Banner
    FrankenM&Ms! Forget Chocolate, I Want A Whole GMO Valentine's Day Meal
    By Hank Campbell | February 12th 2013 12:04 PM | 39 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    "GMO Inside" is demanding that America's largest candy sellers, Hershey's and Mars, put GMO warning labels on their Valentine's Day candy or remove these 'risky' ingredients completely.

    Wait, they make GMO chocolate now? No, of course not, though there is nothing natural about chocolate anyway.  A lot of corn and soy is genetically modified and those are in chocolate products. Science has made wonderful progress in bringing safe food at reasonable cost to billions more people than was once thought possible and cheap Valentine's Day candy when chocolate was once reserved for nobility is testament to that.

    Valentine's Day candy sales is just one example of how America leads the world in acceptance of biology.

    Should you be worried if your candy does not have a GMO warning label on it?  Not if you are rational.  But the groups fomenting fear and doubt count on irrationality. The claim from the GMO Inside press release is that "genetically modified organisms have never been proven safe for consumption" which is a weird, illogical assertion. No product in the world can be proved safe, including water. Go ahead, try it with anything. If I say 'prove air doesn't cause cancer' all you can reply is that no studies have shown air causes cancer and an anti-science person can just say it "hasn't been studied enough" and that every person who has gotten cancer has been shown to have been breathing air. That's where we are at with anti-science groups and GMOs as well.

    Since their secondary claim is that they are concerned about transparency, let's be transparent about Green America, the company behind GMO Inside.  

    What you find in the page about their team is how much experience their employees have in outreach, membership drives and raising - lots of that, but what you won't find is a single biologist, despite the fact that they claim to be experts on GMOs. They do have a Senior Researcher, whose experience prior to being a senior researcher was being a membership coordinator for the company.


    GMO Chocolate will turn you into a ZOMBIE.

    And I got their press release not because I follow them regularly, nor did they send it to me directly, instead one of their highly-paid PR companies sent it to me. That is what their goal is; money and membership which leads to campaigns to get more money and membership, not advancing food science or helping people. Everyone in that economic chain is getting paid to spread distrust of biology - and yet I am not getting paid to defend it.  Who's the real dummy? Yep, me. Oh, and biologists, for doing science.

    So, if you care about rationality and progress and poor people, please purchase the following products. Warning: All of these products do contain too much sugar and that is going to harm you, but the fact that some of the sugar came from GMO plants is nothing to worry about:

    Reese’s Peanut Butter filled Hearts because they contain sugar, soy lecithin, and cornstarch
    Hershey Hugs because they contain sugar, soy lecithin and corn syrup
    Valentine’s Colored M&M’s because they contain sugar, soy lecithin, cornstarch, and corn syrup
    Valentine’s Snickers because they contain soy lecithin, corn syrup, sugar, and partially hydrogenated soybean oil

    Wait, that's it?  

    That's only four products. I want to know how to make a whole GMO Valentine's Day meal. Please tell me where I can find some GMO-alfalfa-fed animal or other, something made with canola, served on something made from genetically modified cotton and some GMO papaya and sugar beets as a side dish. It may be hard to find zucchini and yellow summer squash in February but I bet if I go to Whole Foods and buy imported organic versions of those vegetables, they will be genetically modified anyway, because they are from China and a sticker is all it takes to be organic.

    I may be out of luck on creating a whole Valentine's Day meal - that means you are too. But even if you can't make a whole GMO meal yet, accepting science and eating GMO candy is a great way to show loved ones you care about the future.  

    Sure, GMO Inside believes science is putting us on the verge of a biological holocaust, but it's the month of romance, so give one of them a big kiss the next time they annoy you claiming Bt toxin is great when sprayed on organic food the day it is shipped to stores but a natural Bt expression in plants is causing FrankenM&Ms.

    Their odd recommendation; buy M&Ms in Europe, where supposedly those companies are caving in to major retailers who want no GMOs, which gives researchers in Europe another chance to do a giant scientific facepalm.  Whole environmental activists want America to be more like Europe. Europeans scientists want Europe to be more like America. 

    But buy M&Ms in Europe in the future.  They are recommending you buy them in Europe without knowing that those companies have not switched yet, they just said they are going to and then charge a lot more.   So anti-science activists should be happy; they are taking Europe back to the past, when only the nobility could afford chocolate.

    Comments

    I think this anti-GMO thing is turning into a real mental disorder. I just read something where they said you can't get rid of calories from gmo foods by exercising.

