Sunday, November 16, 2014


I was either going to title this post, “Everything You Wanted To Know About The Safety Of GMOs But Didn’t Care To Ask Because You Are Stuck In A Misinformed Ideological Belief As Opposed To Arriving At An Informed Opinion Based On Empirical Scientific Data” or “GMO? OMG! STFU.” I went for the shorter one. Catchier.

This is a good quote for summing up the anti-GMO movement. The anti-vaccine movement. The global warming deniers. The anti-gluten people (the 99% of Earthlings who don’t have Celiac disease). The evolution deniers. The alternative medicine people. Homeopathy. Chiropractic. Acupuncture. Etc.

The following is a collection of GMO debates I’ve had with one liberal independent & very anti-GMO friend. I like these debate posts because you get both sides of the argument: the conspiracy and the truth. (Liberals are just as anti-science as Republicans when it interferes with their ideological beliefs.)

You will see a plethora of links supporting each side of the debate. One side has researched, peer-reviewed, reproducible scientific studies that refute the anecdotal cherry-picked ideology presented by the other side. I’ll let you figure out which is which.

If you don’t want to read a fairly lengthy post, here it is in a genetically modified nutshell:

“This study I found on “HealthyMercolaNaturalNoGMOsNoChemicalsMonsantoIsEvilBabeFoodOrganicFreedomBuyThis AlternativeFromUs dot com" shows how evil GMOs are.”
“This peer-reviewed scientific study takes apart that anecdotal study point-by-point, exposing the logical fallacies and cherry-picked statistics it used. And here is the complete scientific study presenting comprehensive analysis of the topic.”
“Yeah, well, there are no studies that show GMOs are safe.”
“Except for these couple thousand?”
“Yeah, well, ha ha ha! You just keep thinking that, shill!”
“I’d rather rely on the science than my ideological wishes."

"Well, to change the subject, it's about the one corporation that owns all the food in the world."
"Here's a list of several hundred food corporations only from the USA. Which is the one that owns all the food in the world? …Hello?”

I’m no scientist, but I tend to rely more on easily accessible scientific evidence as opposed to a sales pitch behind a pay wall.

This post could have gone on forever, but I think I've tackled all the anti-GMO talking points. Several are repeated because fact retention seems to be elusive to the "anti" crowd. I tried to cut out the repetitions as best I could when they weren't entwined within other talking points.

This post is extensive, so brace yourself.



The Brain Frees
Actually, hybridization is a rudimentary, imprecise form of genetic modification in the lab. All living things share genes. Did you know we share 60% genes with insects? And 60% genes with tomatoes? And 55% the same genes as banana trees? And 40% with bacteria? And 24% with grapes?

Did you know that interspecies genetic modification has been happening in nature for almost a million years at the very least? [I'm pissed I forgot to include the link. I can't find it now.]

Hybrids and GMOs are not very, very different. Just different a little.

Well... I always knew you were at least 55% bananas... but you are also a little nuts too… ;) Or maybe a lot nuts... I don't have the specific percentage on hand. :P Now if you will excuse me, I have a date with some springs, foam and feathers…

The Brain Frees
That's 55% Banana Nut Crunch, Mister! Don't you fergit it!

Nighty night!

[We have been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years. The difference between hybridization/crossbreeding and genetic modification in the lab is obvious. When plants and animals are genetically manipulated the traditional way by crossbreeding, thousands of genes are mixed together in an attempt to get the desired trait, with many failures and mutations along the way. There is no oversight and no regulation to this method. The most obvious failures are how we’ve bred dogs that have mashed faces with breathing problems, malformed legs and spines and a high susceptibility to disease and early death. In the lab, genetic manipulation is limited to 1 or 2 specific genes selected for a specific desired trait with high oversight and tight regulation. This method is vastly safer than the old way. Or, do you prefer the old "crapshoot" method?]

*****     *****     *****

Peter A Sour Deception: Citric Acid Comes From GMO Black Mold, Not Fruit

Of course it does. It's CITRIC, not CITRUS, silly man.
Mold is good for you... it's like penicillin, right?
I LOVE Black Mold in my food... almost as much as I love sarcasm.

[Sarcasm is much more effective when not uttered by an idiot who feels the insecure need to explain he’s being sarcastic.]

Uh, I don't think I'd wanna get my penicillin this way !! Gross !!

But Suzie... read the labels. You ARE getting Citric Acid that way... In the world of preservatives, Citric Acid is like Franks Red Hot Sauce…

Frank's RedHot Commercial- Bingo Night

[I actually used to put Frank’s RedHot on a lot of my food. I’ve recently discovered Cajun spice. Now, that goes on almost everything instead.]

It's in snacks... and hot dogs... and breads... and bird food... and desserts... and juices... and jellies... and cheese... and sodas... and candy... and bath salts... and water softeners... and cosmetics... and dyes... in cleaning agents... and pharmaceuticals... and pies... and gravy... and soups... and paints, candles, fireworks, drywall, sandpaper, crayons, shoe polish, antibiotics, adhesives…..

After all, GMO corn is one of America's biggest cash crops, producing over 30% of the world's corn supply and exporting over 20% to other countries... we have to do SOMETHING with all the byproducts... besides turn it into gasoline additives, or feed it to the animals that we slaughter…

[Subsidizing corn, regardless of its genetic status, is fucking stupid. And so is that list of items that have no context.]

The Brain Frees
If your problem is with citric acid, that's a legitimate concern.

If your problem is only when it comes from GMOs…

Citric acid is a chemical compound and cannot be genetically modified. There are no genes in a chemical compound. A chemical compound is the exact same chemical compound, whether it comes from GMO-free or GMO. This article is completely meaningless, scaremongering nonsense.

Ah TBF... I was wondering when you would chime in. So tell me, when that gmo company sells said chemical compound, do they get to profit from that sale? Considering it is in everything, I would say they are making a pretty fortune off of a chemical compound derived from gmo materials. And since I do NOT want to support or financially contribute to the sale or profits of GMOs, this article is not only meaningful, it is a valuable tool…

The Brain Frees
I didn't realize only GMOs were for profit. Where is the free non-GMO food? I'll totally line up.

Go look in your organic garden, if you plant one…

The Brain Frees
I had a feeling you were going to say that. Because everybody has the means to grow their own. I guess that puts the supermarket industry out of business.

Those who can, do. Those who cannot can support in other ways. [Life is not nearly that simple.]

There is always a better, organic option AND a way to support organic growers…

The Brain Frees
That assumes there is anything wrong with GMOs.

