Public’s anti-GMO perception tainted by media, say Green Party, NFU

Organization officials say because they questioned the need for GM food and pushed for scientific testing on its safety, they have been labelled GM opponents

Dozens of Canadian organizations are dedicated to halting the march of genetically modified food with messages from mild skepticism to radically militant and doses of real science sprinkled throughout.

Here’s a look at two of the best known: the Green Party and the National Farmers Union.

Green Party

Leader Elizabeth May, the party’s only MP, says its main concerns are GM labelling, resistance to new GM crops and global food supply.

“We’re very concerned about additional products entering the marketplace,” she said.

“The farming community has been strongly against genetically modified alfalfa and genetically modified wheat.”

May said the Green Party is not as radically militant as it is portrayed in the media, but she conceded that the jury is still out regarding GMOs and their potential impact on human health. She said her party’s concern goes beyond human health and extends to future food supplies on a global scale.

“One big concern has to be the security of our global food system,” she said.

Related stories in this issue:

“Since the beginning of agriculture, farmers have saved their own seeds for the following year. The effect of genetic modification and technology use agreements has been to prevent farmers from saving their own seeds. Is it a good idea for one or two corporations to control all the world’s seed?”

She draws a comparison between photocopiers and seeds. When all the photocopiers in the globe were Xerox, that monopoly was understandable because Xerox invented photocopiers.

Monsanto did not invent seeds, yet it is trying to establish a global monopoly by exerting intellectual property rights over seeds.

“There’s a pretty strong lobby to ridicule people who are concerned about GMOs,” she said.

ADVERTISMENT

“We’ve always had a fairly nuanced position, but that doesn’t come out in the media. Canada suffers from a decline in journalism in all areas. We don’t have nearly as many reporters covering agriculture as we once had. They don’t have the time to dig into difficult subjects to explain them to the public.

“Some of the anti-GMO groups have hurt their own cause by flaunting words like Frankenfoods. If media are short-staffed, they don’t have time to dig into those stories.

“Who wants GMOs? Consumers certainly haven’t asked for them. They’re not in the farmers’ interests. They are only in the interest of Monsanto. So, why are we doing this?

National Farmers Union

The perception that the NFU is anti-GMO is wrong, said Swift Current, Sask., farmer Stewart Wells, who was president of the NFU in 2001 when the Royal Society of Canada released its GMO report.

At that time, Wells presented the NFU’s position to the House of Commons agriculture committee.

He said that’s exactly when public perceptions began to become twisted. The report lists 58 recommendations upon which the federal government needed to act. Once they had been followed, there would be no need to label GM foods.

“That was 2001. To this day, the federal government has not acted on even one of those 58 recommendations,” said Wells, who added that the federal government turned the recommendations around so the headlines read simply that GM food need not be labelled.

“The statement adopted by our grassroots members said we were not opposed to the science dealing with genetically modified foods. We said the work had to be performed according to what is called precautionary principles.

“Scientists should employ the same precautionary principles Health Canada applies when licensing new drugs, but we dared to ask questions about GMOs, so we were branded way back then as anti-GMO.”

The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management that places the burden of proof on the proponents of a policy that is suspected of causing harm but for which there is no scientific consensus.

Wells said the NFU is not using the precautionary principle to prevent GMOs from ever reaching the market.

ADVERTISMENT

“When we had these discussions at the grassroots level, the example that came up most often was the pharmaceutical industry,” he said.

“Some new drugs are rejected in the testing stage.  Others that do pass, do so only after very rigorous testing, but they do pass.  Others, like thalidomide, are banned years later when their impact becomes known.  That’s what we had in mind.

“We just want the highest degree of safety possible using today’s best practice testing technologies.”

Wells said GMO advocates often use a concept called “substantial equivalents.”

If it looks like a potato, then it is a potato. If it looks like an apple, then it is an apple. Substantial equivalents ignore testing the genetic makeup of that potato or apple or canola plant.

“The companies took the idea 
of substantial equivalents and rammed it down everyone’s throats,” Wells said.

“That was their big mistake. When they did that, they got pushback from European and North American consumers who realized this genetically modified apple is a new organism that never before lived on the face of our planet. Why should we accept that it’s safe.

“The GMO promoters and our governments were unwilling to do the necessary feeding trials and the exhaustive testing.

Instead, they cite the notion of substantial equivalents. When their tactic became obvious, consumers, farmers and some scientists started to become really suspicious.

“So the next question people asked was, ‘who benefits from GMOs.’ By now, we see the benefits don’t go to the farmer or the consumer. The benefits go to major multinational companies like Monsanto.”

ADVERTISMENT

  • Stuart Smyth

    Wells is grossly misinformed as my own research shows that canola farmers in Western Canada benefit by $350-400 million a year from growing GM canola. This is a combination of earlier seeding, reduced dockage and fewer field passes. Farmers very clearly have substantial benefits from GM crops.

    • lazylarry

      so farmers profit, nice, but those that eat it end up with sickness that costs them and the health industry way more. gmo is not needed nor wanted and yes monsanto is the one profiting and if you can’t see they want total seed control then go do more research.

      • RobertWager

        . Can you explain why European National Academies of Science said this:

        “There is NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE that GM crops have
        greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy…It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets.” EASAC-Planting the Future report 2013

        • Harold

          Can you explain the exact model that is in place right now, that undeniably proves that GMO is safe for human beings.
          So far, GMO products have NOT been labeled to provide it’s trail to the human health medical facilities. You are correct. There is NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE and neither are they looking for any. Where is the evidence that proves that i have not consumed a single GMO product, an evidence which further enables me to deny it’s health benefit. It’s been made impossible, correct? Isn’t this always the opposing side to any experiment? Further, to date, what amount of money was spent by the industry and those beneficiaries, to successfully prevent GMO labeling, and to attain it’s secrecy. The numbers are obscene, and do not amount to VALIDATION nor EVIDENCE. There are non-scientific words in the English dictionary to adequately express what the “nature” of this is.
          Apparently this is not “compelling”, yet the same are constantly telling us their “truth”.
          Corporate security and food ownership is the meaning behind the buzz words “food security.”
          Are chemical sprays a technology? Have these technologies ever been banned throughout history? I wonder what the European National Academies of Science says about that? Probably, oops!, like the others who were actually involved in the creations. Are they being banned today? Apparently, this is not “compelling” either. The history of cleaning up after them is also favorably overlooked.
          I wish that I had that security.
          .

          • RobertWager

            It is impossible to prove a negative (absolutely safe) so the best we can do is test for reasonable risks and if none found commercialize the product. This has worked amazingly well with twenty years of commercial GE crops and derived foods with zero documented cases of harm. To give perspective that over 6 trillion meals consumed that contained ingredients derived from GE crops.

            Lets just say for sake of argument there was a one in a million chance of harm. Then 6,000,000,000,000/1,000,000= 6 million. There would be 6,000,000 cases of harm but the critics of this technology cannot document a single case. That has to be the definition of safe food.

            As for ownership did you realize 17 million out of the 18 million farmers who grow GE crops are in the developing world. This technology is definitely scale neutral and effective wherever it is adopted. It is adopted faster than any ag technology in history. Farmers are not dumb. They see verry quickly if a product is good or bad and 17 million farmers in the developing world have been very clear about what they think about GE crops.

          • GOOSE

            You are ignoring the fact that serious medical conditions like bile duct cancer, Kidney and renal pelvic cancer, urinary bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, not only that but also hypertension, stroke, obesity, diabetes, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal infection, autism, Alzheimer’s , and Parkinson’s. All of these have increased dramatically since cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs were introduced with out any long term safety testing and purposely hidden from us in the food supply.

          • RobertWager

            For more than 20 years the critics of GE crops have claimed harm and for more than 20 years they have produced (not for lack of trying) zero evidence. They do like correlations though.

          • E. Sandwich

            Most people know that correlation is not causation, but they also know that correlation is important when the probabilities are very high and consistent. Only a fool would ignore these correlations.

            Check out the study Goose posted here yesterday if you want to know what I mean.

          • Harold

            Correlation’s support your claim(s), and you seem to enjoy them too.

          • Harold

            Where are all the epidemiological studies to track consumption of GM foods to prove that there are no ill effects to humans. This is a question that you and other gm activists continuously run away from. In contrast, you’re spilling over the top with studies in plant sciences, and there is no doubt about that.

          • Harold

            “Let’s just say”? Is this your scientific approach? How about let’s not just say. The garden path is not appealing to me.
            The impossible as you say, has been manufactured to be such. I asked a direct question for which i knew you could not answer. I assume it is because your Tele-prompt doesn’t go there.
            As for corporate ownership, what exactly do you wish me to realize about the 17 million out of 18 million farmers in the developing world and what they own? You left me dangling, or was this just another “let’s just say”?
            How far away are your “stats” from actual science? Will i find a diseased liver or urine spewing them out?
            Regarding GE crop, any person can look at an ordinary house plant and determine it’s health. It is when any plant enters the mouth that the effects from doing so become critical. Are you implying that a farmer is also a master in human health science? What are you wishing to prove, that any ordinary person cannot see for them self? There is not anything that you can put in your mouth that does not directly effect your health. From farm to plate, this is where GM becomes invisible and has been unaccountable for the past 20 years.

        • GOOSE

          The European National Academies of Science review was flawed by the conflict of interests of the authors.

          Look at the authors in this report.

          Reidunn Aalen – has a patent on plant gene for use in genetic engineering. http://www.freshpatents.com/Re

          Ervin Balazs – “former founding general director of the Agricultural Biotechnology Center Gödöll,, lead a unit on molecular virology and genetic engineering of crops”

          Ralph Bock – “Director of the Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology of Plants”,

          Ian Crute : “has had a 40 year career in crop research”

          Michel Delseny : Laboratoire Génome et Développement des Plantes

          Torbjörn Fagerström : President of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

          Evert Jacobsen : “WU Plant Sciences. Subdivision, Laboratory of Plant Breeding.”

          Ivan Kreft : “agronomskih znanosti, redni profesor genetike na Biotehniški fakulteti”

          Birger Moller : “Center for Synthetic Biology”

          Ewen Mullins : “15 years experience in US & Ireland in Plant Biotechnology.”

          Enrico Porceddu “docente presso la facolta’ di Agraria dell’Universita’ di Viterbo.”, etc.

          • Jason

            So how was their review flawed? What errors or incorrect assessments were made?

          • GOOSE

            The authors had major conflicts of interest with the biotech industry.

            I’ll wait for some independent scientific verification.

          • GOOSE

            It was flawed the moment that they put people who are promoting the industry agenda in charge of the review that used cherry picked studies that support the industry agenda while ignoring the science that conflicted With it.