    Hank
    That's terrific!  If you write something on that, be sure to let us know.  The humor is basically built into that just by the title.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    I think this anti-GMO thing is turning into a real mental disorder. I just read something where they said you can't get rid of calories from gmo foods by exercising.
    And I just read your link to an article you have written about GMOs called 'The anti-GMO gang that couldn’t label straight' in which you said :-
    So, what is it? They can’t keep their motives straight. Do they want a simple label or do they want GMOs banned? Its obvious it’s the latter, but they still can’t keep chanting the it’s just a labelmantra.
    The anti-GMO crowd has to get real. They have to stick to one message and not be so weasly in their intentions. The bottom line is they want GMO foods banned because they think they are poison.  They should come clean that they are organic advocates that hate any kind of modern progress in regards to farming. They have to come clean that what they perceive as the dangers of GMOs have never been proven, despite the bogus science they believe.

    No, the problem is that people like you and Hank for some bizarre reason, can only seem to think in black and white terms about this GMO topic and are incapable of understanding or seeing that there a many shades of grey, that cover many different perspectives about the many different types of GMOs. You can't just lump together everyone who would like to see a label on GMO foods as being all belonging to the same 'anti-science' crowd who just wants GMOs banned because they think they are poison.

    I would like to see GMO food labelling and then I would still like to buy most of the GMO foods on sale. I agree with Hank that genetically modified foods have enormous potential for humanity and for feeding the poor in the World. I just am not yet sure about the long term safety of  Bt GMOs for example, which contain Bacillus thuringiensis (or Btbacteria or their cry toxins, in every mouthful of Bt GMO food that we eat, specifically incorporated genetically into the crop to cause intestinal damage to the targeted bugs that also eat these foods, especially because the Bt toxins in the food can't be washed off like the Bt  'organic' sprays can. 

    As far as I'm aware, there are no respectable, long term (longer than 90 or 120 days) scientific studies generally available yet,  showing  harmless effects of these  Bt GMOs  cry toxins, leptins and roundup tolerant GMOs upon mammals and their guts and especially their internal organs and embryos. Until they are made generally available for the public to read and reassure ourselves that there is nothing to worry about, I personally feel entitled to be able to choose not to eat  GMO foods and without GMO labelling I am obviously unable to make this choice.

    The scientific studies that have shown rats getting fatter eating GMOs  were being fed Bt GMO foods, not any of the thousands of other GM foods that don't contain Bt bacteria, cry  toxins, leptin or roundup tolerance genes, that I'm not really worried about.  I will happily eat a drought resistant, apple sized, blue strawberry even covered in GM chocolate for Valentine's day, if it is ever were genetically modified and made publicly available (not just for the Hollywood royalty) but I would still want to see a GMO label on it, even though in that particular case it would obviously be  a GMO :)

    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    The black and white of the issue is that the tech is has been proven. There is no grey area in that regard. Now that is not to say one size fits all. Each new GMO is taken on a case by case basis.

    If you are still unsure about the safety, all you have to do is read the hundreds of independent studies. You mention Bt. Bt is naturally occurring and is used widely by organic growers. It is very weak and and is destroyed easily by sunlight or water. It doesn't fare well in highly acidic environments like the human digestive system . It goes in, gets broken down and is flushed out very quickly. It doesn't bio accumulate.

    Those studies you refer to regarding rats have been thoroughly discredited. It was bad science.

    Nothing can be proven 100% safe, no matter what it is. There are inherent risk in everything we eat and do. I think labeling, as far as it has been proposed so far, is useless because it doesn't give any info beyond that it is gmo. I wrote a post called the right to know doesn't help if you don't understand what you know.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    The black and white of the issue is that the tech is has been proven. There is no grey area in that regard. Now that is not to say one size fits all. Each new GMO is taken on a case by case basis.
    If you are still unsure about the safety, all you have to do is read the hundreds of independent studies.
    OK  Bernie, thanks for replying, if what you are saying is true, then you should easily be able to give me at least one link to a long term, reputable, independent, scientific study (longer than 120 days) that is not behind a pay wall, that shows no significant health differences between the intestines, organs and embryos of the test animals and the control group and no significant difference in their life expectancies or body weights? 

    Please supply a link to at least one Bt GMO study in which the test animals were mammals, that were fed a Bt GMO food, ie a GM crop that contains Bacillus Thuringiensis Bt) bacteria or its Bt cry toxins, in every single cell of the plant that we and they eat.  Not a food that has just been sprayed with Bt, because that is, as you correctly pointed out, a natural Bt insecticide that occurs in soils and which is justifiably used as an organic insecticidal spray by organic farmers and which I have no problem with because it can be washed off, so I don't have to eat it.

    So far, no one here or anywhere else has been able to give me even one Bt GMO scientific study that satisfies all of these quite simple criteria, which is amazing if what you are saying is true and there are hundreds of these independent studies and millions of humans eating these Bt GMO foods already. 
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Well, first off I would say that considering Bt has been used for over around 40 years in organic farming and in GE about 15 years and we've been eating those foods, that's a good study. It has never been found to be harmful to mammals, that includes humans.