That confirms that there is everything right about Organics.

The Brain Frees

*****     *****     *****

Here’s a good one that, if you don’t know the facts, sounds bad for the claim that GM crops are safe. Follow along as you read all the effective propaganda, then learn the factual responses.

shared GMO Free USA’s photo
A BIG reason why I don't buy Nestle products, but not the only reason…

[The following text was included with the meme. There's really no need to waste your time reading the links. Unless you want to. The link titles should be enough (mis)information for you.]

Our babies aren't happy. It's a shame that Nestle has decided that pesticide-laden GMOs in their Gerber brand products are okay for our little ones. BOYCOTT GERBER until they remove GMOs and get Non-GMO Project Verified. NO GMOs FOR OUR BABIES! Tell them why you're not buying it.


CALL Gerber to let them know why you're not buying it (available 24/7): 800-284-9488

POST on Gerber's FB wall:

READ: Roundup Most Toxic of 9 Herbicides:

READ: Study - Humans with health problems have higher levels of glyphosate:

READ - Bt linked to kidney cell death:

READ: No consensus on GMO safety:

‪#‎BOYCOTTGERBER‬ ‪#‎BOYCOTTNESTLE‬ ‪#‎GMO‬ ‪#‎Gerber‬ ‪#‎Nestle‬ ‪#‎StopPoisoningOurBabies‬ ‪#‎pesticides‬ ‪#‎Roundup‬ ‪#‎Glyphosate‬ ‪#‎labelgmos‬ ‪#‎needtoknowgmo‬ ‪#‎freedom2chooz‬ ‪#‎boycottgmos‬ ‪#‎gmofreecanada‬ ‪#‎gmofreeusa‬

[Everything in all those links from the above meme is complete bullshit. Unless you’re only seeking uninvestigated and manipulated anecdotal confirmation bias (and a few outright lies sprinkled in for good measure) and not peer-reviewed scientific research as your evidence. I've included them in this post because they are important to see how information can be manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion. A great satirical link that shows how bad water is for you will be posted later. It exposes the lunacy of these types of confirmation biased links.]

Oh, GROSS !! This really drives the point home.

[No, it doesn’t. It scaremongers a lie into foul territory.]

The Brain Frees
This makes no sense. GMO's do not mean pesticides. ALL fruits and vegetables mean pesticides. And the thing about GMO's being engineered to absorb and create pesticides is about as far from truth as you can get. I guess facts just complicate the propaganda.

Perhaps you should read up on it a bit more then… ;) there are plenty of links…

The Brain Frees
Yes, links - except the peer-reviewed science refutes all of those cherry-picked propaganda pieces. I will admit, the propaganda is more fun, though. :)

Forbes: 2000+ Reasons Why GMO’s Are Safe And Environmentally Sustainable

Biofortified: The Muddled Debate About Pesticides And GM Crops

AgBioForum: Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects, 1996-2006

Neurologica Blog: New Organic Farming Meta-analysis - What Does It Really Show?

Neurologica Blog: Antibiotic Resistant Markers in GM Crops

Skeptico: The Seralini Rule

Science Blogs: Bad Science about GMOs: It reminds me of the anti vaccine movement

There are plenty more links to the actual science, but I'll leave you with this fact: The scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs is equivalent to that of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, which hovers just around 98%.

Well, first; this article is about pesticides, yet you are quick as always to jump on the "GMOs are safe" bandwagon. [So, there AREN'T two sentences that expressly blame GMOs for pesticides in that meme?] GMOs DO mean pesticides... and in abundance; whereas GMOs were introduced with the promise that pesticide use would be reduced, and the exact opposite has occurred, creating more and greater exposure to toxic substances in our food, our water and our air.

Genetic Enginnering Companies Promised Reduced Pesticide Use … But GMO Crops Have Led to a 25% Increase In Herbicide Use

Globalresearch: Genetic engineering companies promised reduced pesticide use but GMO crops have led to a 25% increase in herbicide use

Second; Who are you kidding? Science consistently gets things wrong... and has done so for as long as there have been scientists! Why? Because science is always changing, always evolving, always revealing new information that we previously did not have. [Historian’s Fallacy.]

The "science of GMOs" that you propose is not based anywhere in "fact” [Yes. It is. And it's even the kind of facts that are not contained within quotes.] but on the theories derived from understandings we currently possess [We should never base theories on up-to-date knowledge?]; understandings, which we simply do not have enough information on to even suggest that GMOs are “safe." [Yes, we do.] Science is a self correcting discipline; [True, but irrelevant to your Historian’s Fallacy-based argument.] You of ALL people should know that! [I do; it’s still irrelevant.] But since you are a fan of including many links… let's take a look at the things science has gotten wrong: [I am a fan of including links to researched, studied, peer-reviewed information, not manipulated, pre-determined, anecdotal, ideological confirmation bias, but have at it, I guess. Also, the topics should be relevant.]

The Nation: The Secret History of Lead

Nature: Asbestos Scandal

The Global Mail: “DDT Was So Safe You Could Eat It” - And Other Killer Myths Of Modern Technology

Helio: Cigarettes were once ‘physician’ tested, approved

Top Tenz: Top 10 Most Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

Ejnet: Dioxins & Furans: The Most Toxic Chemicals Known to Science

CMR.ASM: Food Animals and Antimicrobials: Impacts on Human Health

CNN: Cocaine: The evolution of the once ‘wonder’ drug

The Guardian: Cocaine study that got up the nose of the US Agent Orange

Collective Evolution: 10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

Science Channel: Top 10 Science Mistakes

Houston Chronicle: The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories

And now, I will leave you with THIS fact: The scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs is equivalent to that of the original scientific consensus on leaded gasoline; the peer reviews are often funded by the manufacturers, who pay large sums of money to keep their products in the positive public image; who buy government support; who use fear tactics to maintain their standing and keep negative scientific studies out of the public eye; who use muscle and force to heavily negate opposition; and who often take opposition and publicly shrug it off as pseudoscience; etc. etc. [One bit of evidence to substantiate these oft-repeated claims by the "anti" crowd would help in potentially changing my evidence-based opinions.]

There is only one truth here: the science of GMOs is simply TOO YOUNG to have a true marker of safety associated with it, yet have already proven their destructive nature on the world... at a genetic level; they very weeds and bugs that they are supposed to control are developing resistances at rates faster than they can control them... leading to annual spikes in the amount of pesticides needed and at greater doses! You don't think that is negatively affecting your health?