          • Jason

            Great. Now…. How was their review flawed? What did they assess incorrectly that would lead you to question their conclusions? You claim studies were cherry picked while others were ignored. What evidence do you have of this?

          • StopGMO
          • Damo

            That makes them qualified, not conflicted. With the exception of patent holders (only one in your list), everyone is simply an expert in the field.

        • StopGMO
      • hyperzombie

        No one gets sick fro eating GMOs.

        • GOOSE

          Citation please.

          • hyperzombie

            Bwahaaha, …

          • GOOSE

            I didn’t think you could come up with one

          • JoeFarmer

            You’ve got that backwards. It’s up to you to establish harm. Of course, no one has done that.

          • GOOSE

            There is this study.

            Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

            http://www(dot)organic-systems(dot)org/journal/92/JOS_Volume-9_Number-2_Nov_2014-Swanson-et-al(dot)pdf

          • JoeFarmer

            Your link doesn’t work.

          • GOOSE

            Thank you.

          • JoeFarmer

            Swanson’s paper makes no statement of harm. It’s really just a poorly done correlation exercise.

          • E. Sandwich

            That is what all the industry operatives say too. Independent scientists disagree.

            You are again proving that industry junk pseudo-science must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

          • JoeFarmer

            Swanson’s paper is nothing but a poorly-constructed, data-torturing correlation exercise.

            You’re welcome to quote a passage from the paper that proves harm, though. Have at it!

          • E. Sandwich

            You have your opinion, and we have seen that you always support the industry line. Independent scientists disagree. I’ll listen to the independent scientists and ignore the agenda driven industry PR line.

          • JoeFarmer

            In other words, you couldn’t find anything in the paper that actually showed harm. …

          • E. Sandwich

            No.

            You have your opinion, and we have seen that you always support the
            industry line. Independent scientists disagree. I’ll listen to the
            independent scientists and ignore the agenda driven industry PR line.

          • Biron_1

            “Independent scientists disagree.”

            I believe you mean “independent of science” activists disagree. They are motivated by whatever steers attention, and with that the flow of money, to their cause.

          • E. Sandwich

            No.

            He has his own opinion, and we have seen that he always supports the
            industry line. Independent scientists disagree. I’ll listen to the
            independent scientists and ignore the agenda driven industry PR line.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            … copying and pasting the same remark over and over … [is] called spamming and it adds nothing new or relevant to the discussion.

          • E. Sandwich

            I’ll let the moderator decide what is spamming.

          • Oh good, can you point us to these independent scientists who disagree and their published research? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c130cc76eddfc381705d7df2933291f86edfba653b15beef3bb6a93b92945cdd.png Be sure they are independent and not merely pro-organic.

          • Harold

            The development and the devastation caused by Agent orange did not originate nor was contained on a simple quote or a simple piece of paper. Information is not what you are requesting – it’s comfort. There is no “paper” to have at.

          • JoeFarmer

            … Agent Orange was a military defoliant, not an ag chemical.

          • Harold

            Defoliants are sometimes applied to crops such as cotton in order to facilitate harvesting. Agent Orange was a herbicide used as a weapon. My point was not the cocktail of the weapon, but it was the human health aspect. If I would have said DDT, my comment still stands. There still would be no single piece of paper to have at.

          • JoeFarmer

            And the manufacturers of Agent Orange told the Defense Department that as-manufactured it was dangerous. The DoD elected to use it anyway.

            And Agent Orange still has nothing to do with agricultural weed control.

          • Harold

            My mistake. I shouldn’t have used Agent Orange to connect you to the magnitude vs simplicity of requesting a single document or authoritative quote. Perhaps I should have opened with DDT and repeated myself. The same applies either way.

          • JoeFarmer

            What is your point, Harold?

            Show some legitimate science indicating harm from glyphosate.

          • Harold

            The makers of glyphosate say that there is no harm. The “science” say’s that there is no harm.The agro-biz is highly dependent upon it. Why in the world would you wish me to find you harm amongst all of this honesty, especially when the core has always been just, and honest. I’m sorry, but if you want to find harm amongst this haven, you’re on your own. If you find it, you’ll know what to do, and I will matter not, the same as now.

          • Damo

            By independent scientists you actually mean activists that agree with you. Which there are few.

            Every single one of these bogus studies you provide get ripped to shreds; …

          • E. Sandwich

            No. I mean independent scientists who have no industry agenda to cloud their studies.

          • EFFNNELL

            Can you name any of these independent scientists that support the conclusions of the study GOOSE posted?

          • E. Sandwich

            Yes, but I won’t waste time posting anything for agenda driven posters.

            As Goose. As he posted the information.

          • EFFNNELL

            Are you aware that there are independent scientists who do not support the conclusion of the study GOOSE posted?

          • Damo

            Which independent scientists? Who are they?

          • E. Sandwich

            I have already said that I don’t provide anything to known industry operatives, so please don’t ask.

          • Since he’s known…you’ll have no no trouble providing evidence.

            Knowledge is nothing more than a JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF after all and you need evidence for the ‘justified’ and ‘true’ parts. It’s got nothing to do with me either; it’s simply that you have a responsibility to support your claim.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            So you say. … why should I believe you?

          • For the same reason that you should believe that white refers to a light shade and black refers to a dark shade.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            So you say . ….why should I believe you?

          • You don’t need to believe me – that’s the point. That’s how facts work.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            You have not posted any facts.

          • Sparkle,

            “Facts” according to whom?

            This space is for comments or opinions – and we welcome them all!

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Harold

            I would change knowledge to evidence and evidence to knowledge in your statement. Nonetheless, i understand what you are saying, and it is the method of learning even within the school systems.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Hmmm…linking the obvious lack of supporting evidence to the shill accusation — circular deflection, very cool! Adds nothing to the discussion, by design. Warrants our copious derision. Well done!

          • Derek Ward

            Lol, what a great argument. I am curious – how do you decide if someone is a “known industry operative”.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I think E. is correct. I looked at his posts on many threads and they tell the story.

          • Derek Ward

            I have seen your posts on many threads and could easily conclude that you are a known organic industry operative. Just because someone disagees with your point of view does not make them an industry operative on either side.

          • Damo

            It seems the mods on this site have taken to editing my comments. Nice to know.

          • Damo – all comments are moderated.

            While I’ve got the chance, I’ll remind everyone of the rules:

            – take issue with the argument, not the individual

            – everyone is entitled to their opinion

            – no foul language

            Let’s play nice, folks!

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor (who’s off to play hockey for the evening, BTW… so no more comments will be moderated until morning…)

          • If that’s the case, you will be attending to shill gambits, yes?

            After all, that is not being presented as an opinion but as a fact and people are not entitled to their own facts.

          • JoeFarmer

            Does not show harm. …

          • EFFNNELL

            Can you explain why in the graphs of that study the incidence of the various diseases begins to rise before the introduction of GMO crops?

          • Chris Preston

            Figure 7 in that paper shows liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer incidence in the US increasing above the trend line from 1990. This is a full 6 years before the introduction of any GM crops and 8 years before any increase in the amount of glyphosate used on corn and soybean crops in the US.

            So while there might be an apparent correlation between incidence of these cancers, GM crops and glyphosate, it in no way shows that GM crops or glyphosate have any involvement in the increase in cancer. If anything it would demonstrate that liver and intahepatic bile duct cancer increases were responsible for the adoption of GM crops.

            The rest of this paper contains similarly laughable correlations. It is complete junk science. Here is Fig 7, so everyone can see how silly the claims in this paper are. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1f908d9d54a9a579b315dd97c80736c324ee9d810a3119617b96447182ba4d0.jpg

          • Harold

            Glyphosate was first introduced during the 70’s and the 80’s. Prior to glyphosate, was DDT which was banned in 1972. DDT use began in 1943. DDT was generally applied at a rate of 2kg/ha. Research in 1990 introduced new chemicals into the agriculture market. leading up was a greater dependency on the agrochemicals sector.
            Those who take examination seriously know a little history as well; and further understand that correlation, is a stepping stone toward finding causation.
            What is truly laughable, is the believe that epidemiological studies have been done or that it is currently being done.

          • EFFNNELL

            “correlation, is a stepping stone toward finding causation”

            Maybe but what you anti GMO/glyphosate/monsanto people seam to think is that because there is a correlation it proves that there is causation.

            There are known causes for the increases in diseases rates that have nothing to do with glyphosate/pesticides/GMO’s so you need to provide a study that shows a causal relationship because that study GOOSE posted is useless.

            Now lets talk about the lack of pirates causing global warming.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9bf56dfbb002a6d22b06011ca478d0982f5aa7f78ca3e9f156629eb063903217.jpg

          • Harold

            “correlation, is a stepping stone toward finding causation” Where in this statement does it imply that correlation is the same as causation? The stepping stone? I also said; What is truly laughable, is the believe that epidemiological studies have been done or that it is currently being done. Are these studies relevant
            in determining human health or causation?
            I don’t recall how the global warming hoax entered the picture but let’s agree to stay on topic.

          • E. Sandwich

            Please don’t try and snow us by cherry picking one chart form the study. …

          • Chris Preston

            Please don’t try and snow us by cherry picking one chart form the study.

            Excellent, so you agree that the data in the paper shows no indication that glyphosate or GM crop adoption has influenced liver cancer.

            But it is not just one figure. You can take almost any figure and see exactly the same thing. Here is Figure 8 showing an increase in kidney and renal pelvis cancer incidence starting in 1981. A full 15 years before the introduction of GM crops. More confirmation that this paper you cited is junk science.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7da23483adcbc265d6ff33d1d4a4515d878c915c65c71cf4b262a86d2f7f566a.jpg

          • E. Sandwich

            I have heard what you say about this study before. I trust the independent scientists who disagree with your assessment and these independent scientist don’t have an agenda like industry operative scientists do.

          • Chris Preston

            It is a good thing that I am an independent scientist then.

            At issue is always the data. The paper you cited is simply an incompetent analysis of correlations. As I have repeatedly shown, the correlations are completely spurious, yet Swanson et al. ignored that in favour of an alternative reality. The data are so bad, that the only place they could get this published was a pay to publish journal owned by the organic industry. It is junk science, it has always been junk science and anyone relying on this paper will be wrong.

          • Goldfinger

            That is an opinion statement if I ever heard one before.

            No factual basis at all.

          • Harold

            You don’t speak like an independent scientist, so is there a reason for this? Your relationships and terms seem to be contradictory.

          • Jason

            Out of curiosity, what would an “independent” scientist say differently about this paper?

