional knowledge, and the example jbr uses is typical: claiming that Vitamin A deficiency is a benign use of biotechnology is outrageous. Vandana Shiva has pointed out that prior to the invasion of frankenfoods, farmers in India knew twelve hundred (1,200) different strains of rice, many of which were used for specific nutritional needs.
We can't know if jbr is in earnest, because paid trolls are a fascist tactic, but this comment is poorly-informed at best.
Honestly, do you really think a paid troll would say Eat Organic? And how is getting making a strain of rice that gives you an essential vitamin not benign? It certainly doesn't seem 'outrageous'. You see, the WHO estimates that half a million kids go blind from lack of vitamin A. And who is testing Golden Rice right now? - Bangadesh, because 1 in 5 kids are Vitamin A deficient. See
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=182319
So, one more time, biotechnology can be used for good. So, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Big Agribusiness needs to be strongly regulated - no question there - but that doesn't mean that the science behind it is immoral or bad. And finally, don't be so insulting when someone is posting something sincerely.
before showing your ignorance, you should do some research and see what other posts I contributed....
oh, and if you want to see an example of a troll, see MBendzela's posts. You can also read our little back and forth regarding EPA testing of pesticides.
"Vandana Shiva has pointed out that prior to the invasion of frankenfoods, farmers in India knew twelve hundred (1,200) different strains of rice, many of which were used for specific nutritional needs."
So with the existence of bioengineered rice there are now 1,201 different strains.
Vandana Shiva is a crank.
"Biotechnology is a worthless sector"
Wow. Just wow... Talk about being conservative.
The Andes civilizations, such as the Inca (the last one), avoided famine by cultivating a vast array of nutritious plants. The Andes civilizations developed more edible foods for humanity than all the other civilizations combined in the history of the world. Some people theorize that Machu Picchu, with its vast number of agriculture terraces, some only 6 inches or so wide, served as an agricultural experimental station for testing new hybrids of crops.
I don't think Monsanto existed back then. Today we eat a tiny fraction of the vast array of nutritious foods available, because corporations have taken control of the food supply and sell us only their most profitable foods.
The three major human staples -- wheat, rice, and corn -- suck as food sources. People should avoid them, not try to improve them. People began eating these grasses during a starvation event about 60 or 70 thousand years ago when almost all human beings died out.
If you want good health two pieces of advice. Eat little. Eat mostly green vegetables and some fruits and nuts. You will live longer and healthier.
MMMMMMMM Good!
Love that monINSANEto FrankenFood. Isn't it neat kids to swallow unlabled bt bacteria which barf pestisides? Isn't it neat to swallow unstable DNA which swaps genes with the natural bacterium in your gut?
In lab animals bt at higher levels, it caused cancer, but Mono pumped it into all our food anyway.
duplicate.
MBendzela - there is a reason why countries ban these products. You may want to question why these Frankenfoods companies have fought against labeling products made by them. It's sort of like why Americas Way members always refused to say their name, and why companies like them - quixtar(pronounced quick star), etc. always made their spelling very hard to guess so people couldn't look them up on internet and read about them.
Interesting that companies today feel the need to put out propaganda to brainwash children into acceptance of their products. It's interesting that it's the Global Warming causers and the frankenfoods companies that are the ones that feel the need to do this.
What next, corporations start teaching pre-schoolers pseudo science and product acceptance?
Figures there would be people like MBendzela, ready to fight for the corporations.
I got to the term "Frankenfoods" and I realized I'm dealing with someone with a 19th century view of science. No need to read further.
Let me guess, Global warming is a lie, right?
Have you ever actually read about the companies in this article, and their products? Somehow, I suspect everyone else has here, but you. Do you understand that things like splicing fish genes into food have proven not to help in higher crops yields and are scientifically unsound because there's no data showing the long term effect of this and the many many other genes spliced and put in foods from these companies? Do you understand they are doing it for profit - so they can patent their product and not for any scientifically provable reason that it makes food better, more resistant to pests or promotes higher crop yields? Do you understand the whole food take over by GM foods is through patents and lawsuits and forcing places to only use their patented seed?
Do you understand that farmers who buy GM foods have to rebuy the right to use the seeds every year and cannot simply use the seeds from the previous year because it's a contract infringement? Do you understand that these crops affect crops around them and these companies have put most of their competition out of business by suing them for having genes from their GM crops, in their yeilds, and due to wind it's impossible not to infect surrounding crops?
Please, tell me what IS the benefit of GM crops? If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know the benefits have been disproved.
No, global warming in NOT a lie. Global warming is real, it is caused by humans, and now we are paying for it.
But because you made your stupid assumption about me, I refuse to read the rest of your post.
Ooooooh, Snap!
Isn't it true that oversight and regulations built into the U.S. Government Agencies have been compromised? Substantial equivalence is a joke! Just like trying to pass off Monsantos as company that has the best interests of the Human Species (as a whole). Your a disinformation specialist at best! Go spread your propaganda to the children or someone else!
(I hate to sink to your level, bu this idea that people have a 19th century view of Science due to the concern of GMOs without due research is insulting!) Go and let us be done with you!