Organic Consumers: Pesticide Residues from Non-Organic Foods Building Up in Our Bodies

Reuters: Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study

Enveurope: Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. — the first sixteen years

PR Newswire: New Report Reveals Dramatic Rise in Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops Due to the Spread of Resistant Weeds

So YES... GMOs mean Pesticides... at far more toxic levels than organic, natural and previously conventional levels. It does not increase food production levels; only chemical manufacturing/production levels.

The only thing that GMOs are good for is PROFIT. CONTROL. OWNERSHIP of a "product" that benefits no-one but the corporations that hawk them. GMOs are not here to feed the world; they are here to make greedy men richer at the expense of a global population. They are a destructive path, and deep down, you know it.

You go Peter

[Yeah, he went. Now, I go.]

The Brain Frees
Actually, I did address pesticides. Also, I jumped on no bandwagon. GMOs are the same risk as so called non-GMOs. You're the one jumping on the 'GMOs are evil' bandwagon. [Hm. A little childish-sounding. Regardless, still true. “No, I’m not. You are!]

The exact opposite has not occurred. Global Research, which you posted as proof, is demonstrably a crank pseudoscientific, conspiracy theory organization.

RationalWiki: Global Research

As for the reality of pesticides:
[He seems to have missed it the first time I posted this link.]
Biofortified: The Muddled Debate About Pesticides And GM Crops

Scientific American: Are lower pesticide residues a good reason to buy organic? Probably not.

"Science consistently gets things wrong" is a logical fallacy that doesn't prove anything. But to you, somehow that means the 96%+/- scientific consensus is wrong, but the 4%+/- anti-GMO science is obviously correct. "We simply do not have enough information to even suggest that GMOs are safe." But we do have enough to prove they are not? That argument makes no sense. That line of thinking also denies the fact that we do have enough information, just so it can perpetuate the false anti-GMO propaganda. To sum up, you're saying, "That other thing was wrong, so this unrelated thing will be wrong, too, and because we don't know, that proves I'm right."

You can post 150 million links to things science has gotten wrong in the past. That does not prove anything one way or the other. That's false attribution fallacy: Science has gotten Agent Orange wrong in the past so it's going to get GMO wrong now. What? I like how you snuck in the "10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health" article. Was that to see if I was paying attention? Here's an article that specifically addresses all 10 of those anti-science lies with real science:

Genetic Literacy Project: 10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters

'Peer reviews are funded by manufacturers' and 'GMO science is too young' are conspiracy theories that deny the facts in order to validate the pseudoscientific anti-GMO propaganda. 

Genetic Literacy Project: With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science 

GMO BB: About those industry-funded GMO studies

GMO's have not been destructive to anything, have not created superbugs and weeds. These things were already on the rise prior to when lab GMO's began (I'm not counting the 10,000+ years of GMOs prior to the safer, more precise lab-designed GMOs, which hit the streets about 20 years ago, because you don't consider those GMOs to be GMOs. Every single plant and animal we eat, or don't, has been genetically modified. For tens of centuries.). It got popular to blame them on GMOs. Any lie if it helps the cause.

FAFDL: What The Haters Got Wrong About Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Comments On GMOs

ABC Science: Who’s afraid of GMOs?

Science 2.0: GMOs Don’t Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does

The Organic Consumers Association, which you posted as proof, is another anti-science, biased crank group.

Activist Facts: Organic Consumers Association

The uncritical Reuters article, which you posted as proof, is about a study by Charles Benbrook that the scientific community at large has thoroughly discredited.

Forbes: Scientists, Journalists Challenge Claim That GM Crops Harm The Environment

The Environmental Sciences Europe article, which you posted as proof, cites the same wholly discredited Charles Benbrook study.

The PR Newswire article, which you posted as proof, cites the same wholly discredited Charles Benbrook study.

'Profit/control/ownership of a product' is another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Farmers always buy new seeds every season, GMO or not, for two main reasons: 1) it's incredibly time consuming to pick seeds, which makes it not cost effective, and 2) second generation seeds are genetically degraded in purity; crops become unpredictable. But that's only been going on for centuries - let's blame the last few decades on GMOs, specifically Monsanto.

Neurologica Blog: Persistent Anti-GMO Myths

No one has ever so much as gotten a hiccup from GE crops or pesticides, and this somehow proves to the science-ignoring anti-GMO crowd that it's killing people by the bushelful. That logic I just don't understand.

Like I said at the very start: ALL fruits and vegetables mean pesticides.

Not all 'natural' is good and not all 'man-made' is bad. And vice versa. Your arguments are all ideological and without basis in fact. Your "proof" is all discredited confirmation bias.

In case you were wondering, I'm not a shill for Monsanto. ;)

I stopped buying their products, when they started yapping against breast feeding..

Well... once again, we have successfully compared dick sizes... and once again, we are left standing with our dicks in our hands. So... the only thing left is to zip up and move on…


[Why do people who have been proven wrong often whip out the ‘dick comparison’ analogy?]

The Brain Frees
For me, this was about searching for the truth using peer-reviewed, scientific research as opposed to conjecture, anecdotes, logical fallacies, cherry-picked statistics, misinformation, pseudoscience, propaganda and really strong wishes. At no point did the thought of comparing dick size enter my mind, nor did I have my dick in my hand. I may have scratched my balls a time or two.

As for breast milk, no worries there, either.

Genetic Literacy Project: Mass General pediatrics chief says glyphosate, used with some GM crops, no danger in breast milk

Academics Review: Debunking pseudo science “lab testing” health risk claims about glyphosate (Roundup)

Cami Ryan: GMO’s Toxins and unborn babies… a deeper examination of the study.


*****     *****     *****

shared GMO Free USA’s photo
Yep… especially #10

The Brain Frees
I was confused there for a second until I realized this was the "10 myths" list.

Of COURSE it is, TBF... GMOs are GOOD for you... especially if you own the patent. Bon Appetit!
Like · 8

[Amazing how many people “Liked” that response. ‘You got ‘im with your clever sarcasm!’ No. He didn’t.]

The Brain Frees
Ah, yes, the unsubstantiated "Argumentum ad Monsantium" conspiracy theory. GMO's are BAD for you... Who needs evidence? Zut alors!

TBF... they could be the healthiest thing on the planet [Topic change.]... and it still will not change the fact that NO ONE should own the food supply…

The Brain Frees
I agree. Which of the many hundreds of food corporations is the one that owns the food supply?

Hundreds? Better check those numbers again…

The Brain Frees
Only the top 100. Only from US & Canada.