          • Harold

            I was not referring to the paper.
            Typically an independent scientist would say something like- give me the original code and data and i’ll check it myself. After that, they and the data speak for themselves. Then it is duplicated by others and so forth, and it is welcomed. The more confirmations, the higher the standing. What do you think happens when a corporation with money wants one outcome only?
            Unfortunately, people/public can only understand the “headlines” but act as if they carried the work themselves, and they are offended.

          • Jason

            I didn’t say you were referring to the paper, but his comments were about the quality of the paper and you stated that he didn’t sound like an independent scientist. The leads one to believe that an independent scientist would say something different about this paper than what he did.

            Obviously, confirmations help the validity of a paper but that has not yet been done. So, given that he had access to all of the “original code” that was published, would his opinion of the paper be just as valid as anyone’s? Maybe more so, given that his posts have been specific about some of the deficiencies? I mean… if a paper was of low quality, it seems a truly independent scientist would speak up & say so. Right?

          • Harold

            I don’t really know. The ones i know refuse to allow me to use their names and will not clean up conversations on media. They say they will not take the time and neither do they have the desire. One called this “nothing more than a pissing contest” There may be some, but I think it’s doubtful.

        • patzagame

          No one stays healthy after long term ingestion of GMOs.

          • hyperzombie

            Well, except for everyone that has consumed them in the last 22 years.

          • E. Sandwich

            Nope.

            Lets talk about bile duct cancer, Kidney and renal pelvic cancer, urinary bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, not only that but also hypertension, stroke, obesity, diabetes, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal infection, autism, Alzheimer’s , and Parkinson’s. All of these have increased dramatically since cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs were introduced with out any long term safety testing and purposely hidden from us in the food supply.

          • EFFNNELL
          • E. Sandwich

            Sure you did, if phony charts mean anything.

          • EFFNNELL

            Why is the chart phony?

          • E. Sandwich

            Because it is bogus, and the probability statistically is close to zero.

          • EFFNNELL

            The correlation is strong and the r squared value is close to 1, so is the data wrong?

          • E. Sandwich

            Yes.

          • EFFNNELL

            I don’t really care if the data is wrong, I only use this chart to point out that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, a fallacy that you seam to have fallen for.

          • Harold

            Your chart is 100% fictional, but nonetheless, what are you calling the food prior to the onset of GM food, other than “organic”. If your Chart were correct, the lines would run parallel, and GM lines, although not included, would show a rapid decline in autism. Having said this, I do recognize a proper scientific graph when I see one …

          • EFFNNELL

            A food can be non-GM and not be organic, also this graph is just used to highlight that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, I post it every time I see someone use that fallacy.

          • Harold

            “A food can be non-gm and not be organic”? Which one? Before you explain, please have at hand the scientific definition of the word organic. Like most, you’ve been led to believe that the word has something to do with industry standards. Kinda like a correlation and causation fallacy. There is only organic, and that organic which has been altered by technology. GM is not composed of other than organic compounds.
            Further, your graph only highlighted an un-usable instrument, which was the graph itself. It was not as influential as you had thought.
            Correlation leads to causation by creating study fields for a lack thereof. No correlation between smoking and cancer prevailed until further testing was done. In the mean time, smoking was considered a safe practice by this lacking, yet the correlation remained strong. At the end of the day, causation was known and the original correlation stood. The correlation is written on every cigarette package. No one in all seriousness is saying that correlation is the same as causation and that only the correlation is needed.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            All of these coincide with increasing exposure to certified organic food which was introduced with out any long term safety testing, with no testing at all to reveal the nearly half of organic produce containing residues of as many as 51 prohibited synthetic pesticides, a condition hidden from organic consumers behind fraudulent certified organic labels.

          • E. Sandwich

            People have been eating organic food for millenniums. Since cancer causing glyphosate laden GMOs were introduced without any safety testing and purposely hidden in the food supply America has fallen behind the rest of the civilized world in life expectancy while spend much more money per person on healthcare costs.

            Organic food is the cleanest most pesticide free food on the market today.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6179424b69d7d642aa469c91fae7f64ba3164f67fccd0f4229407a1f5838e1cd.jpg

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, there you go S. Sandwich, your graph proves my point — the more we spend on over-priced organic food per capita (and expensive, over-priced organic sales have been the fasted growing segment of the food market for almost 2 decades), the shorter life expectancy becomes. Your chart clearly shows if you spend only about $3.50 extra per day on organic health food you begin to fall behind in life expectancy. Spend $5 extra or $10 extra per day and it gets proportionally worse. For truly deluded people who consume only organic health food, that would easily be up into that $8000 to $9000 per year range you’re showing in your graph, life expectancy is really abysmal.

            Certified organic food has only been an official marketing gimmick since 1996, before that all of our food came from contemporary state-of -the-art conventional agriculture, just as most of it still does. So, the smart readers easily perceive it must be the introduction of certified organic food on the market that is causing the USA to lag behind in longevity even as we spend more and more on organic food. It’s obvious!

          • E. Sandwich

            You might be able to sell that load except for the FACT that organic food is only 4% of the food supply while cancer causing glyphosate laden GMO food is over 80% of the food supply.

            Consider that people have been eating organic food for millenniums, and GMO foods have only been in the food supply for 20, sand that the chart line for the US flattens starting about 20 years ago then take into account the study Goose posted …

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Correct to say organic food is only 4 – 5% of the food supply, but increasing presence & consumption corresponding with decreased longevity is testimony to the incredible potency of organic food and the feces it is smeared with to drive disease and truncate life expectancy. Once in the market, most people have been exposed to organic food and so, obviously are at risk. Why, you organic hucksters are always going on and on about how potently organic food affects your own lives. You simply haven’t recognized how that wonderful feeling you get from eating organic actually puts you at risk of a shortened lifespan, apparently. I mean, that’s what your chart seems to indicate, so I’m agreeing with it and with you here.

            You are mixed up about conventional and organic food in history. You see, all of the ordinary food throughout history has, of course, been typical or “conventional”. Only in the past 20 years has “organic” food been introduced into the market. It’s all new, it’s smeared with feces, nearly half of it has residues of up to 51 prohibited synthetic pesticides and is fraudulently mislabeled. Little wonder the more one purchases and eats of organic food, the potentially shorter one’s lifespan, as wonderfully and clearly displayed on [this] chart …

          • E. Sandwich

            Nothing you have said here has changed the fact that organic food sales do no correlate with the information in the chart.

            Conventional GMO food uses more feces for fertilizer that organic food does by magnitudes. Convention food is also allowed to us municipal sewage for fertilizer and this is not allowed in organic food production. All the prohibited chemicals are used in conventional GMO food production where they are allowed to be present at 19 time the rate in organic food.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            So pesticide residues in compliance with USDA/EPA tolerances for all foods are safe, then, do you agree… ?

            As for fecal smearing on food, that’s an exclusive feature of organic farming. Successful modern farms use clean, sterile, precision-blended synthetic fertilizers to exactly meet the needs of growing food crops. Organic farms truck in semi-trailer loads of chicken manure from conventional poultry farms (they aren’t even organic chicken farms) and slather it generously over fields where your organic crops are grown. Another good reason purchasing and eating a lot of organic food could put you at risk of getting sick, even shortening your lifespan as S. Sandwich’s chart so clearly demonstrates.

          • Damo

            Everything you say is true, BUT, I disagree that manure is dangerous. If handled properly, it is an effective fertilizer.

            Opposition to GMO is also fertilizer.

          • That’s more like it, Damo!

          • JoeFarmer

            What is with your moderation policy?

            You let Kanawai Mamalahoe spam your site with childish infographics, but challenging someone doesn’t pass muster?

            Seriously?

            If you want to turn your venue into a spleen-venting playground for every anti-science anti-modern farming organism, please just say so.

          • Joe,

            Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

            For me to start to decide whose opinion is “worthy” or not is a very slippery slope.

            So, as long as you abide by the basic rules of (relative) civility (I DO try to let folks push the envelope a bit – you’ll find if you choose to play a little more “aggressively” I allow posters to be a little more pointed in their responses…), no foul language and no obviously libelous statements, you’ll be pretty much free to post here as you wish.

            I allow posters to challenge one another all the time, so I’m not understanding what you mean there.

            Take issue with the argument, not the individual, is my most frequent admonishment to posters here.

            I assume many of the readers here have a solid grasp of the world of agriculture. Claims of a spurious nature or of questionable veracity WILL be seen for what they are.

            Lastly, is it not important for everyone to see the wide variety of opinions that exist?

            In my humble opinion, the sharing of a variety of opinions is essential to the conversations – like that regarding GMOs – that need to happen, both between and within, farmers and consumers.

            If those conversations aren’t allowed to happen here I don’t know where they will be allowed to occur.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Damo

            I was going to post the same, but figured it would never see the light of day. Many of my posts are edited to the point that they don’t make my original point anymore.

            I would rather he just deleted my posts than make me say something I didn’t.

          • Damo,

            I edit comments when they include foul language, or attack the poster rather than the idea being discussed.

            I would consider it a very serious error on my part to have edited any comment in such a way as to “make you say something you did not.”

            This is exactly what I try hardest NOT to do.

            Please show me where this has occurred and I will correct it immediately.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep, it’s all in the operator’s commitment to being accurately informed and using inputs responsibly and safely. That appears to be a big, big problem with organic production. You see, when USDA pulled a spot check on organic produce from ordinary market outlets in a 2011-2012 survey it was discovered that nearly half (43%) of our organic produce contains residues of as many as 51 prohibited synthetic pesticides. So nearly half of all organic produce doesn’t meet organic standards and is fraudulently mislabeled and sold as organic just on the basis of pesticide abuse, alone. Organic operators who routinely cheat and screw up half the time with ag chemicals are almost certain to mess up using manure fertilizers, as well. Organic operators simply cannot be trusted to comply with safety rules, they act like rules don’t apply to them. When USDA routinely tests conventional produce it consistently comes in at over 99% in compliance with all safety and quality standards. Now that’s using ag inputs responsibly and effectively. Who ya gonna trust, eh? Not organic, that’s for sure.

          • richard

            … ….. where’s the citation…..or is it just another stab at fear loathing and envy of a successful alternative to the prevailing nozzlehead mani?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pesticide%20Residue%20Testing_Org%20Produce_2010-11PilotStudy.pdf

            Read through the entire report and you will be shocked to discover 43% of our organic produce is contaminated with residue of as many as 51 PROHIBITED pesticides, 4% of organic food has ILLEGALLY HIGH residues of prohibited pesticides. Nearly half of organic produce is being mislabeled as “certified organic” and fraudulently marketed to a gullible public. Now that’s either a whole lot of recklessness or a whole lot of cheating…or both.

