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

The Roundup resistant gene was actually found in a strain of Agrobacterium. This is, I feel, the major rub a lot of people have with GMOs - cross kingdom gene manipulation. If the gene HAD been found in a plant and bred into a crop, few would have raised an eyebrow. But since this is a bacterial gene, that somehow makes it dangerous to put into a plant. What they fail to grasp is that a gene is a gene - bacterial genes, plant genes, animal genes... they all function the same way. This is so true! With conventional breeding, not only is the gene of interest manipulated, but also genes that are closely linked and even just random, unrelated genes. Breeders also use mutagens to create mutations and therefore variation with which they can then work with. This could have serious consequences but, these plant lines can be released with virtually no regulation or scrutiny - the new breeding line could be producing a toxin and that would not need to be tested for.Genetic engineering works with only the target gene and inserts it into a variety with known genetic background. It is then subject to extensive scrutiny. The only thing that bothers me about gene insertions is the way that it is done. Not only the target gene gets transferred but also some incidental material in the vicinity of the gene. So along with the gene of interest promoters, enhancers, etc. can be transferred. In addition, where this new material gets inserted into the host is not precisely controlled but can insert virtually anywhere in the genome. This could potentially be a source for unintended products such as miRNA and snRNA. The potential for this problem will diminish as the tehnology becomes more and more precise.The problem I see with GMOs is in how we USE them. For example, when Roundup Ready crops is our ONLY weed management strategy, we find ourselves in big trouble... as we have seen in recent years with resistant weeds developing.HBD

I never said they were.This doesn't change the fact that GMOs can be done responsibly, or they can be done without care for human safety.
My point was simply that the topic of "GMOs" is too broad to ask a simple question like "are GMOs safe?"It's like asking "are cars safe?"
Well... if used correctly, and responsibly, they can be safe, yes.
If used with reckless abandon, they can be extremely dangerous.There's no real "yes/no" answer. The topic is simply too broad.

This is a bogus argument. The Roundup resistant gene was completely harmless in its original location. Who knows what the potential was in whatever part of the plant kingdom that you are speculating it might have been found in. There is simply no way to know whether its existence in other plants might have addressed whatever are the current concerns or whether its original source would have been irrelevant.

Right, which might very well mean caution and some focus on the problems. An apparently denial of the need for care is what I took issue with.

Seeing as that is NOT the argument against Roundup-Ready GM crops (and others with high herbicide tolerance), THIS "is a bogus argument."The argument concerns the rest of the ecology when increasingly heavy doses of herbicides are used on the farmlands, because the initial program has already failed -- new super-weeds evolved.Meanwhile non-critical flora like milkweed are being eradicated, with cascading effect on other wildlife like Monarch butterflies.This has been true of monoculture farming for decades and is one of the big problem with factory farming. The tolerant-type GM crops just accelerate a bad direction.We went through a "kill it all that isn't desired crop" program with DDT with disastrous effect on wildlife.Due warning imho.Enjoy

But that was just a figment of your imagination.

Why do you consider this your super pet project, RAZD? I understand that you claim to feel better avoiding GMOs, but that anecdotal data doesn't count for anything in a scientific sense. Now, onto this report that is "claimed" to be peer-reviewed.Let's start with looking into some of the Authors, and especially into their "claim" of no Competing Interests included in their statement. Authors of this paper include, Vandana Shiva (who is paid 40,000 dollars per speaking engagement to discuss the supposed dangers of GMOs), Michael Hansen works for an NGO that receives a massive amount of funding from anti-GMO sources, Hartmut Meyer works for ENSSER, the group known for passing off Seralini's fraudulent study as a significant finding in science. So, right there we know that we have people lying because they have obvious competing interests, yet they chose not to disclose these. However, that is not the only problem with their statement.In their itemized list they make several claims. The first one is that there is no consensus in science. Well, according to Kevin Folta's (a plant researcher for the University of Florida) blog Illumination

quote:

---

First, this is a clear consensus across scientists-- not just "genetically modified seed developers". Look at this week's Pew/AAAS survey where 88% of scientists answered that "GMO crops were safe to eat".
  —Kevin Folta

---

88% acceptance that these crops are perfectly safe to eat. I'm sure some of the nos were considering ways that they could possibly pose a problem and not only the currently approved varieties. What percentage would you like scientists in the field to get to before you will agree that it is a consensus of scientists?They make claims regarding a lack of epidemiological studies, which is a completely true statement, but not for the reasons that these individuals are attempting to claim. As Dr. Folta puts it:

quote:

---

There is no epidemiology to study
  —Kevin Folta

---

Illumination: We Declare No Consensus!No studies have shown toxic effects, and the few that have have been so poorly designed that no one could replicate them. Why would there be a need for an epidemiological study to find health effects from something that has given zero evidence of having toxicity? In fact, notice how not one new piece of data is included, but they simply rehash old reports, such as the Carman Pig Study (A study so bad that it is used as an example in several skeptical research areas of how to spot bad science in journals. In fact, the only resource for this entire statement that is a primary study is the terrible Carman study. Myles Power: Bad Science in the Paper 'A Long term toxicology study on Pigs...Later, the authors will criticize the findings of the EU funded study for not considering long-term studies, which have been done by other groups previously (such as the one I posted earlier in this thread that was two years completed in Japan). Criticizing the EU Study statement without actually dealing with the data gathered over the span of 10 years and through spending 250 million Euros is dishonest and simply an attempt to appeal to emotion by Hillbeck et al.You know how when Creationists read a paper and cite it, they tend to miss important details that fail to help their case? Well, the authors of this statement did the exact same thing.

quote:

---

They also cite the Marvier meta-analysis that shows Bt corn and cotton fields have more diverse taxa than those that use conventional insecticides. That's not a bad thing.
  —Kevin Folta

---

That's right!! They cited a paper that showed biodiversity was better in fields using Bt corn and cotton when compared with conventional fields. Why is this do you think? Could it be that the pesticides are targeted to specific species and leave many non-target organisms alone?Here's a portion that they include which makes me wonder why you give them the benefit of the doubt, other than your personal vendetta against GM crops.

quote:

---

They then say that 300 others support the statement. Stay hot. Again, an argument ad populum. Just because you can find 300 other knuckleheads does not make your non-existent data compelling.
  —Kevin Folta

---

Don't we give Creationists crap for posting something similar, namely:

quote:

---

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation: Follow for list
  —AIG

---

Great, you have a tiny number in support of your idea, but not even using the argumentum ad populum...what evidence is in your corner? I will ask the anti-GMO people this, just the same as I will demand it from the creationists.In other words, you have a statement, with no new data, using debunked data as a source, that complains about items they haven't understood using citations that go against their claims as resources, and signed by multiple people with interests that compete with their ability to be impartial to this situation. Vandana Shiva can't give up her 40,000 dollar speaking engagements, yet that isn't listed as a conflict of interest? Come on RAZD, how is that not a conflict of interest? Not a GMO specific problem, so not sure why this is one of your major concerns with GM crops, especially considering they have shown the ability to reduce the amount of insecticides sprayed on crops. As it is the insecticides that pose a problem, you would think reducing them to help bee populations would be a noble goal. Yet, you are against a technology that has already shown promise in doing just that.In fact, the decline has been stable for several years in honeybee populations, despite the increase in GMO crops in the US.

quote:

---

The reality is that honeybee populations are not declining. According to U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, the world's honeybee population rose to 80 million colonies in 2011 from 50 million in 1960. In the U.S. and Europe, honeybee populations have been stableor slightly rising in the last couple of yearsduring the two decades since neonics were introduced, U.N. and USDA data show.
  —Wall Street Journal