Food Processing: Top 100 Food and Beverage Companies for 2013


No comment? I have some more:

1. GM crops do not increase yield
Yes, they do.

Sciencemag: Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries

2. GM crops increase pesticide use
No, they do not. That claim is using one fact and ignoring another to mislead you: cherry-picking. Whereas glyphosate herbicide use is up, overall use of herbicides are down because the need for many different herbicides is down.

GMO Answers: Is it true that GMOs require massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides?

Science 2.0: The Muddled Debate About Pesticide And GM Crops

3. GM crops have created “superweeds”
Yes, but no. 

climatedesk: No, GMOs won't harm your health

4. GM crops have toxic or allergenic effects on lab animals
No, they do not. Statement based on widely debunked Seralini study and a debunked study on GM feed giving pigs gastrointestinal problems.

WHO: Food Safety: Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

6. GM is not needed for good nutrition
Tell that to the 250 million children who are vitamin A-deficient in the world, which kills and blinds millions each year. 

Business Insider: What is golden rice?

7. There are better ways to feed the world
Conventional farming has hit a production output wall. Better management/localized production/transportation/storage along with supplementing conventional with GM is the future. 

MIT Technology Review: GMOs Are Green: Genetically modified crops will allow farming practices closer to the ideals of the organic movement.

Also, see: #6

8. Conventional breeding is better than GM at producing crops with useful traits
This is just an outright lie. I have already addressed this lie in the “Crossbreeding vs GMO” meme above, but here it is again:
We have been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years. The difference between hybridization/crossbreeding and genetic modification in the lab is obvious. When plants and animals are genetically manipulated the traditional way by crossbreeding, thousands of genes are mixed together in an attempt to get the desired trait, with many failures and mutations along the way. There is no oversight and no regulation to this method. The most obvious failures are how we’ve bred dogs that have mashed faces with breathing problems, malformed legs and spines and a high susceptibility to disease and early death. In the lab, genetic manipulation is limited to 1 or 2 specific genes selected for a specific desired trait with high oversight and tight regulation. This method is vastly safer than the old way. Or, do you prefer the old "crapshoot" method?

9. GM is an unprecise technology that will continue to deliver unpleasant surprises
Aside from ‘ unprecise’ not being a word - as with #8, this is an outright laughable lie. It most certainly is a precise technology (unlike traditional crapshoot crossbreeding) and has not produced any “unpleasant surprises.” Until one “unpleasant surprise” is actually produced (without lying about one, resulting in time wasted debunking said lie), I will continue to accept the fact that there have been no “unpleasant surprises."

10. GM crops are not about feeding the world but about patented ownership of the food supply
False Attribution fallacy: “GM crops are bad because they are patented."
First, yes, it is about feeding the world. Second, a patent is irrelevant. Why can’t a patent be held on something that’s helpful? The computer/smartphone you used to post this meme: patented. The car you drive to work in: patented. The clothes you wear, the oven you cook with, your air conditioner, shampoo, toothpaste, carpets, hardwood flooring, windows in your house, everything in your life is patented. But things you don’t like - they shouldn’t be. Right. If that’s all you got, you got nothing.

Genetic Literacy Project: Monsanto in the anti-GMO crosshairs: Fair or foul?

*****     *****     *****

shared Expanded Consciousness’s photo
It’s enough to make you see purple!

The Brain Frees
Monsanto has never sued a farmer for seeds blowing onto their crops. Somehow, actual evidence for this occurring is not needed for this lie to be repeated ad infinitum. Monsanto has only sued farmers who have been proven to intentionally infringe on patent seeds. Somehow, that proof is ignored.

Intentionally infringe? Intentionally... Yeah, okay then... hahaha! Keep believing that…

The Brain Frees
Sarcasm is your evidence?

(Myth #2 is pertinent to this topic)
npr: Top 5 Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted

SGU: Monsanto Myths

[I thought we were having a discussion. Where did you go?]

*****     *****     *****

shared GMO Inside's photo

The Brain Frees
Did you know? Even corn sans GMO is a whole new species that never occurred in nature?

[Didn’t even attempt to put up a fight. Hmph.]

[Here is a picture of how we have genetically modified corn over the last 500 years - not in the lab.]

*****     *****     *****

shared GMO Free USA’s photo

Where's the Lorax when you need him?!

The Brain Frees
GAAAA!!! EVERY word of this is a lie.

Except for China, GM forests are not approved and are not being planted. Anywhere in the world.

The purpose of these trees, IF approved, would be for pulp & paper manufacturing and construction use. A prerequisite for their approval is that they be sterile. Grow 'em. Chop 'em. No self-reproducing.

The fear-mongering lies of the blindly anti-GE community piss me off. You want to go after Monsanto? Go ahead. They're a corporation that does stuff with GE science solely for their bottom line. But stop conflating Genetic Engineering with Monsanto.

Here's your "government weather-controlling chemtrail conspiracy theorist" quack, Dr. Lorrin Pang:

Chemtrail Coverup: Aluminum and chemtrails Dr Lorrin Pang

Perhaps you should look into ArborGen... they are in your home state:

Just because it is "not yet legal" does not mean it is not yet happening…

Climate Connections: Paper companies plan to profit from GMO trees in US, Other GMO plants to come

Scientific American: Genetically Modified Forest Planned for U.S. Southeast

[I “Liked” all three of his links. This probably confused, yet satisfied him. But, I “Liked” them because with the exception of a test site of GM trees in the South, all three articles back up everything I said. People, proofread your proof before using it as proof. And, as previously stated in this blog post, ‘profits’ and ‘patents’ are not arguments as to why something is either good or bad. That’s the False Attribution fallacy, among others.]

*****     *****     *****

And you wonder why we keep screaming about labels…

The Complete Patient: It's Everywhere: MIT Scientist Presents Dire Portrait of Damage from Monsanto's Roundup (The Worrisome Autism-Glyphosate Correlation)

The Brain Frees
Quack alert.
Either way [Topic change.]... label the shit and let us decide if we want to buy and consume it or not. This forced science experiment has to stop

[It’s not a “forced science experiment” to anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist who ignores all facts on the subject to push an unsubstantiated ideology.

Labeling foods that contain GMOs serves no purpose. It would only serve to scare misinformed people about a problem that does not exist. Plus, we already have a label: “Certified Organic” means GMO free. And building the infrastructure needed to determine which foods are GM-free would increase the cost of all food.]