            Whenever anyone has surveyed organic food for fecal contamination the results confirm recklessness and/or cheating by organic operatives in the use of manure fertilizers…

            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/organic-food-has-significantly-higher-contamination-study-finds

            http://www.science20.com/challenging_nature/organic_farming_practices_cause_200_instances_serious_food_poisoning-626

            http://www.producer.com/daily/canada-has-world-class-food-safety-system/

            “Smyth said a regular food safety issue in Canada is related to organic foods…Thousands of cases a year of food illness are triggered from organic products,” he said. “It’s largely due to the process of them using manure slurry as fertilizer and coming down to improper household food preparations in terms of making sure that they’re properly washing organic food.”

          • richard

            Wow…. sad story but clearly preventable…… Perhaps you might ask Denis Avery if this incident be .0000001% of the inexorable drip of effluent from every battery hog barn, feed lot, over fertilized canola/corn field…..into the commonwealth of North America, every hour of every day of every year…..in the name of efficiency (externalized costs) and thus not having to be accountable for it?…… …

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, nearly half of all organic produce in the market being fraudulently labeled due to having been treated with prohibited pesticides, and with organic being a $60 billion industry in the US, yeah, I’d say it’s a big deal. I bet Dennis Avery would agree with me.

            Important to recognize that livestock waste fertilizes corn fields, perhaps some canola as you suggest — those are not food crops the likes of that fraudulent organic produce. Big, big difference richard. To attempt to conflate the two borders on a strawman argument, eh?

          • Harold

            Perhaps you’ve missed a few lines of the report. I’ll give you some, and they are as follows.

            1) “When examined as a whole, the occurrence of pesticide residues on organic produce is considerably lower than the occurrence on conventional produce.”

            2) “The factors identified by Baker et al. as accounting for the presence of pesticide residue in organic samples include product mislabeling; misidentification of the samples during data entry; post-harvest contamination; inadvertent, unavoidable contamination from environmentally persistent pesticides; or drift from pesticides applied to adjacent land.”

            3) “A key finding was that 94 to 100 percent of organic food does not contain pesticide residues”.

            4) “The pilot study was an observational study that was not designed to collect and analyze data representative of the organic industry as a whole”.

            I did take the time to read it. There are more considerations the like, but i think others can read.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep. The USDA downplays the importance of their own findings – a discovery that 43% of organic produce tested was contaminated with one or more residues of as many as 51 prohibited synthetic pesticides, meaning those foods were fraudulently mislabeled as “certified organic”. Why does USDA soft-peddle those results? Simply because there is little or no enforcement withing the certified organic program. If USDA had acknowledged the fraudulent labeling, using that terminology, they might be compelled to do routine testing of organic foods for violative residues and initiate enforcement proceedings. Doesn’t happen. Organic is a nice cozy good ol’ boys system whee everyone goes along to get along…and to get into the grocery shopper’s purse.

            So, did you identify all 51 prohibited synthetic pesticides found on organic produce? If not, here they are. Bon appetite!

            Acephate — organic bell peppers

            Acetamiprid — organic tomatoes

            Azoxystrobin — organic bell peppers, organic potatoes,
            organic strawberries, organic tomatoes

            Bifenthrin — organic apples, organic bell peppers, organic
            tomatoes

            Boscalid — organic bell peppers

            Carbendazim — organic bell peppers

            Carfentrazone ethyl — organic bell peppers, organic
            potatoes, organic tomatoes

            Chlorpropham (CIPC) — organic potatoes

            Chlorpyrifos — organic apples, organic bell peppers,
            organic broccoli, organic tomatoes

            Chlorthal (DCPA) — organic broccoli

            Chlothianidin — organic bell peppers, organic tomatoes

            Cyfluthrin — organic bell peppers

            Cyhalothrin lambda — organic apples, organic bell peppers,
            organic broccoli

            Cypermethrin — organic bell peppers, organic tomatoes

            DDE p,p’ — organic apples, organic broccoli, organic potatoes

            Dicofol p,p’ — organic tomatoes

            Dieldrin — organic potatoes

            Diphenylamine — organic apples

            Endosulfan I — organic bell peppers, organic strawberries,
            organic tomatoes

            Endosulfan II — organic apples, organic bell peppers,
            organic strawberries, organic tomatoes

            Endosulfan sulfate — organic apples, organic bell peppers,
            organic potatoes, organic strawberries, organic tomatoes

            Esfenvalerate — organic bell peppers, organic broccoli,
            organic potatoes

            Etoxazole — organic strawberries

            Etridiazole — organic strawberries

            Famoxadone — organic bell peppers

            Fenarimol — organic tomatoes

            Fenhexamid — organic bell peppers

            Fenpropathrin — organic bell peppers,organic potatoes

            Flonicamid — organic bell peppers

            Flonicamid — organic tomatoes

            Heptachlor epoxide — organic potatoes

            Imidacloprid — organic apples, organic bell peppers,
            organic broccoli, organic potatoes, organic tomatoes

            Iprodione — organic broccoli, organic potatoes

            Metalaxyl — organic bell peppers

            Methamidophos — organic bell peppers

            Methoxyfenozide — organic bell peppers

            Myclobutanil — organic bell peppers

            Oxamyl oxime — organic bell peppers

            Pendimethalin — organic apples, organic broccoli, organic
            tomatoes

            Piperonyl butoxide — organic strawberries, organic tomatoes

            Propanil — organic bell peppers

            Pyrimethanil — organic strawberries

            Quinoxyfen — organic bell peppers

            Quintozene — organic tomatoes

            Spirodiclofen — organic apples, organic potatoes

            Spiromesifen — organic tomatoes

            Tebufenozide — organic bell peppers

            Tetradifon — organic potatoes

            Thiabendazole — organic apples, organic potatoes

            Thiamethoxam — organic bell peppers, organic tomatoes

            Trifloxystrobin — organic bell peppers

            Trifluralin — organic broccoli

          • Harold

            A few are not licensed, but the rest are acceptable in all conventional farming and found at considerably higher levels.
            It’s true. They down play everything you don’t like to un-favor your opinion. Nasty group aren’t they? They should have invited you along to keep them on the straight and narrow.
            … I read every word. If you think this document was to provide proof, then the document was shoddy. If you understand the intent, then the document was useful.

          • E. Sandwich

            … ” fecal smearing on food” happens more often in conventional GMO agriculture by magnitudes. …
            Organic food is the cleanest most pesticide free food on the market today.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            … modern conventional ag uses precision synthetic fertilizers = no feces involved, no fecal smearing; organic ag uses tractor-trailer loads of chicken dung = fecal smearing and contamination of everything in sight from plants and growing food to water courses to equipment to farm laborers hands and clothing to crop harvesting supplies to farmers market conveyances to the re-purposed crates and cartons used repeatedly without washing. Dirty, dirty, risky, dirty, fecal smeared, dirty, contaminated, dirty.

            And what about those pesticide residues that fall within USDA/FDA tolerances, those are safe on all foods, right? Or not? …

          • richard

            You mean the precision synthetic fertilizers leaking out of hog lagoons into Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay, not to mention Virginia, the Carolinas and Tennessee last fall in torrential rains…. you mean that precision? How about the N dead zones in The Gulf of Mexico and Yangtze River…..So much for precision farming…..

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Thought we were discussing fraudulent labeling of organic produce and the widespread use/abuse of manure in organic production. Now you’re off on dead zones and the Yangtze River? Seriously …? Try to focus, let’s stay on topic. Fecal bacteria smeared over organic food, similar to prohibited synthetic pesticide residues turning up on half of organic produce — that and the competence/credibility of organic producers, that’s what we’re discussing here. And it isn’t going well for you …

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Fraudulent labeling of organic food is a crime and it carries serious penalties. Please give us the evidence of where this is happening and who is doing the fraudulent labeling so that we can have the proper authorities look into the situation.

            The USDA studies show that 96% of organic food meets or exceeds pesticide reside allowances that are 19 time stricter than those for conventional GMO foods.

            From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary

            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

            Despite all your spin and attempts to trash organic food it remains the cleanest most pesticide free food on the market today.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            From the USDA survey you cite, you will find that 43% of organic produce tested had residues of 51 different PROHIBITED synthetic pesticides, USDA surmised this occurred by abuse of ag chemicals by organic producers and by deceptive marketing practices on the part of organic retailers passing off conventional food as organic – all of that behavior on the part of organic producers/marketers is fraudulent labeling. Nealy half of organic produce is fraudulently marketed. The penalty for each infraction is an $11,000 fine.

            And, yes, this coming season we will be filing plenty of complaints for investigation by USDA of suspected organic fraudsters. A small dragnet will haul in a boatload of organic bottom feeders.

            https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/enforcement/organic

            Everyone needs to fight fraud in the $60 billion organic industry. When you are at the CSA or farmer’s market it’s ‘caveat emptor’ — let the buyer beware, so keep your eyes open. See something – say something — file a complaint with USDA/AMS

          • hyperzombie

            Correct to say organic food is only 4 – 5% of the food supply
            Well according to the Organic Marketing dept, it is only 3.4% in North America, Non GMO is slightly bigger at 3.8%. And I don’t think they count the wholesale market.

            The thing I don’t get is that almost 50% of Organic sales are milk and milk products, what a total waste of money.

          • richard

            Yeah especially when you can buy it in the USA full of free RBGH…..mmmmm gotta love those tasty growth hormones…..

          • richard

            Nonsense, organic food has been on full display since the 1960s…… … … and was a success story for reasons far beyond the blowback of public disdain for pig genes in tomatoes and other such gastronomic wonders….

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep. Organic has been gradually increasing market share (very, very gradually, as in at a glacial pace) for decades. Nicely correlated to increases in diagnoses of autism, any other perception of increased disease or debility. Yep, it MUST be organic food doing it — the lines on the chart are just about the same shape over the past several decades. That’s the reasoning we’re given, isn’t it, that correlation = causation?

          • hyperzombie

            Hey that reminds me. When the USDA did the Organic produce BANNED pesticide test, they never did test for glyphosate did they?

            So as far as you know 90% of Organic produce could contain cancer causing glyphosate, we need more pesticide testing for Organics.

          • richard

            …..sounds to me like more fear, loathing and envy …

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep, the more you spend on organic health food the shorter your life expectancy becomes. It’s right there in your chart, S. Sandwich. If memory serves, Michael Pollan recommends spending 10-20% of income on “healthy” food. You can see what that annual expenditure on your looks like on your chart there.

          • E. Sandwich

            I have found that my health dramatically improved when I quit eating pesticide laden conventional GMO food and switched to organic food at the urging of my medical Doctor. Many other people are finding out the same thing.

            You can believe the industry spin if you want to, but I’ll go with my own personal experience.