---

You also fail to take into account the pesticides that are used in association with Organic farming, which also have an effect on insects...since they are insecticides. Bt allows us to replace broad spectrum insecticides with one targeted for a specific pest....how is that a negative thing to the bees and why aren't organic farmers looking for targeted solutions to stop harming honeybee populations? Why the Buzz about a beepocalypse is a honey trapFinally, you keep claiming an increase in pesticides, but you are flat out wrong on this. Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Overall, GM crops have led to a decrease in the level of total pesticides used in agriculture by 37%

quote:

---

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.
  —Klumper and Qaim

---

Impacts of Genetically Modified CropsSo, if your concern is the honeybees, shouldn't we stop arguing and find ways to further reduce pesticide use, whether that is through further cross-breeding or transgenic technology? Isn't your goal the same as mine, which is to reduce environmental impact of agriculture, while still ensuring a quality food supply for every region of the world? Yes, the loss of milkweed is a problem, but regardless of monoculture...farmers are not going to want a weed growing among their crops. That simply removes nutrients from the soil the plants will need. Here's the thing though, farmers are taking actions to save the butterflies, with many farmers beginning to use milkweed as a bumper crop. You know who is not doing our part....society. If milkweed is necessary for monarchs to thrive, but detrimental to agriculture, why don't we use community gardens to plant milkweed as monarch breeding grounds. It would lead to monarchs bursting from the cities on a yearly basis, which would be an amazing sight. However, the loss of milkweed isn't the only problem facing the Monarchs. Another is the alteration of their breeding grounds through climate change. Ecological Niches in Sequential Generations of Eastern North American Monarch ButterfliesGuess what the effect would be on climate change if we removed GM crops from our food system and went only organic. By 2050, there will be 9 billion people (barring starvation) and this will require the same amount of land as the size of South America to grow enough food. Can you imagine the release of sequestered carbon that this much land conversion would cause? Wouldn't this affect climate change, and therefore affect the Monarch populations more?

I just want to bring this point up because you actually have it backwards. The herbicides and pesticides being designed now are more targeted and less toxic to nontarget species. Glyphosate (Round-up) is less toxic than salt or vinegar, having an LD50 around 4320mg/kg of body weight. Plus, it is designed to function on the shikimate pathway, which does not exist in large animals. Insecticides, such as Bt endotoxin are designed to affect a specific group of insects, such as bollworms or earworms. These chemicals react in basic stomachs and are dissolved readily by acidic chemicals. Meaning the basic stomachs of insects are affected, but mammals, with our acidic stomachs, break these chemicals down rapidly. We need to bring some concepts, such as crop rotation and companion planting, into conventional agriculture to help reduce the need of some of the herbicides (which have increased in use) and continue to decrease the use of insecticides by targeting only the species we want to eliminate.

I think it is important that we separate out Pesticide use from GMOs. First off, pesticides are used in all forms of agriculture, whether it is GM, Conventional or Organic. With GM showing a reduction in pesticide use, there is an argument that can be made that GM actually assists in reducing the pesticide use, while decreasing the relative toxicity of the chemicals being used. I think everyone on this thread would agree with decreasing our overall reliance on pesticides, so bringing it up as a problem specific to GM crops is disingenuous at best. Only recently was rotenone banned for organic crops grown in the United States (It is still allowed on organic produce in other countries) and this is a chemical that is regularly used as a piscicide.I believe all tools in our belt need to be used, including transgenics, organic planting methods, gene silencing, cross-breeding and mutagenesis to give us the best opportunity to feed the world as it grows in population while minimizing our ecological footprint.So, if the real issue is the use of pesticides, then let's discuss that. If it is specific to herbicides used for GM crops, then explain why organic herbicides, which can be more toxic, get a pass from this discussion. If you want to see a reduction in all pesticides, then why is GM a negative item to you, as this is literally what it has already been shown to do (even with the increasing herbicide use, total pesticide use has gone down).

The very same thing could be said of naturally occuring mutations, and yet you aren't calling for anyone to test those. Why not?