Collegian: GMO foods shouldn’t be labeled

Policy Mic: GMO Foods: Why We Shouldn’t Label (Or Worry About) Genetically Modified Products

*****     *****     *****

shared Food Inc’s photo

The Brain Frees
Ooh, fun! I can invent even more...
11. Male Pattern Baldness
12. Flat Tires
13. Syphilis
14. Computer Crashes
15. Asteroids
16. No-hitters
17. Flat Souffles
18. Chipped Teeth
19. Hangnails
20. John Cena's Chokehold

[No reply.]

We were making things up, weren’t we? I’m always sad when they don’t respond. That doesn’t make for a good blog entry. However, this time we have a list to debunk all by ourselves. Let’s take a look at each claim. There are many, many links to facts I could provide, which prove each claim to be false, but I’ll just use one. If you want more, you could always do a little research on your own.

1. Lack of research
There is a preponderance of research. (Already posted this one.)
GMO Pundit: 600+ published safety assessments.

2. Superbugs/Superweeds
This propaganda is based on the propaganda that GM crops use more pesticides, thereby causing insects and weeds to build up a tolerance quicker. GM crops do not use more pesticides, they use less, and bugs & weeds build up a standard tolerance to poisons as they always have. It is also based on self-producing pesticide in Bt crops. The problem is not the GM crop, it’s the overuse of pesticides and Bt crops - it’s a human problem, not a science problem. Also, massive overuse of antibiotics are a much bigger problem in creating "superbugs."
Climate Desk: No, GMOs Won’t Harm Your Health

3. Stronger pesticides
This is just completely fabricated. Pesticides are not stronger, they’re more precisely targeted to the plant on which they are used. And, it has nothing to do with GMOs. It is a different argument. It’s the "synthetic vs natural" argument. Synthetic pesticides can be and are used on GM and non-GM crops alike - and are safer than "natural" pesticides because they are less toxic. Also, contrary to propaganda, synthetic pesticides are used less than natural pesticides.
Science For Environment Policy: Organic pesticides may not always be the best choice

4. Bee deaths
Bees and butterflies are not dying off because of GM crops. The colonies have been on a decline since the 1960’s, well before the first lab-created GM crop was born. Plus, bee colonies are larger now than they were 20 years ago. This is due to a natural fluctuation of colony collapse disorder, having been reported for a thousand years. So, shut the fuck up about bees disappearing. You sound like an idiot.
CFACT: The buzz on bees: they are not going away!

5. Monsanto versus studies
There are two problems at work in this 3-word claim. Monsanto is not GMO. Monsanto is introduced into arguments against GMOs because you can argue against a corporation and its allegedly nefarious use of a product, but you have no evidence to back up your anti-GMO claims. Introducing a topic you can argue against when you can’t argue against the topic at hand is known as the Straw Man fallacy or Argumentum Ad Hominem when you attack the messenger instead of the message (when used with Monsanto, it’s been called the Argumentiun ad Monsantium fallacy). The second problem is that anti-GMO people claim Monsanto is blocking studies that show how eeeeeeeeeevil GM crops are. They are not. There are no peer-reviewed scientific studies that show GM crops are bad. In fact, peer-reviewed scientific studies show GM crops are safe. The only “studies” that show GM crops to be bad are anecdotal pseudoscience bullshit, and no one is blocking them. In fact, a casual search on the web produces a ratio of about 200-1 studies in favor of the rabid bullshit. Real scientists spend more time researching and working than they do promoting and fearmongering. That’s what I’m here for: scientific promotion. I won’t include a link on this one because this blog post is fucking full of them. As you’ve seen, I have included all the anecdotal cherry-picked bullshit links and the links to real science that refutes each anti-science claim.

6. Lawsuits
What in particular about lawsuits? I’m guessing it’s the Argumentum Ad Monsantium logical fallacy again. Is this in reference to Monsanto suing farmers when their patented seeds blow onto their fields? This has never happened. See: OSGATA vs. Monsanto meme above. I guess it doesn’t include all the times “organic” farmers sue Monsanto, such as in OSGATA vs Monsanto.
Monsanto: Myth: Monsanto Sues Farmers When GMOs or GM Seed is Accidentally in Their Fields

7. Monsanto’s chokehold
This is in reference to Monsanto owning all the food in the universe. This propaganda was debunked in the “10 Reasons We Don’t Need GM Foods” meme above.

8. Revolving door
This is in reference, I think, to former Monsanto CEO’s being put in charge of government regulatory agencies. Hey, whaddaya know? One of these is true!

9. Monsanto’s past evil
Argumentum Ad Monsantium (The Monsanto argument is like when you're arguing politics with someone and they keep comparing Obama to Hitler. Over and over and over and over and over...

10. Force feeding
Anti-GMO activists like to use this fear-mongering term. It suggests that the evil GMO cabal is force feeding us in some mad-scientific genetic experiment to see if we’ll grow lobster claws on our nipples or something. I equate it to the pro-lifers inventing the term “partial-birth abortion,” which is designed to make you think mad doctors kill the baby as its head is exiting the mother in mid birth. It’s not a real term.

*****     *****     *****

shared GMO Free USA’s photo

The Brain Frees
Ah, yes. We should be more like Russia. That government really looks out for its people.

And ours does? [No. You’re right. America is just like Russia. For fuck’s sake.]

The Brain Frees
Certainly a whole lot more than Russia's. But that's not what I said, now is it, Mr. Strawman? Russia is not a country to aspire to be more like. It's like FOX "News" worshiping the great, powerful leader, Putin, while calling Obama weak. Praising an actual communist dictator just to make Obama seem bad.

Good thing no one has ever even once been harmed or killed by GMO.

...right. LOL

The Brain Frees
Right what? Harming people? Give me the list.

So nobody has ever been harmed by GMO's? [No.] That’s a pretty bold statement. [No, it isn’t. It’s just a basic fact.] In fact, I can tell you personally they made me highly aggressive and angry. Since I've cut them out, I'm much more relaxed and happy. [Neurologica Blog: Well, it worked for me!] 

If they did that to me, imagine what they do to other people. [I imagine they grow lobster claws on people's nipples. Try giving me a ‘purple-nurple’ now, motherfucker!] But feel free to keep eating them. We love a good science project.

Also, no one said we should aspire to be like Russia. However, why are we pretty much the only country that allows and has created a protection act for Monsanto? That in itself should tell you a thing or two.

The Brain Frees
An opinionated, unscientific correlation/causation anecdote is not proof.

The meme is praising Russia.

There is no Monsanto Protection Act. That's fictitious.