          • Grace Joubarne

            OMG! this is too funny! Organic food is what we ate since the beginning of mankind until 1901 when Monsanto was born as a chemical company, and 1931 when it started to really spread its chemicals across the globe, and 1939 when Hitler fell in love with Monsanto and Dow and Bayer and…. The owners were staunch eugenicists… …

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Nope. Conventional food is what we’ve eaten since the beginning of agriculture. Organic food wasn’t invented until the 1940s and didn’t become widely known until the 1960s when huckster J.I. Rodale began pimping it. He famously dropped dead during a taping of the Dick Cavet show, immediately after declaring he would live to be 100 because he ate organic food — he was nowhere near being a centenarian.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Organic food wasn’t invented. It has existed since mankind has been on the planet. …

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Not only was organic food recently invented, it is contrived. The NOP and the National List are bizarre constructs oozed out of the warped imaginations of self-absorbed fools, arbitrary rules with no basis in science or common sense. Merely a weird marketing scam intended to cheat unwary shoppers out of their grocery money.

          • richard

            ….”weird marketing” kinda like high fructose corn syrup, soy protein isolates, and hexane extracted, bleached, deodorized, hydrogenated canola oil……oops thats the big three GM poster boys… choice ingredients at antinutrition inc. and gluttony entitlement .com …..where do I sign up?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep. Weird marketing. As in veblen goods. Organic stuff is inferior quality and twice as expensive. There is a tiny subset of shoppers who are turned on by that. Go figure.

            http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105×8960264

          • richard

            I see Galen Weston announcing on national television tonight that the largest grocery chain in Canada is moving from 200, to now 300 skus of organic food products to reflect the overwhelming demand for clean food…… Perhaps you should phone Galen tomorrow and share your marketing insights on why he is dead wrong……

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, of course retailers are always keen to cash in on the public’s insane appetite for overpriced veblen goods, as in the case of organic food. It’s a simple retailing practice that you wouldn’t appreciate, but it’s predicated on P.T. Barnum’s observation there’s a fool born every minute and expresses itself as a marketing philosophy of ‘quick, let’s charge ’em ’till they’re satisfied before they figure out how they’re screwing themselves’. Merchandizers handling organic foods are laughing all the way to the bank. Yep, a fool and her grocery money are easily parted.

            http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=Veblen-good

          • richard

            …..the fools!…..Interesting to note that all the Michelin chefs in the world endorse exclusive use of organic ingredients…..they store longer, taste better and support local agriculture….. but hey what do the best chefs in the world know….the fools!

          • Farmer with a Dell

            The veblen chefs, you mean? Why, yes, of course the very poster children for conspicuous consumption wouldn’t be caught dead hawking anything even vaguely resembling good value. You are correct richard, those food snob chefs know exactly what they are doing — just like I said, they’re laughing all the way to the bank about how easy it is to separate a fool from her grocery money.

          • Happy Farmer

            The products you mention-fructose corn syrup, soy protein and the rest were all around years before GM crops. Antinutrition, and gluttony also have were around before GM crops and will be for many more years.

            Think on this with an open mind, maybe the above are more responsible for “bad health” than GM foods are.

            One more question for you(and all the others who think the same way), If the evidence winds up in favour of GM being ok, will you be willing to change your tune? If good evidence shows that GM is bad, I will change my farming practices to correspond.

          • richard

            You know happy farmer….it may surprise you to know that I too am a happy farmer… You are absolutely correct, antinutrition and gluttony are not new…..but we have taken it to the highest heights of decadence with sixty percent of the population in N.A. considered overweight or obese, and a health care system that is coming apart before our eyes…. And the culprits are ingredients that are patently toxic to the human genome…..Do your own research….. HFCS cannot be properly assimilated by human metabolism….. soy protein isolates are not fermented and thus are not properly digested leading to metabolic dysfunction…… Canola oil has a good fatty acid profile…..but when it is hydrogenated for commercial and industrial usage it is hydrogenated, it produces trans fats. known for decades to cause heart disease…… So its not exclusively GM crops associated with these “foods” per se…..rather it is the entire food chain that has been hijacked by feed the planet mythology and cheap food as a badge of honour…..and that is all our fault.

          • Harold

            What Rodale died from was a heart attack at the age of 72.
            During this era, no one eating conventional farming died of a heart attack before the age of what?
            What this mean’s is, based upon your undying and boastful claims, that if you died of a heart attack tomorrow, i could blame it on GMO consumption. Sorry, I cannot disrespect myself that much. Further, what you recite of the 50’s and 60’s, i do not recite; I lived them.

          • Denise

            Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurb one. – Voltaire

          • Jason

            No one stays healthy after long term consumption of anything. In the long term, everyone withers & dies.

            However, no one loses health any faster on GMO foods than they do on those produced through any other method.

    • hyperzombie

      May is a complete nutcase.

      • Stuart Smyth

        Saying “the jury is still out on GM crops” is idiotic. GM crops have been grown for 20 years without a single issue by over 18 million farmers and the jury is still out??? It’s a good thing May isn’t a medical doctor as patients would long be dead by the time she decided to treat them.

        • GOOSE

          Many medical Doctors are recommending that their patients with unexplained medical conditions avoid cancer causing glyphosate laden GMOs because they are finding that the patients get much better and their conditions resolve when they switch to eating a clean healthy organic diet.

          • patzagame

            Don’t you love the blanket statements,like 20 years without a single issue?

          • RobertWager

            if you have evidence that statement is wrong please bring it forward. the public is rapidly getting tired of fear-monger and merchants of doubt.

          • richard

            ……not nearly as tired as they are of the merchants of myths on public payroll…..insulting those who are responsible for their livelihood…

          • Jason

            Where is your evidence for this claim?

          • Damo

            name one of these many doctors.

          • Stuart Smyth

            Doctors actually report that eating organic food will kill you. Here is the link to the story that killed 50 and poisoned over 4,000 from the Center for Disease Control (they’re doctors!). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6250a3.htm

          • richard

            Funny I didnt read the word organic in the cdc report…. perhaps you accidentally assumed that was the case….but lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story…

          • See reference (5)

          • obfuscate99

            And reference 6 which goes into additional detail about the process.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yeah, it was organic sprouts from a little old local organic farm in Germany that killed over 50, severely sickened over 3000, hospitalized over 1000 with more than 100 requiring kidney transplants. All from a single outbreak from a single batch of organic food from a local organic farm — amazingly potent, that organic stuff!

            Here’s a clipping contemporary with the mass organic food poisoning tragedy:

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/8/dead-bodies-demand-organic-food-moratorium/

          • StopGMO

            This does not only happen with organic foods. There have been reported deaths from consuming conventional foods also. Food born illnesses/death happens, regardless if it is organic or not. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/5/5/99-0502_article

          • E. Sandwich

            There is more conventional and GMO food contaminated by pathogens than organic food by magnitudes.

          • Stuart Smyth

            Actually, this is not correct. A 2010 article compared Bt corn with non-Bt corn and found that in 19 of 23 studies, Bt corn had less mycotoxin contamination than non-Bt corn. The study is available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12550-010-0056-5 If you’re unable to access it, let me know and I will gladly email it to you.

          • Harold

            Am I missing something? The web site didn’t take me to the lab.
            Also when they mentioned food safety, I couldn’t find the corresponding human or animal epidemiological report. Where is it?

          • Stuart Smyth

            The link is to the research paper Harold. You’d have to loo at each of the 23 original studies to find the data. The papers are all listed in the reference section of the Ostry et al paper.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Anyone can create a “review” of cherry picked studies that support the agenda of the scientist who produced them while they ignore studies that conflict with the agenda.

          • Stuart Smyth

            Actually they can’t due to the peer review process. A research paper that attempted to do this would be rejected from publication. Many “report” are rejected for exactly this reason, they haven’t been peer reviewed. Science establishes sound methodologies that have to be followed when undertaking analysis studies. If the correct process isn’t followed then the studies are flawed and not published.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            The peer review process is not without problems.

            Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet which is
            considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world has said that half of all peer reviewed science literature is false.

            Not only that, but Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and was longtime
            Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal, considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

            Harvey Marcovitch, who has studied and written about the corruption of medical tests and publication in medical journals, writes, “studies
            showing positive outcomes for a drug or device under consideration are more likely to be published than ‘negative’ studies; editors are partly to blame for this but so are commercial sponsors, whose methodologically well-conducted studies with unfavorable results tended not to see the light of day…”

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Wrong yet again! Recalls of organic food, especially for bacterial contamination are now more frequent on a per unit basis than for ordinary food…and increasing! Eating organic food is risky business.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/business/recalls-of-organic-food-on-the-rise-report-says.html?_r=0

          • Sparkle Plenty

            They may theoretically be more frequent, but the volumes of food involved are much smaller than the recalls of conventional food by magnitudes.

            For example look at the over a year long recall of General Mills flour that was contaminated with e coli.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Sometimes smaller and sometimes more deadly. Consider the local organic food poisoning outbreak in Germany a couple of years ago that killed over 50 people, severely sickened over 3000, hospitalized over 1000 with over 100 requiring kidney transplants …

          • Sparkle Plenty

            There are outbreaks of pathogen contaminated food that happen all over the world almost everyday. Most of this happens in conventional foods. Please tell us how you came to your theory that smaller can be more deadly.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Because it was one little old local organic farmer in Germany that killed, maimed and injured those thousands of innocent, trusting consumers. Most deadly e. coli O104:H4 outbreak in history, and caused by organic farming! Most deadly in history!!

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/e-coli-bean-sprouts-blamed

            … small organic has demonstrated it is the most deadly!

          • Sparkle Plenty

            So then, you are basing your opinion of all organic food on one outbreak in Germany. I guess you have answered my question and given me the information I need to reject your opinion.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep. Fifty three (53) dead Germans in a single organic food poisoning outbreak. That’s all the evidence any sane person needs to understand the inherent danger in organic food production. And just think, if nearly half of organic produce wasn’t fraudulent, that is; if organic producers and marketers were all following strict organic standards, our risk of another deadly outbreak of organic food poisoning would be about doubled. Maybe it’s a good thing the market bin of grubby fecal smeared organic food is being diluted with clean wholesome conventional food fraudulently mislabeled as organic?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I think I see what you are telling me here. Let me verify. Are you saying one small organic farmer in Germany was the source of a pathogen contamination we should reject all organic food grown all over the world because of one small farmers issue, or did you have some more examples to show us as supporting evidence?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, close enough for state work in your view maybe, but actually the smart readers will understand the point is a terrible loss of innocent life and indescribable suffering resulted from local small scale organic food system no different from organic food systems being advocated by the NOP and hyped by propagandists for the $60 billion organic industry still today. The risks inherent in those shoddy, grubby unsupervised organic food production and marketing venues are real, and the dreadful organic food poisoning incident in Germany demonstrates that.

