the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

Yes, this does help their bottom line. Do you know who else has a better bottom line thanks to these products? Their consumers, the farmers. The only goal of Round-up Ready or the newly approved Enlist Duo from DuPont is not to be resistant to their poisons, but also to increase yields for farmers. And we would not see this prevalence of farmers wanting to grow this technology if the products did not deliver. In your first statement you said that we should avoid crops that increase the toxic load on foods. However, that isn't the truth, there is a reduction in overall pesticides used (herbicides and insecticides combined) when using transgenic crops. Only one country has a complete blanket ban on GM crops, either through cultivation, test crops, or importation. In fact, the trend is going in the opposite direction from what you are stating. In 2009, 13 members of the European Union asked to revisit the moratorium of approving requests to grow crops in Europe. This decision was made official just recently and the countries can begin to make their own decisions about crops. The UK is ready to jump on board, as are several other countries in the region because the new tool in the kit benefits farmers. Less regulation would bring the cost down from the 120 million it takes to get something approved and allow competitors other than the big six and certain public institutions. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

With peanuts, you are discussing an actual health risk with verified evidence of its existence. Earlier you said maybe the Big Ag companies had Seralini's paper retracted. Even if they were responsible for the retraction, it doesn't change the sloppy results that he came up with. First off, the test was initially planned as a toxicology test. This didn't return the results he needed, so it was turned into a test for cancer. Why cancer all of a sudden? It had to do with the rats he chose for his study. The rats are Sprague-Dawley rats and a paper in 1978 showed that females of these rats actually get tumors anywhere from 22-93% of the time (males I believe we 53%). If that wasn't enough of a risk of false positives in a cancer study, each test group had only twenty rats, ten male and ten female. Then, he tested over ten different combinations, and didn't control for his control rat chow, which most likely contained GMOs. He refused to publish all of his data, stating he was only publishing the relevant portions. And when he republished in a pay to play journal, he included the data...which showed one curious result only. The only dose response in the paper is that if you are male rat, and you drink Round-Up, you will live longer. That is the only actual dose related response he got in the entire study.But, again, Seralini's study is not the issue it's that the GM foods have been shown to be nutritionally substantially equivalent to the conventional produce. If there is a nutritional difference it should be a mandatory label, not a process. Otherwise label all non-Kosher foods.As for the cost, let's have a farmer explain it as she could do better than I can:
The Foodie FarmerThere is scientifically no more difference between GM crops and their conventional counterparts than there is between the same wheat crop grown in different soils. This isn't the industry saying its safe like it was with the tobacco industry. Yes, they are agreeing, but they are agreeing with the majority scientific consensus across the world. Even countries that do not like transgenic crops, the scientific institutions in those countries stand behind the safety of the technology. Even in Seralini's home country of France and the French Academy of Science:

There has been an increase in the amount of herbicide used, but along with this there is a reduction of the insecticides used in the growing process. Overall, pesticide use is down, but this still leaves for improvement by managing crops better and rotating. The addition of DuPont's Enlist Duo would allow farmers to rotate herbicides, which could slow the evolution of resistant weeds.

Well, looking at the site for the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications there is a list of the benefits seen in Biotech in their Executive Summary. They State: Here is their Executive Summary:
ISAAAAnd here is research showing an overall reduction of pesticide between 1996-2011 showing a reduction of 474 million kgs.
SourceThe reduction of the need to increase land for crop production because of increasing yields is the best thing this technology does for biodiversity.

Created by the Organic movement to try and convince people that they are healthier....what they don't mention is that there are herbicides and insecticides used in organic agriculture and these are sometimes more toxic than those used by transgenic crops. Round-up has an LD50 that is higher than both table salt and caffeine. It would take more Round-up to kill 50% of the test group than it would take table salt. That is remarkably non-toxic to humans for an herbicide.One chemical that is still approved for use on organic crops by the USDA (only approved if the country of origin does not have a ban, the USA does not allow farmers to use it) is rotenone. An interesting secondary purpose of this chemical is use as a fish control agent to kill invasive species. It has this nasty ability to kill anything with gills. It does this by diminishing the fishes ability to get oxygen from water, so it basically suffocates them. And if you eat organic produce from other countries, you may just be ingesting some of this poison. Even worse, are the biodiversity effects that this pesticide has through its ability to decimate fish populations. Improper use could be detrimental to the environment, and this is an organic pesticide.BTW, one of the main chemicals used in transgenics, Bt Endotoxin, is also an approved pesticide in organic farming. They spray Bt onto crops and also occasionally inject it directly into the crop. Mythbusting 101: Organic FarmingRemoving Fish from ponds with RotenoneRotenone in Organic ProductionEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