I remember at one time the US government also standing behind their statements (and the corporations that paid them off) that leaded gasoline is completely safe. And we ALL know how that turned out. [Historian’s Fallacy again. If all my arguments were continually shown to be based on logical fallacies, I would rethink my position on a subject. But, that’s just me. For some reason, the more that a conspiracy-minded person is proven wrong, the more they become entrenched in their conspiracy.] Time will tell, sir... meanwhile, I still demand the right to know what is GM and what is Organic... and the entire processes from farm to table. That is not so much to ask

TBF, you seem so bitter. Why is that? [I get that a lot. It seems people who live in ideological fantasy worlds think facts are angry or bitter.]

The Brain Frees
Who are the science lobbyists that are paying off the government like big oil did and still does?

What is the difference between GM and Organic?

In what way do I seem bitter?

I guess argumentative would be a better term.

GM food is modified to the way scientists want it to be. Pomegranate seeds that biodegrade within weeks, [Explain why that is bad.] the inability to dry out vegetable seeds and replant them, [Explain why that is bad.] pretty much any food ingredient that you can't pronounce. [False Attribution fallacy. “I can’t pronounce it, therefore, it’s bad." I guess bananas are bad for you, since I can’t pronounce most of these chemicals they’re made of.]

Organic is just that. No pesticides and no chemical engineering. [No. “Organic" uses more pesticides and pesticides that are more toxic. And everything is engineered from chemicals. See: banana. See also: everything else in existence.] It’s actual food in the way in which it was intended to be.

Also, HR 933 would be the actual bill that you deemed fake.

The Brain Frees
It takes two to argue. Unless this whole thing is going on in my head.

Organic pesticides can be just as harmful as chemical. But that's good marketing.

Name a fruit or vegetable that hasn't been genetically modified in the last 4,000 years.

I know HR933 is an actual Act and I know what you think it does. Show me where it protects Monsanto.

Govtrack: Text of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013

Also, I would like to point out that GMO and Monsanto are two different arguments. Whenever someone wants to scare-monger about GMO's in general, they bring up Monsanto, which is a corporation with its own interests and aren't always ethical. Basically, replacing the topic of GMO with Monsanto is a strawman argument.

[Where did everybody go? It sucks when facts refute your ideology, huh?]

Soapbox Science: The presence of a chemical is not the same as presence of a risk

As far as doing things because others do things, that’s called the Bandwagon Fallacy.

*****     *****     *****

shared Oregon Right To Know’s Photo

The Brain Frees
I get that these anti-GMO groups are concerned with the safety of GMOs (even though that concern ignores all the science behind GMOs), but why, in every argument, do they have to lie to make their case (which means, by default, they are wrong)?

First, the overuse of the word ‘chemical’ by anti-GMO groups is silly. It highlights the fact that they are afraid simply because they don’t understand. Or, the organizers do understand and are manipulating the fear of followers to buy the “organic” that they're selling [Which he should be against, since it's for a profit. And stuff sold for a profit always means it's bad, right?] Everything is chemical. What specific chemicals are you afraid of? Vitamin A? Oxygen? Protein? Ethylene? Deoxyribonucleic acid? (Logical fallacy: Appeal to Fear)

Second, yes, Agent Orange & DDT are bad. That has nothing to do with GMO’s. (Logical fallacies used: Confirmation Bias, False Attribution, False Equivalence, Furtive, Historian's, Ignoratio elenchi, Red Herring, Appeal to Fear)

Third, this meme conflates corporations with Genetic Engineering. You can argue against dubious corporate practices, but not the science behind GMOs. The science behind GMO’s are not corporate practices. Corporations use the science behind GMOs. (Logical fallacies used: Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Motive, Straw Man, Poisoning the Well, Argumentum Ad Hominem - and this one, which was created specifically for Monsanto because of how often they are used - Argumentum Ad Monsantium)

Fourth, “High doses of pesticides” is a fact-manipulating lie. (Appeal to Fear) 
Science 2.0: The muddled debate about pesticide and GM crops.

And all anti-GMO arguments stem from these logical fallacies: Appeal to Fear, Moral High Ground, Appeal to Nature, Unnatural, Appeal to Motive, Argumentum Ad Populum.

Ideology is not science.

Ah, TBF... You LOVE these posts. You do realize that I only post them now because I long for your essays, right? ;) :P

The Brain Frees
I DO love them. I've skipped a bunch, though. I'm a slacker.

Shame on you. Now how are these Evil companies are going to pay their favorite shill when you are letting them down like that?!?!

So... have you considered that they are not highlighting the word chemical, but the word corporation? And their statement is still sound and true; your essay has not negated their facts. ["I've denied the facts you've presented, and that's all that's necessary to make facts become untrue when I don't like them."] Their products are not safe. They ARE creating GMOs to withstand higher doses of their pesticides. They ARE using higher doses, and the government just upped the "safe legal limit" on dosage. Wow... and I said it all in one paragraph using layman's terms.

The Brain Frees
Why do they continually emphasize and misrepresent chemicals if it's not about chemicals? [It's about corporations, too. Because they're all evil, as you know.] And sure, their statement is sound and true if you accept ideology and ignore all evidence on the matter. Asking to increase the usage of one pesticide is not the same as it being increased - aside from the fact that overall pesticide use is down. Wowsers. Layman-y goodness all over! 


Chemistry? My blood is made of CHEMICALS!!!??? I must get rid of it!!!

*****     *****     *****

shared Institute for Responsible Technology's photo.
Vive La France!

The Brain Frees

Not-scientist Hollande did not impose a GMO moratorium for that nonsensical "blocking progress in the name of progress" reason. It was purely political.

Biofortified: The European Union’s opposition to GM crops has nothing to do with safety

[There's that lovely cricket sound.]


"Chief science adviser, Professor Anne Glover, was recently axed by EU President Jean-Claude Juncker. ...Her advice on the science, specifically with regard to genetically modified organisms (GMO) was politically inconvenient."

Neurologica: Science vs Politics

*****     *****     *****

shared GMO Free USA's photo
[The following text and links were included with the meme. There's really no need to waste your time reading them.]
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the ubiquitous herbicide Roundup, was originally patented as a chelator back in 1964. It bonds to minerals like calcium, iron, magnesium & manganese and removes them. It was used to clean pipes that had mineral buildup. It is the most widely used herbicide, primarily due to the widespread cultivation of Roundup Ready GMO crops. This leads us to ask... when you spray a chelator on our farmland and our food, how much of the nutrients are chelated from the soil and the crops. Add to that the fact that glyphosate is in our food - and we have to wonder to what extent it is removing vital nutrients from us?! BAN ROUNDUP.