            Further, smart readers understand that no sensible precautions have been taken, nothing has changed in the organic food system since all those Germans were sickened and killed just a few years ago. Organic rules still prohibit the use of effective modern disinfectants or sanitizers and encourage a grubby production environment generously fertilized with feces, a production environment in which dangerous fecal bacteria are deliberately imported, thrive, multiply and contaminate virtually everything in sight including the organic food.

            Since the $60 billion organic industry has changed nothing about how it’s growers operate, the risk remains as threatening and as potentially deadly as it was before the German organic catastrophe. So not only can it occur again, it is only a random matter of time and place before it does happen again. Certainly those dead German food consumers believed it couldn’t and wouldn’t happen to them…just as far, far too many consumers of organic food today are being conned into believing it cannot and will not happen to them.

            Need more examples of demonstrated risk from organic foods teeming with fecal bacterial contamination? There are many, many poisonings and recalls from fecal contaminated organic foods. Here are just a few — and these represent only the fecal bacteria, alone…

            Organic food with e. coli fecal contamination:

            Organic sprouts…
            http://www.about-ecoli.com/eco

            Organic cheese…
            http://www.foodpoisoningnews.c

            Organic wheatgrass…
            http://www.foodqualitynews.com

            Organic spinach…
            http://www.marlerclark.com/weg

            Organic cucumbers…
            http://www.euronews.com/2011/0

            oops, Organic cucumbers again…
            http://fda-frd.eyestreet.com/r

            Organic kale…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            Organic milk…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            more Organic cheese…
            http://www.foodstandards.gov.s

            Organic tomatoes…
            http://www.inspection.gc.ca/fo
            .
            .
            .
            Organic foods with Salmonella fecal contamination:

            Organic sprouted flaxseed powder…
            http://www.wholefoodsmarket.co

            Organic kale and edamame salad…
            http://www.salmonellablog.com/

            Organic spinach…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            More Organic spinach…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            Organic sprouts…
            http://www.marlerclark.com/jim

            Organic careb powder
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            Organic hazelnuts…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            Organic walnuts…
            https://www.schmidtlaw.com/weg

            more Organic spinach…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            Organic milk and cream…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            Organic smoothies…
            http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/

            Organic alfalfa sprouts…
            http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH

            Organic peanuts…
            http://www.thepacker.com/fruit

            Organc tehini and hummus…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

            Organic and free-range chicken…
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p

            Organic chia and flaxseed powder…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/

          • Sparkle Plenty

            One outbreak in Germany several years ago says nothing about the safety of organic food in an international market place. If I were dishonest I could cherry pick one incident and use that to propagandize about the food safety issues in conventional and GMO food which are more prevalent by magnitudes than in organic food production.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, you seem not to have read through the long list of organic food poisonings and recalls due to fecal bacterial contamination (and those are only a sampling of what’s gone on out here). You casually make much too little of 53 dead, over 3000 severely sickened, over 1000 hospitalized with more than 100 requiring kidney transplants with a single organic food poisoning incident! Only the most deadly O104:H4 outbreak in history, heh, nuthin’ to see here folks, move along now, just forget what you’ve seen here, be sure to purchase our overpriced organic food on the way out, thank you very much and, uh, good luck with that fecal-smeared stuff, kids.

            You conveniently forget the deadly German organic food poisoning catastrophe was contemporaneous with both the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, each of which had rational thinking people howling for dramatic changes to safety protocols in each respective industry. The less-rational thinking people cried out for the outright banning of both technologies; nuclear energy and offshore oil drilling. And rigorous precautions were promptly put in place to reduce the risk of another serious incident occurring.

            But what of the organic industry? Were sensible precautions instituted after the deadly disaster? Were safety precautions even considered? No and no. In spite of the fact that the organic philosophy, played out through the actions of a little old local organic farmer in Germany, killed more people than the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf oil rig explosion and fire COMBINED! The organic industry continues on with it’s deadly dangerous commercial protocols unchanged to this day. A disaster poised to certainly repeat itself some place, some time without warning. Only because ideologues are convinced it will not happen to themselves and their families (just as those deluded Germans thought, too) you all are keen to keep hawking fecal-smeared organic schlock and raking in the exhorbitant overcharges for that stuff as if there was not a concern in the world.

            The rich question is; how can you justify such a cavalier attitude toward consumer safety, knowing full well the very real risks involved and the terrible suffering and loss of life that has occurred and will result again? The organic industry is a public health menace. Already all of the bogus health and nutrition claims made by organic hucksters have been debunked. The wishful claims of environmental advantages are now being debunked. There is no justification for farting around with organic production, even discounting the grave risks involved in scaling up organic and alt-ag production into mainstream commercial channels, as Chipotle so spectacularly demonstrated no so long ago.

          • Harold

            The organic food did not kill – it was the pathogen. Chicken does the same when mishandled. Does chicken kill? …

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Perhaps the organic food would not kill…if it weren’t contaminated with deadly fecal bacteria. Sure the bacteria do the killing…after using organic farming practices to nurture the growth of those bacteria and provide a route for people to be exposed and made sick…or dead.

            It’s important always to keep the turds separate from the food but that seems to be impossible for organic producers to achieve much of the time. Deadly organic food poisoning outbreaks will occur again since no changes or precautions have been adopted by the organic industry, it’s only a matter of time and place. Your neighborhood and your family could be next to succumb to a careless organic farmer!

          • Harold

            The organic market is expanding and even so globally and you take a single mishandling case and apply it to the plant it-self. That is supposed to be logical or scientific? An out-break caused by a pathogen is an obvious and immediate event. To accept your conclusion, there would be hospitals overwhelmed by this sickness daily and traceable to it’s origin.
            France, the 8 largest organic producer, just opened the doors to Canada’s organic market for import and export of organic product. Your handy little story doesn’t carry much weight. Nonetheless, I am not fooled by your ongoing level of sincerity and with what you are trying to represent. .

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Can you provide some specific examples of organic foods that were contaminated by “turds”?

          • Farmer with a Dell
          • Sparkle Plenty

            Can you explain why your laundry list is more valid than the much longer list of fecal contamination and e. coli in conventional foods?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            The list is valid because it is truthful and relevant to our immediate discussion, which is the ubiquitous fecal smearing and resulting contamination of organic foods. It’s important that grocery shoppers understand the risks of organic food and that they not be misled by propagandists for the $60 billion organic industry who will twist half-truths and even sometimes lie to separate the innocent shopper from her grocery money.

            It’s valid simply because it points out the reality that organic foods are commonly implicated in poisonings and recalls caused by contamination of the organic food with fecal bacteria. Organic snake oil salesmen used to like to claim organic food is ‘clean’ and ‘healthy’ and so on and so forth which, of course, was and is a lie. It’s part of the debunking of the organic myth. No one ever made any such preposterous or fraudulent claims for conventional foods.

            Then, too, there’s the recent scientific work demonstrating the obvious situation with organic food — it’s grown in poop, handled by organic growers who handle and work with poop extensively, carried around in baskets, boxes and vehicles that have been exposed to poop in the organic farm environment and from being re-purposed after prior tasks in a poop-ridden organic farm/food environment and, so, organic food logically is prone to be contaminated with fecal bacteria. It’s part of the grubby ambiance of turds and organic food in such intimate proximity that foodies find so charming they will pay 2X to 3X the price to experience it. But now it’s not just foodies and dirty hippies being suckered into buying grubby organic foods. So, in the interest of public health these innocent and naive new conspicuous consumers of organic foods need, at least, to be fairly warned of the turd/organic food interface and be fairly apprised of the risks. This fair warning seems to be what you object to … am I wrong?

            Anyway, here’s the science of the situation:

            https://msu.edu/course/fsc/807/Preharvest%20evaluation%20of%20coliforms,%20Escherichia%20coli,%20Salmonella,%20and%20Escherichia%20coli%20O157H7%20in%20organic%20and%20conventional%20produce%20grown%20by%20Minnesota%20farmers.pdf

            http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/05/study-yields-mixed-findings-about-microbes-organic-produce

            http://www.newsweek.com/dirty-truth-about-organic-produce-379464

            Here’s a slightly expanded list of feces-smeared organic food products that have been caught and diverted from the market, a few of them before making a bunch of people sick or dead, thank goodness…

            Organic food with e. coli fecal contamination:

            Organic sprouts…
            http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli_outbreaks/view/european-e.-coli-o104-ehec-outbreak-centered-in-germany/

            Organic cheese…
            http://www.foodpoisoningnews.com/grassfields-organic-cheese-e-coli-recall/

            Organic wheatgrass…
            http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Food-Outbreaks/IKEA-Hanoju-DEEN-and-Lidl-in-recalls/(page)/4

            Organic spinach…
            http://www.marlerclark.com/wegmans-spinach-ecoli-outbreak/

            Organic cucumbers…
            http://www.euronews.com/2011/05/27/german-e-coli-linked-to-spanish-cucumbers

            oops, Organic cucumbers again…
            http://fda-frd.eyestreet.com/recall_events/55941ee05461742b2a00015e

            Organic kale…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/05/secret-outbreak-investigation-targeted-packaged-salads-in-april/

            Organic milk…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/02/123373/

            more Organic cheese…
            http://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/news/connage-highland-dairy-recalls-organic-smoked-dunlop-cheese

            Organic tomatoes…
            http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/chemical-residues-microbiology/microbiology/tomatoes/eng/1348589851629/1348590007064
            .
            .
            .
            Organic foods with Salmonella fecal contamination:

            Organic sprouted flaxseed powder…
            http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/content/updated-food-recall-warning-organic-traditions-brand-sprouted-flax-seed-powder-and-sprouted

            Organic kale and edamame salad…
            http://www.salmonellablog.com/salmonella-recalls/trader-joes-recalls-kale-and-edamame-salad/

            Organic spinach…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/05/organicgirl-recalls-spinach-for-salmonella/

            More Organic spinach…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/05/taylor-farms-recalls-organic-baby-spinach-for-salmonella-risk/

            Organic sprouts…
            http://www.marlerclark.com/jimmy-johns-sprouts-salmonella-illinois/

            Organic careb powder
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/10/organic-carob-powder-recalled-for-salmonella-risk/

            Organic hazelnuts…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/criminal-enterprise-behind-illegal-food-carts-1/

            Organic walnuts…
            https://www.schmidtlaw.com/wegmans-recalls-organic-walnuts-for-salmonella-risk/

            more Organic spinach…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/05/officials-confirm-salmonella-outbreak-linked-to-taylor-farms/

            Organic milk and cream…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/05/salmonella-in-organic-pastures-raw-cream-spurs-another-recall/

            Organic smoothies…
            http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/health/salmonella-garden-of-life/

            Organic alfalfa sprouts…
            http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/28/salmonella.produce/

            Organic peanuts…
            http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/Peanuts–not-lettuce–trigger-Earthbound-Farm-recall-174778371.html

            Organc tehini and hummus…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/tehina-and-hummus-recalled-in-israel-over-salmonella-contamination/

            Organic and free-range chicken…
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16300088

            Organic chia and flaxseed powder…
            http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/02/organic-chia-flax-powders-on-recall-for-salmonella-risk/

          • richard

            Funny, I talked to my local organic grocer today and in forty years he has never received one complaint on any of the above….. …

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, maybe your grocer is a lucky guy, the law of averages simply hasn’t caught up with him yet the way it did for all those unsuspecting dead Germans.