But, you are ignoring the science of how these insecticides function. First off, by purchasing Organic products you are not avoiding Bt Endotoxin. This is an approved pesticide for organic agriculture and it is sprayed on and occasionally injected directly into the plant to control pests by organic farmers.First off, according to the University of Tennessee: It is the specificity that we really need to concern ourselves with in regards to non-target pests, ourselves, and our gut microbiome. ResourceThe toxin is designed to bind to a specific receptor that exists in the insect gut. How about the mammalian gut, shouldn't it affect us the same way? Well, no because we lack the same receptors that react to this toxin. Plus, the protein breaks up in the digestive system of mammals: This is especially important since you are speaking of damage to our gut microbiome. If the digestive fluids quickly denature the protein, how is causing any damage to the bacteria in our gut. You need to specify a mechanism that can explain this function occurring while the protein is unstable in stomach acid. How quickly, exactly, does the human digestive process denature this protein?They continue: How about the process of heat application to the product, does this have any effect on the stability of the pesticide to cause damage to mammalian. Well, after the heat stability test, the researchers determined: How about the results of the acute toxicity tests performed in lab mice to verify if ingestion of the proteins could cause harm. The conclusions they have drawn from this information, in regards to the risk of consuming Bt Endotoxins is that there is no inherent risk to mammals from the consumption of Bt ResourceSo, really can they start growing in our gut and take over for other bacteria? Are Bacillus Thuringiensis living inside of us now? No, is the simple answer. First off, we've already discussed that these same Bt Endotoxins are located on organic crops and have been used for a long time. If they were colonizing our gut microbiome, it would have been found in the literature. Is it really present in Organic foods? The researchers continue: ResourceFinally, RAZD, you are quoting videos from Jeffrey Smith, a premiere snake-oil salesman and practitioner of Yogic flying. Jeffrey SmithJeffrey Smith - Academics Review individualsHis thoughts on this matter have been analyzed by scientists and found very wanting. Perhaps you should check out the Academics Review of his seminal work, Genetic Roulette, where actual peer-reviewed research rips into every statement he attempts to claim. Genetic Roulette Academics ReviewI'm sorry, but on this topic there could be some debate about the safety of future crops, but the scientific consensus shows that the current crops are safe for human and animal consumption. No medical issues have ever been assigned to having a GMO as the cause, and if you think otherwise, I challenge you to find peer-reviewed literature that shows this. An oddity in the medical community would definitely be written about in the medical journals. There can be some debate about the role that corporations play (although they are the only ones who can afford to play that role since GE crops take ten years and a 120 million dollars to pass regulations) as well. However, the scientific consensus is that these crops are as safe for consumption as their conventional counterparts. Let's check that consensus, shall we? SourceAnd I did not even list all of them from that page, much less the total number of scientific bodies that support the introduction of GM crops. I think I will throw my trust in these guys rather than a Yogic flyer with his job history in swing dance instruction and who also peddles his own all natural products.

Why? What other processes of food creation require mandatory labeling? Kosher is a voluntary label that allows marketers to target a specific demographic. Your request is akin to requesting that all food that is not Kosher be labeled Non-kosher, at the expense of all consumers.Let's look at it this way. How is the current system failing on allowing people to make a choice and avoid GMO crops? There are voluntary label choices that companies can sue to market the demographic that wants these products, including Organic and Project GMO-Free. If a company wants to target the demographic, they can go through the process to get this certification and sell their product at a higher value because people are choosing an aesthetic difference that has nothing to do with nutrition or health.And companies are willing to do that, this is already seen by the increase in these voluntary labels recently.Forceful labeling based on no nutritional differences, no increased risks, and no new allergens present (The crops are tested on all of these areas, as well as environmental impacts) will increase the cost for every consumer, which will actually drive the poor to purchase less fresh foods and more processed foods at a cheaper cost. It's like the organic company scaring the new mother about the fruits and vegetables she feeds her child. Now, she will waste more money on organic produce, reducing the total amount of produce that she purchases for her child. The poor should not suffer for choice that is solely based on feeling more natural.Check out this research that was conducted on New York State that shows that labeling would lead to an added cost for all New Yorkers of 429 million - 1.7 billion, with a midpoint at 1.1 billion dollars per year. This works out to an extra over $200 dollars per year for a family of four. Sure, a lot of people could afford that, but those who can't were already living on the margin...why should we push them over the edge so we can feel natural and happy? ResourceFinally, I am not against organic and if people want to feel more natural and in tune with Earth, whatever, but when you are making your dinner choices based on feeling good about yourself, the rest of us should not be forced to pay for your feelings. I think all of the tools we have gained through different agricultural practices will be necessary to prepare to feed the future 9 billion people that will occupy this Earth, especially with hopefully less poverty stricken people. Using rotational planting from organic, planting barrier crops, using beneficial insects and systemic (low toxicity) pesticides, reducing broad spectrum sprays and rotating weed control chemicals to avoid continuing to create herbicide resistant weeds.Of all that, Xong, the thing I would most like an answer to is "How is the current system not allowing people to easily avoid GMOs?"

Portion I am discussing is bolded.I take it that you have heard of Radiation mutagenesis, correct? This is the process of using chemicals or radiation to force mutations in plants and hopefully generate useful mutations. Guess what, this is an organically certified practice and does not require a label, but it is far more scattershot than the concept of trangenics where the company must analyze where the genetic change was placed on the genome of the plant. Mutagenesis also does not require safety testing, even though the process randomly changes thousands of genes in the plant to find the one phenotypic change we liked. Transgenics, on the other hand, change anywhere from 1-8 genes in the plant. Why should one be labeled and the other not?