LEARN more about Glyphosate & GMO crops:…/uplo…/2013/05/FoodPlaguePrimer.pdf

READ: over 200 Peer reviewed studies & reports that found health or environmental harm from Glyphosate/Roundup:…/gmo-science/glyphosate-studies/

#‎GMO‬ ‪#‎Glyphosate‬ ‪#‎Roundup‬ ‪#‎RoundupReady‬ ‪#‎Chelator‬ ‪#‎Calcium‬ ‪#‎Iron‬ ‪#‎magnesium‬ ‪#‎manganese‬ ‪#‎GMOFreeCanada‬ ‪#‎GMOFreeUSA‬

[All those words & links up there - bullshit. That’s not how glyphosate works. Glyphosate is different than the original chemical formula is sprang from.]

The Brain Frees
To keep it short, this meme is a fear-mongering lie of misinformation. No minerals are being removed from anywhere.

For the detail-oriented:
Actually, glyphosate was first synthesized in 1950 by Swiss chemist Henry Martin for the company, Cilag. Monsanto re-discovered it in 1970 to use as a potential water-softening agent. People install water-softening systems in their houses to clean out mineral deposits from their pipes all the time, especially in New Jersey with all that hard water. My parents have had one for 30 years. Getting back to glyphosate, it was discovered to have weak herbicidal activity and John E. Franz, a chemist at Monsanto strengthened it. From Wikipedia: Glyphosate has been called by experts in herbicides "virtually ideal" due to its broad spectrum and low toxicity to animal life compared with other herbicides. Franz received the National Medal of Technology in 1987 and the Perkin Medal for Applied Chemistry in 1990 for his discoveries. Franz was inducted into the National Inventor's Hall of Fame in 2007.

Google search results: water softener system

Ah, TBF. Always ready to put in your two cents. [As long as you keep throwing in your plug nickle.] Those Monsanto kickbacks must be really beneficial to your longevity.

Bill Mancuso
That's me. Monsanto shill. Rollin' in the dough. 99 problems and glyphosate ain't one.

Rollin' in the GMO…

[Also not one of my 99 problems.]

*****     *****     *****

shared GMO Free USA's photo.

[Before we continue on to the dialogue, I'd like to point out the accompanying text under the meme is a perfect example of how the anti-science crowd rebukes science since they have no fucking idea how it works or is funded, or about the very real food problems in starving, third-world countries, but blindly believes the propagandistic ad campaign of the $63 Billion profit "Organic" industry, which, basically, is: "Buy our wholesome product because theirs will kill you."]

Twinkies and Lunchables have nothing to do with what science says about GMOs; I don't remember quick-rotting Twinkies or nutritionally robust Lunchables before science got its hands on them. And the old tobacco argument intentionally lies about advertising methods using actors as physicians vs what science said. And DDT: after extensive study, scientists in the 1940’s said DDT was harmful. It’s continued use through the 1980s (and today) due to politicians fighting its legislation also has nothing to do with science.

No, science does not have a credibility problem. Yes, you are afraid of science.

"In all cases we have been misled, and today it is not 'false fears' that has bred skeptical consumers, it is experience." [That quote and the misinformation in the above meme comes from this ignorant anti-science article.] And GMOs: after extensive study, scientists in the 1990’s through today have had mixed reviews on GMO safety, and many have said GMOs are harmful. It’s continued use through the 1980s (and today) due to politicians fighting its legislation (usually with the help of of major contributions from the companies like Monsanto that financially profit from them being sold) also has nothing to do with science. Not all science has a credibility problem... just the science that 
you happen to disagree with. [Interesting mental twist: Denying all the science that says GMOs are fine while accepting the debunked pseudoscience that blatantly makes shit up to back its ideological claim that GMOs are evil - and saying I'm the one who denies science I don't agree with.]

Bill Mancuso
In all cases you have been misled - but not by science. (Well, I don't know how we were misled by Twinkies, but whatever. And actually, DDT itself is ok to use. Its overuse is what caused the problem and the misrepresentation of the science behind it by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.) I do not disagree with science. I accept it, whether I like it or not. Scientists do not have a mixed review of GMOs, no matter how much you repeat that false propaganda (+/- 2% is not "many”). Yes, the pseudoscience you agree with has a credibility problem. Your denial of denial of science is humorous.

Profits. You seem to discount the multi-billion dollar profit margin of the "natural/organic" corporate industry as a bone of contention. Why isn't their desire for a higher profit margin "just another scam?"

Why do your parameters for judging what is a fact change with your ideology? Why aren't your parameters for judging what a is a fact based on what is a fact?

And denying overwhelming scientific consensus is not skepticism. It's denialism.

Ag Professional: Global organic sales reach $63 billion, US is largest market 

[Here is the link in the middle of that "I Fucking Hate Pseudoscience" post. It is important to note whenever the anti-GMO or anti-vaccine or anti-whatever group throws the "science said gasoline/tobacco/DDT was okay and that's why it's wrong now" argument at you. It's a bullshit argument and this article explains why- in detail. The best part- it uses Neil deGrasse Tyson's COSMOS as a springboard.]
I repeat: Not all science has a credibility problem... just the science that you happen to disagree with. :P

I repeat: I agree with the science, as related by scientists. You agree with what you read on "”

[Notice he uncleverly ignored the organic profit margin point. Wonder why.]

*****     *****     *****

Not GMO related, but hey.

shared Hare Krishna’s photo

The Brain Frees
How about starting this list:
People Who Are Actually Allergic to Gluten

Forbes: Gluten Intolerance May Not Exist

*****     *****     *****

 Also not GMO related, but is more food-based anti-science.

shared Organic Health's photo.

Yummy! Cleans decks... and your teeth, while you chew!

The Brain Frees
It's an anti-oxidant. Toxicity is determined by amount. Just like, say, vitamins, which can kill you if you overdose on them.

When you use sodium bicarbonate, also an "evil chemical," do you use it to put out fires and detarnish silverware, or to bake cookies?

It is also primarily used as a detergent, an emulsifier and a preservative, helping to give meats and seafood the appearance of "freshness". As for an "evil chemical" ...Well, those are your quotations, not mine. ;)

The Brain Frees
It's used as a detergent, emulsifier and preservative because of its alkalinity. You know what else is a primary ingredient in detergents, emulsifiers and preservatives? A colorless, odorless "evil chemical" compound known as Dihydrogen Monoxide. You should stop using H2O at all costs.

Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

I've heard of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It's a solvent found in cleaning agents and even used in car batteries. They say once it's ingested it stores in your fat cells.

Trisodium phosphate poisoning: MedicinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

I will pass.

As a food additive, trisodium phosphate is used as a acidity regulator (buffer agent), emulsifier, thickening agent, nutrition enlargement agent and sequestrant (metal-chelating agent). In these uses it may be known as simply sodium phosphate
I'm sure it's perfectly safe to add things that were chemically made and never intended to be in food until made in a lab. Perfectly safe.

The Brain Frees
It is perfectly safe. Because science, specifically: basic chemistry.

As I previously explained, it's about the amount taken, not its simple existence. Of course you can overdose on it. The chemical compound created by ultraviolet radiation commonly known as Vitamin D will kill you if you take too much of it. But you still need it. We breathe the chemical compounds, nitrogen and oxygen, but too much (or too little) of either will kill us. Read the second sentence in your MedicinePlus link. It contains the phrase "large amounts."

From Livestrong:
"Trisodium phosphate is sometimes taken as a nutritional supplement with the aim of improving performance during exercise and sport. Loading your body with trisodium phosphate can potentially reduce lactic acid buildup in your muscles and increase your power output and maximum oxygen uptake. A 2007 study reported in the "Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport" indicates that trained cyclists performed better in a 16.1-km time trial after loading with trisodium phosphate, indicating that it might offer benefits for athletic performance."

For this meme to randomly pick a chemical compound and call it 'paint thinner,' which it's not, why not pick H2O, the more abundant chemical in most cleaning formulas? Because you can't fearmonger people against water, something they understand, and trisodium phosphate "sounds" scary because they do not know what it is.

On a final note, everything in existence is "chemically made.”

[You know what's funny? About 4 hours before he posted this scientifically illiterate meme, I Tweeted this:

I exposed how ridiculous his post was before he posted it.

Notice he didn’t address the baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) question.

The “Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide” website is a beautiful illustration on how easy it is to manipulate the scientifically illiterate masses (on any subject). A really long, detailed website explaining exactly how deadly the chemical, water is. And all of it 100% true.]

I Fucking Love Science: Five myths about the chemicals you breathe, eat and drink

*****     *****     *****

One more tangentially GMO-related discussion:


[This is an article that cites ancient Chinese beliefs to justify selling their bullshit "natural" remedies. It links to dozens of their own articles as reference throughout the article. The first sentence starts, "In Chinese Medicine, it’s believed..." Believed. Not shown, demonstrated or proven. Believed.]

I couldn't decide whether to post this response:
Is there any research to back these claims? No, but buy these products from and partner sites to heal yourself from the things we said are causing the problems!

...or this one:
Researched, tested, peer-reviewed, proven modern science? Nah. This ancient superstitious remedy investigated by no one and never actually shown to have any effect outside the placebo margin is the right choice for all your medical needs!

TBF. I suggest that you never consult with any medical professional who practices Traditional Chinese Medicine... or DO so, and perhaps you may learn something about it.

Your reply that it is not nonsense doesn't make unproven nonsense not nonsense. If I visited a medical professional who practiced unproven ancient Chinese mystical hocus-pocus placebo medicine, I would change my medical professional.
*****     *****     *****

The best summary for all anti-science crusades, such as the anti-GMO & anti-vaccine movements, is this meme:

And here are some facts about the “Organic” industry and pesticide use and nutrition.

Real Clear Science: The Biggest Myth About Organic Farming

But don’t let science get in the way of your ideological propaganda.

Carry on.

The Rubin Report Part 1: The Truth About GMOs

The Rubin Report Part 2: Say Goodbye To Grass-Fed Beef?

Insufferable Intolerance: Who’s Who of Pseudoscience, Alternative Medicine and other dangerous junk

And this satirical article highlights just how incredibly fucking stupid the anti-GMO argument is.
FAFDL: A Hard Look at Naturally Modified Organisms

And a little more satire to highlight the abject stupidity...
The Spudd: Modern Alternative Mama and other mommy bloggers sweep Nobel Prizes

Some standard anti-GMO arguments debunked:
Debunking Denialism: Decimating the Flawed Beliefs of Anti-GMO Activists

A little bit of GM Impact Meta-analysis for your perusal. Not brought to you by a paywall.
The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: GM Impact Meta-analysis

A bit of good GM tuber news...
NY Times: U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans.

And in “Natural” “Organic” news...
Genetic Literacy Project: Organic alert: Whole Foods almonds contain potentially ‘fatal’ natural chemical

But I thought “natural" and “organic" meant it was unconditionally good for you?

Here’s a dissection of the farcical “anti-everything” documentary, 'Bought:'
Examiner: ‘Bought’ movie: Full of appalling misinformation

Natural & Organic means no pesticides. In an alternate universe, maybe.

*****     *****     *****




Yeah, about that…



And for fun. Sort of...

shared Collective Evolution's photo

Gee... I wonder who will comment on this one... ;) :P
[It's nice to be wanted.]

The Brain Frees
Challenge accepted.
Real Agriculture: David Suzuki Gets Challenged By Actual Scientists In Australia

And who will share... like me... 
[Have at it, Hoss. Who could compete with your genius "sharing of debunked idiocy" capabilities?]

No comment to add here... Just agreement...
[I shall ignore the rebuttal post that exposes Suzuki for the carnival barker that he is and continue believing bullshit. I won't let my uninformed opinion ever change.]


shared March Against Monsanto's photo.

According to the U.S. Food & Drug Association, there is no distinction between Oreo cookies and Hydrox cookies.

According to the U.S. Patent Office, Oreos and Hydrox are both awarded patents because they are substantially different from each other.

[I don’t know if Oreos & Hydrox actually have patents. I was sticking with that to illustrate how using patents to discredit the FDA is irrelevant and ignorant. I guess they’re both copyrighted and trademarked, though. Yeah, they’re totally different.]


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Sorry, my comment got corrupted. Here it is:

    Anyone who says GMOs are dangerous is not going to listen to reason. However, "GMOs do not need to be labeled" is not a valid argument. If GMOs were dangerous, they would be banned, not labeled. Labels are for things that people should limit consumption of, like salt, or things that people just want to know about, like whether it is kosher/sustainable/harvested by people paid a reasonable amount.

    The issue boils down to two questions: Is whether something is a GMO a reasonable thing to want to know, and if so, is a warning label the best way to convey that information? The answer to the first question is yes, some people have religious objections or would like to boycott products from a particular company. However, the answer to the second question is certainly "no."