            Or maybe his customers figure the occasional bout of diarrhea and abdominal cramps is normal with organic food, just another of the charming attributes to be savored? I mean, foodies seem to be like that, gloating over eating this esoteric thing and that questionable morsel. So, do you really think their pride would permit them to let on when they’ve poisoned themselves or their families? It’s like someone who just paid way too much for an impractical pig of an SUV and is now getting terrible gas mileage — you never hear them complain, either.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            That is a lot of words and a lot of spin but when we get to the end you have added nothing to the claims that you have already made. Your claims are opinion and not verifiable as actual facts.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yes, a lot of words for someone who functions only in soundbites.

            Anyway, once the truth has been set in place there’s nothing left to add…except, of course, all the inevitable feigned ignorance, shallow complaints and contorted objections of organic zealots. I’ve done my part in bringing the truth and you certainly are doing your part with all the rest. We expect no less from any spokesperson for the $60 billion organic industry.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Any pathogen contaminated food can kill you. Food contamination si more prevalent by magnitudes in conventional food.

            Organic food is the cleanest most pesticide free food on the market today.

          • Stuart Smyth

            Sorry, organic farmers have some of the most chemically laden and toxic products on the grocery store shelves. See for yourself. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pesticide-residue-found-on-nearly-half-of-organic-produce-1.2487712

          • Sparkle Plenty

            The USDA tests show that 96% of oranic food meets or exceeds organic standards for pesticide contamination that are 19 times lower for pesticide contamination than conventional and GMO foods.

            From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary

            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

          • richard

            What you say is self evident….. what you see is that projection is the domain of the argument of bankruptcy….and it repeats itself over and over on these pages……If GM doctrine speaks for itself, why is it habitually trying to validate itself…. Does this sound like the bold confidence for a model of human progress?

          • Biron_1

            Doctors making those recommendations are most likely poorly trained scientists.

            My physician is a true scientist who attended MIT as an undergraduate before going to Med School. I choose my health providers wisely.

          • E. Sandwich

            What makes you think that those Doctors are poorly trained scientists? Do you even know who they are or where they went to school?

            My Doctor is a very well trained Doctor and I follow his recommendations. He recommended I switch from pesticide laden GMO foods to organic foods and my health improved dramatically.

          • Biron_1

            “What makes you think that those Doctors are poorly trained scientists?”

            Because scientists have overwhelmingly found no evidence of harm. While there is an infinitesimal chance that your physician is correct, I state with confidence that he or she is most likely a poorly trained scientist.

            “my health improved dramatically.”

            Highly unlikely and wholly unsubstantiated.

          • Goldfinger

            E says s/he took her Doctors advise and her medical conditions resolved. How can you justify your claim that “there is an infinitesimal chance that your physician is correct” when the problem was resolved?

            Please explain.

          • Biron_1

            Quite easy to justify.

            1) There was no problem
            2) There was a problem that was resolved by other means.
            3) There was a problem that was not resolved.
            4) There was no advice given by the physician and the story was entirely fabricated.

            Items 1-4 are far more likely than E Sandwich’s problem being resolved by the physician’s advice (if the physician exists at all).

          • Peaceful Warrior

            How do you know this?

            Your opinion is not a fact.

          • Biron_1

            I’m claiming that there is greater likelihood of fabrication, delusion, illusion or error than the doctor recommended cure E Sandwich found. Furthermore, I do not believe that a typical physician made that recommendation.

            If indeed a doctor did make that recommendation, I would suspect E Sandwich sought a quack practicing anti-GMO pseudoscience.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Can you explain how you came to believe that “there is greater likelihood of fabrication, delusion, illusion or error than the doctor recommended cure E Sandwich found. Furthermore, I do not believe that a typical physician made that recommendation.”

          • Biron_1

            “Can you explain how you came to believe…”

            Yes, it’s called “reasoning.”

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Do you know E. Sandwich? Do you know who their Doctor is? How can you come to a conclusion about anything unless you have some facts to work with about the people involved and their life situation?

          • Biron_1

            Easy. I do not know the doctor. But it’s quite reasonable to assume that the doctor does not exist or is a quack. Either one is more likely than E Sandwich’s claim that the medical advice worked.

            I choose the probable over the improbable as it makes me more money and otherwise leads to a better life. You are free to pursue unlikely and illogical claims.

          • Nor are opinions about shills facts.

          • No reason not to believe E. Sandwich there – however, after =/= because + the placebo effect is a thing.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            There are millions of people who have found switching to organic food has caused their health to improve dramatically. Are you trying to tell us that all of these people are experiencing the placebo effect? Why are medical Doctors recommending that patients avoid GMO foods?

          • 1)No, there are millions of people who have found their health improving dramatically after the switch. This is not evidence that it is because of the switch.

            2)Of course not. Proving because is the problem of those who claim it. I don’t need to ‘try and tell you’ anything.

            3)What evidence do they have to support their recommendation?

          • Peaceful Warrior

            The people who have experienced the resolution of serious medical issues by getting rid of cancer causing glyphosate laden GMO foods don’t need any more evidence, and those who support the GMO industry agenda will never have enough.

            You can do what ever you want to do, and I’ll stick with the thinks that support my vibrant health.

          • I didn’t ask you to switch.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Are you calling E.Sandwich a liar?

            Please tell us how you think you know more about E’s health than he does.

            Scientists have not “overwhelmingly found no evidence of harm”. The actual truth is 180 degrees away from that. There is no scientific or medical consensus on GMO safety.

          • Biron_1

            “Please tell us how you think you know more about E’s health than he does.”

            If E Sandwich claimed he were 30 feet tall, and I rejected that claim, it would not suggest that I know more about E Sandwich’s health than he knows.

            E Sandwich has made a highly improbable claim that flies in the face of science. It is both unlikely that a scientifically trained doctor recommended this remedy and that the remedy worked.

            It’s possible that you might know more about E Sandwich’s health than I do. …

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Yes I do. I believe that what she tells us is true and I’m not going to be mislead …

            All you have shown us is that you have an opinion. We don’t know how you came to have it, but there it is. …

    • Keith Duhaime

      You forgot to mention that it is not only farmers that profit. No company can put a new product in the supply chain without providing a business proposition all the way down the supply the chain as a compensation to risk. Typically for a company like Monsanto to put a new chemical or seed in the market, the total economic benefit to doing so must be split approximately four ways: 25% to Monsnanto, Syngenta, etc. 25% to the farmer, 25% to the consumer and 25% to the rest of the supply chain. Consumers don’t generally appreciate it, but to a great degree this is why they only spend about 10% of household income on food versus their grandparents or great-grandparents that spent about 25% of household income on food.

    • Grace Joubarne

      Whoa, wait a minute now. Our canola export market plummeted…many countries including China refused gmo-canola. This past year our dear PM was still trying to ram it down China’s throat as part of a ‘trade deal’. There was absolutely no benefit. I don’t know where you got your figures, but there was no benefit if the truth were told.

      • Biron_1

        The market determines the benefits of GMO to farmers and consumers. Why do I care what activists seeking to protect the less efficient organic industry opine?

        If GMO provides no benefit nobody would plant nor consume it.

      • Stuart Smyth

        Canola export data is available both with Statistics Canada and the Canola Council of Canada. Canola production has increased from about 5 million tonnes in 1995 to about 18 million tonnes. If farmers weren’t benefiting from growing GM canola, production would not have tripled in the past 20 years. The fact is: farmers make more money per acre growing GM canola than they do growing non-GM canola.
        As for ramming GM canola down China’s throat, I’m not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. China imports canola from Canada because they need if for their cooking industry as our canola is more stable at higher temperatures than any other frying oil. In 2003, 19% of our canola was exported to China. In 2015, 33% of our canola was exported to China. They are buying more GM canola from Canada now than every before, so we certainly aren’t forcing them to buy more from us.
        Growing GM canola has resulted in millions fewer acres of summerfallow. In the 1970s there was 15 million acres of summerfallow in Sask, now there is 1.5 million. The excellent weed control from using GM canola means that farmer use 1.3 million fewer kg of chemical active ingredient and emit 1 million fewer tonnes of carbon. Farmers using GM crops are the most sustainable farmers in existence.

  • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

    Monsanto and the rest of the big six now giant four create the majority of transgenic/cisgenic (GMO) traits in Hawaii because there is no regulation from the state or federal government.

    Maui voted for Independent Longterm Health and Environmental Impact Studies…after failing to buy the election despite spending the most in the history of Hawaii…Monsanto-Bayer and Dow-DuPont sued to overturn the vote to avoid tests they know they will fail.

    They have made Hawaii the extinction capital of the world. Birth defects including heart and brain malformations that are common in GE salmon are 10 times the US average. National Wildlife Refuges banned GMO after noticing deaths of wildlife. When the wind doesn’t blow trades bringing Monsanto pollen and overspray to the valley the hives suffer CCD.

    All the actual research clearly shows GMO doesn’t increase yield or reduce pesticide costs just increases profits for the chemical companies.

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#_i5

  • grinninglibber

    You too can have liver disease

    http://www.gmwatch.org/news/archive/17402

    The weedkiller Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at very low doses permitted by regulators worldwide, a new peer-reviewed study shows. The study is the first ever to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmentally relevant dose and a serious disease.

    • RobertWager

      I am going to guess you did not notice the fraudulent switching of data (photos) from the 2015 Seralini paper into this paper. Seems males are females now or is it females are now males. They are very confused and will definitely get severe reprimand for this fraud.

      On another note do you think it is good methodology to use near dead (end of lifespan) or dead rats livers from rats with massive tumours to monitor normal omics?

    • Chris Preston

      I read that article and it does not really reflect the results of the paper it refers to. If anyone wishes to they can read the paper here.

      Having read the paper itself, all I can say is that it represented a complete waste of everyone’s time. The only good thing that can be said about this paper is that it didn’t require any rats to die as they had already been killed for Seralini’s retracted feeding study.