Forget the companies and look at the scientific literature. And before you say, well the company buys the scientific consensus (You can see a small portion of that consensus in my reply to RAZD), what you cannot say is how with the amount of money Big Ag makes (approximately 60 billion a year for all of the Big 6 combined) they can control scientific consensus, but Big Oil, with profits in the hundreds of billions has been completely unable to stop the march of the scientific consensus on climate change. Also, you do realize that the companies fighting for labeling (Organic companies) are also a 40+ billion dollar a year industry, right? Last year, Monsanto made approximately 14 billion in profits and Whole Foods made 12 billion. Why is one corporation evil and the other has our best interests at heart because they claim to be natural?I agree it was full conceit that Monsanto thought weeds would not find resistance to Round-up. It was their fault for not realizing that Farmers would go overboard sometimes and not follow exact spraying amounts or would continually plant the same crop instead of rotating Round-up Ready out each growing season. However, the introduction of 2-4D from DuPont will allow herbicide use from two different mechanisms making resistance much more difficult to come by for weeds. Could you post evidence of the retention of glyphosate in the plant leaves and edible parts of the plant? Also, do you know that the median lethal dose of Round-up is higher than the median lethal dose of both Caffeine and Table Salt? Look up the LD50 numbers for these products and you will be quite surprised how remarkably non-toxic Round-up is.

There is something like 2-3 million farmers in the United States alone. Organic crops account for approximately 14% of the market. Not trying for super detailed, but just a reasonable estimate. We will go with 2 million farmers.2 million farmers * .86 (86%) = 1,720,000 farmers growing conventional or GMO crops. Now, only certain amounts of these crops have a GMO counterpart (eight to be exact), but they are huge cash crops, such as corn, sugarbeets, canola and soy. But again, going on low estimate, lets cut the number in half......That means there are 860,000 farmers producing crops that were not required to be separated that now need additional infrastructure at every stage from seed delivery to final delivery to the manufacturer, not to mention the additional segregation that manufacturers will require to ensure that there is no cross contamination. Again, these are just estimated numbers, but I am sure I could get you the actual counts if you would like me to.

So, in those links RAZD shared form Jeffrey Smith, there was this interesting claim: Well, I am shocked by this phrase, especially with the recent release of a study that reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health results. The results were exactly the opposite of what AAEM is claiming. This study gathered the data spanning 29 years and covered 100 billion animals fed GM feed for a total of 1 trillion meals.Entine continues: SourceStudyEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Forgot the source

You are correct on the ad hominem, but how about you do not rely on YouTube videos but actual controlled laboratory experiments. What variables did Jeffrey Smith control for, how are we sure that outside influences had no effect. As we always ask Creationists, where is the peer reviewed scientific literature showing these same results? How do we know that is the only varible changed in Jeffrey Smith's video? Could the individuals have made other lifestyle changes as well, such as increased exercise or reduction in the amount of sodium or the fact that removing GMOs removes a large portion of processed foods from the diet? Would replacing GMO processed foods with non-GMO processed foods still show the same effect? Where is the research paper that shows these results in a controlled study? If it works for you, more power to you. I am not aiming to remove organic or conventional agriculture to go full on GMO. GMO is a tool that serves specific purposes, it is not a hammer in a world full of nails. The question would be, how are you unable to find products that do not contain the GMOs with the current system of voluntary labeling? Are the organic and Project GMO-Free labels not enough?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Let's forget what the tobacco companies said...What did the science in the peer reviewed journals say at that time?

I did slightly misunderstand your position and my apologies for that. An interesting aside that someone got me thinking of on this specific point last night. Big Ag is controlling the industry, but not through the means that any of us expect or that most anti-GMO groups claim. When trangenics were introduced, it was Big Agriculture (Monsanto, DuPont, et al) that requested they be regulated under the FDA. Since then, they have actually requested more strict scrutiny because it decreases competition in the industry...currently, it costs approximately 120 million dollars and ten years to get from R&D through regulation. This minimizes the amount of smaller companies that can come in and compete with the big dogs. I am finally starting to hear for scientifically based and trait based regulations, similar to what Canada does, but as long as the cost is this high to find success, start-ups will have a difficult time competing in the industry with the Big 6. Lies, Damn Lies and Genetic Engineering

I think this is one of the most important points brought up in this thread so far! Even as a staunch GM supporter, I see the benefits that organic agricultural practices have brought about also. I think our best plan would be to integrate the two systems and use the portions that work the best in each area....call it the modern synthesis of farming, if you will....Crop rotation, IPM, specified built-in resistance, among many other options! If only there weren't such fervor based in pseudoscience on the topic.Awesome that you may end up working for Monsanto, from my understanding they were just voted the eighth best multinational corporation to work for in the world. I'm actually considering going there and applying for operations as from my understanding they are willing to cross train employees in biotechnology as well.