      More than 80% of the individuals tested had one or more tumors (and frequently large tumors) by the time they were sacrificed at 2 years. Clearly these tumors were going to affect the expression of proteins and the concentration of metabolites in the liver. What this means is that it is completely impossible to determine from this study what impact the herbicide in the drinking water might have had. The authors should have known this, but forged on regardless.

      There are so many controls lacking in the paper, that no conclusions can be drwan from the results presented. It certainly does not support the contention in the article that Roundup causes non alcohol fatty liver disease.

  • RobertWager

    An interesting read on the very real threat of mycotoxins and how Bt crops reduce that threat
    https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/01/09/bt-corn-contains-fewer-disease-causing-mycotoxins-conventional-corn/

    • Goldfinger

      I won’t link on the GLP. It is an industry aligned site with strict bias toward industrial agriculture using chemical poisons and GMOs.

      • Farmer with a Dell

        You don’t link to GLP because you and all of your personas have been banned from GLP for trolling. C’mon, for the sake of integrity as a commenter and to inject some truth into our discussion here please stop insulting us with grudges and obtuse beliefs. How about providing a fact here or there and backing that up with credible references?

        • Harold

          The GLP is funded by the GMO industry and the corresponding chemical and pharmaceutical industry. Of course you may never wish to know this because it doesn’t go along with your corresponding rant against goldfinger. Goldfinger was only pointing to a conflict of interest which exists within the site. Do I have to prove this, or can you tap on the computer yourself. It’s better that you lie to yourself. rather than to have me do it.

          • RobertWager

            Funny but I thought they were a 501c Non-profit. Can you share with us the evidence that GLP is funded by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries please.

          • Harold

            Tap on the keys Robert, I would hate to lie to you.

          • RobertWager

            So no then. fine.

          • Harold

            You won”t tap on the key’s and go deeper than non-profit?
            You do know that non-profit is a governing term and is not an answer to where they receive funding? If you or other’s wish to assume, that is entirely your choice. I dug deeper and my comment is my answer. “Funny but I thought they were a 501c Non-profit’ is not an evidence..

          • RobertWager

            I called your bluff and you have nothing. …

          • Harold

            As i pointed out; you have no “card’s” in your hand to call a bluff. . 501c Non-profit is the “box” the “cards” were in. Surely you must know that non-profit originations are funded and for-profit originations are not. You have only identified the “street sign” on the “building”. I have invited you to go inside. Am i your keeper?

        • Goldfinger

          This is the only persona I have and I don’t post on the GLP. The GLP bans anyone who’s truth threatens the industry narrative that the GLP attempts to project. If I’m banned there I don’t know it but, if I am, I’ll wear it like a badge of honor.

      • JoeFarmer

        Excuses, excuses.

        You can read the paper here: http://fafdl.org/gmobb/the-promise-of-gmos-mycotoxins/

        • Cletus DeBunkerman

          Anastasia is Policy Director of Biology Fortified, Inc. Biofortified has a reputation as an industry sponsored site that supports the industry agenda. I would look for another site to get balanced accurate information on these issues.

          • Biron_1

            And what would that be, an activist site like FWW that scaremongers while trolling for donations?

          • JoeFarmer

            … The body of research is clear that biotech traits like Bt reduce mycotoxins as much as you don’t want to admit it.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            GMO bt also hangs around in the environment where it threatens insect life. It is part of every cell in the bt plant including the roots, stalks, grain, pollen, that blows free on the wind, and the stover. Every bite of food made from GMO bt plants includes a dose of the bt pesticide that can not be washed off.

            It’s not so rosey when you look at all the issues …

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            Check out this study.

            Growing pest resistance shows GM Bt crop technology not sustainable

            http://gmwatch(dot)org/news/latest-news/17395-growing-pest-resistance-shows-gm-bt-crop-technology-not-sustainable

  • Biron_1

    “So the next question people asked was, ‘who benefits from GMOs.’ By now, we see the benefits don’t go to the farmer or the consumer. The benefits go to major multinational companies like Monsanto.”

    Why would farmers and consumers purchase products that provide no benefit? This typical activist rhetoric in response to innovation. They are trying to protect an inferior organic industry that simply cannot compete.

    • RobertWager

      Perhaps you should read this. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

      It clearly shows farmers do in fact benefit from this technology and so do consumers with lower food prices and more sustainable farming practices that we all want.

      • Harold

        I think that no one want’s rhetoric, but also that the farmers and consumers want higher wages and the choices that evolve from having such. Warm and fuzzy pieces of opinion don’t matter much when it comes to the act of buy and sell. Low wages are like peeing yourself in a dark suit. A nice warm feeling, but nobody notices. The true people of power are amongst the lowest of wage. Lot’s of benefit’s though.

  • Farmer with a Dell

    That ‘unmitigated PR disaster’ provides us with the most abundant, safe, affordable food supply the world has ever known…so fat activist cranks can screech hateful PR propaganda with their mouths stuffed full.

    • richard

      So let me get this straight…. biotech is the victim of the media, those big mean organic farmers, and fat activists with their mouths stuffed with greaseball burgers and ADHD high fructose beverages…. provided by cheap food inc….for the (cough)…. betterment of humanity?

      • Farmer with a Dell

        You’re proving it even as you speak.

  • Jason

    …only that organic agriculture has nothing to do with the unmitigated PR disaster called industrial agriculture…

    But.. the data correlates so closely. It just MUST be the cause!!

    • richard

      …..If you examine it closely its more complex than that…..please see below….

      • Jason

        1) You’ll have to be more specific. There is a lot “below”.

        2) My comment was meant to be a poke at all the spurious correlations put forth by the anti-modern Ag crown and passed of as causation. As you can see, correlations between two unrelated things are not difficult to make.

        • richard

          …..completely agree on correlation…..Help me understand….Is it correlation or causation that makes reactionaries and nozzleheads to go apoplectic at the very mention of the……”O’ word?

          • Jason

            It is likely correlation. Because, the correlation seems to be (my observation) that those who trumpet the papers correlating every ailment under the sun to modern ag practices also tend to be holding up organic practices as a cure for all of those ails.

            The reality is that organic practices and conventional practices are nearly identical. The differentiation being in what pesticides are used rather that one using & the other not. When one practices organic agriculture on an industrial scale, one tends to see a very similar set of benefits and risks as a conventional “industrial” farm. Just as smaller conventional farming is very much the same as smaller organic.

          • richard

            I think theres some truth to that……monster farms of any leaning are rife with abuse of privilege…. smaller operations tend to be owner/operator with tighter management…..not sure farmer in the deli would agree…..but thanx for your input.

          • Jason

            I’m not sure what your experience with farmer operators has been, but in my 20 years of working with farmers, my experience has been the exact opposite of what you stated. It’s the larger farms that are more tightly run and generally more ecologically sound. There are two big reasons. Large farms are much more “on the radar” among governing bodies like the EPA. They’re easy to keep track of. But probably the biggest thing is that they tend to have the resources and the know-how to do things right.

            Often smaller farms need to cut corners in order to make ends meet or simply aren’t as educated on what the most ecologically sound practices are. Of course, these are generalizations, but they tend to hold true.

            There’s a 10,000+ cow dairy right up the road from me and I’d stack that place up against anyone in terms of how clean the operation is.

          • richard

            I’m surrounded by ten to forty square mile operations, and travel time, prophylactic spraying, wage employee apathy, road destruction, zero community input, escalating land prices…..lead not to anything that looks like efficient to me….. I take your point on the dairy…… but clean barns in dairy, hogs and poultry does not necessarily mean the “back yard” is clean……Until every farm takes ownership of its relative toxic leakage into the commonwealth we will not reach sustainability…. Using the environment to underwrite balance sheet ambitions can no longer being ignored.

  • Happy Farmer

    Well, I am benefitting from GMOs. My farm is profitable and sustainable. My soil organic matter has increased by 2-4% since I started farming with (some)GMO crops. I use 50% less fuel compared to before GMOs.

    I have a suggestion with regard to all Human food. Why not subject every single food item with the same tests. Maybe we should test the raw farm gate produce, then test it again after final packaging. Then label each item with the results. This may help create a level playing field for all products. It will allow the consumer to make informed choices as to what they eat. I am however, very passionate about making the consumer pay for all testing and labelling as it is they that are wanting it.

  • Grace Joubarne

    Poor, uninformed NFU…they actually think that pharmaceutical drugs go through ‘rigorous’ testing!! They are clearly unaware of the many landmark civil and criminal cases against Big Pharma that show there is no meaningful testing and no testing that is not rigged, manipulated or otherwise adulterated and unreliable. The esteem medical journals have repeatedly said that the bulk of articles and studies reported in the medical journals are entirely unreliable. Further, Health Canada is top heavy with Big Pharma and Big Ag shills… Oh, Boy, are we in trouble when a leading farming organization actually thinks the drugs out there are safe. Thalidimide was re-purposed and put back on the market….the residue of which is flooding our waterways.

  • Grace Joubarne

    No worries, Roundups most important ingredient, glyphosate, has now been found in almost all vaccines…inject away.

  • Harold

    You said “….USDA created the marketing label and the legal standards for its use”. These are your words. Then you contradict your own words with, “organic’ mean just whatever anyone wants them to mean”. as if the label now has no lawful meaning. “A Weasel word.” with no consequence of law. “Meaningless” you say
    Sober, and not even with alcohol, can one receive rationality from your description. YOUR HONOR!! IT WAS A WEASEL WORD vs I broke the law, and the law won.
    Regardless, venturing out from one, there are now two very separate meanings for the word organic. One meaning is a legal description and terms to a label. The other is a science meaning and scientific terms of matter. In science, you yourself are organic, and it does not describe a registered and legal farmer with a dell and drivers license.

    • Farmer with a Dell

      There can be no legitimate confusion.

      “certified organic” is the USDA marketing label licensing producers and retailers to overcharge for product whatever the market will bear, presently about 2X to 3X normal price.

      ‘organic’, ‘sustainable’, ‘healthy’, ‘natural’ are the weasel words used in common parlance to separate a fool from her grocery money.

      “organic” as a scientific term is a precise and entirely different intended meaning as in “organic compound” – any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon; and in “organic chemistry” – the scientific study of organic compounds.

      • Harold

        … In my opinion, your entire comment is disingenuous, but i welcome hearing it for my own personal reasons.
        Moreover, you said in part “…to separate a fool from her grocery money”. What makes you think even for a nanosecond, that “she” or anyone else, is under YOUR roof, and you as house lord, can dictate what one should think or believe, how they shall behave, and what they shall act upon, and as house lord, your contempt and total disrespect is justified? I do know what a fool is, and they tend to be the ones recovering from the bidding of everyone else’s explanations and opinion’s.

  • Denise