    Here is a link to tons of studies, not just Bt.

    http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

    In the meantime:

    http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05556.html

    All you have to do is Google is Bt safe?

    Here- just to reiterate; the question of whether certain GMO crops cause long-term harm and/or death in mammals has not been answered. Your "tons" (those must have printed out on extremely large font for you, because I see no way that the paper for those comes even close to half a ton) of studies do not cover that.

    But more importantly in terms of right-to-know; why is it wrong to let people know about the content of the food they have purchased? Is that morally wrong? If you argue that it is wrong, then why? Are you one of those who thinks that the common folk with their terribly boring common sense can't manage to process that information in a productive and beneficial manner?

    Even IFF (if and only if) every single case where gmo crops have been suspected behind a mysterious illness attributable only to something in the food was absolutely mistaken. Even IFF GMO crops are Always Absolutely harmless (despite the fine print defining a potato as a pesticide), Even IFF GMO crops are as magical and incredibly productive as GMO cotton was marketed as to the Indian cotton farmers who have been committing suicide in droves because of absolute crop failure (over one thousand off themselves every month directly because of the financial distress brought on from switching to GMO cotton that withers in the field)..... even iff genetic modifications were all that and then some, there still is no reason why it should not be labeled as such.

    If GMO is so good, then why be ashamed of it? Oh, you say that there's a stigma attached to it because of successful "fearmongering" by the organic market community. Well, then if that's true, spend some of the millions of dollars that were spent in opposing the california voter initiative, in "educating the public". Embrace the difference! Emblazon "Proudly Contains GMO's" on products. Shouldn't be any harder than making people want to buy diamonds, right? Because after all, they just don't know how wonderful GMO's are yet.

    "...why is it wrong to let people know about the content of the food they have purchased? Is that morally wrong? If you argue that it is wrong, then why? Are you one of those who thinks that the common folk with their terribly boring common sense can't manage to process that information in a productive and beneficial manner?"

    Okay, how does "May contain gmo ingredients" help you make an informed decision? You need more than common sense to make an informed decision. If you see a label that says "contains peanuts" that helps you make an informed decision if you have a peanut allergy. How does a GMO label inform you? At present there are only a handful of foods that are GM on the market , mostly made with corn and soy. so chances are if it contains those ingredients it's probably GM.

    The right-to-know doesn't help if you don't understand what you don't know. Recently the Boy Scouts were given kudos for deciding to sell non-gmo popcorn to raise funds. Well, their is no GMO popcorn. As I wrote in my first comment I read that calories from gmo foods can't be eliminated by exercising because they are different kinds of calories.

    Don't even get me started on how many times I've read how when people gave up "gmo wheat" their health improved. There is no gmo wheat on the market.

    I won't even get into the Indian farmer suicide nonsense suffice it to say it's not due to gmos, despite what frauds like Vandana Shiva and others would have you believe.

    I actually agree that companies should spend money promoting their products and educating the public on the safety of gmos. But you know what will happen? The anti-gmo zealots will counter it by saying, "How can you trust them to tell you the truth?"

    Bernie

    Hormone rBGH was banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and Canada because of the risks associated with increased hormones in cows and humans.

    However, Hormone rBGH was approved in the U.S. when a Monsanto employee, Margaret Miller, joined the FDA and actually gave approval to her own Monsanto report on hormone rBGH.

    Those are the important facts.

    Well according to this website at http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=44805 the following pop corns have been genetically engineered :-

    'GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENTS
    Act II Microwave Popcorn
    (ConAgra)
    Cracker Jack Popcorn
    Healthy Choice Microwave Popcorn
    (ConAgra)
    Butter Pop
    Orville Redenbacher Microwave Popcorn
    (ConAgra)
    Original
    Homestyle
    Butter
    Smart Pop
    Pour Over
    Orville Redenbacher Popcorn Cakes
    Chocolate
    Caramel
    Orville Redenbacher Mini Popcorn Cakes
    Butter
    Peanut Caramel
    Chocolate Peanut
    Pop Secret Microwave Popcorn'.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    As I said above and as I can still say 'So far, no one here or anywhere else has been able to give me even one Bt GMO scientific study that satisfies all of these quite simple criteria, which is amazing if what you are saying is true and there are hundreds of these independent studies and millions of humans eating these Bt GMO foods already'.  

    The link you gave me above at http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ almost revealed one valid 3 generational independent study on rats but according to the Rat Fan Club rats are capable of breeding after only 5 weeks or 35 days, so a 3 generational study could be done in less than 120 days, which is the minimum length of a long term study that I stipulated as being a criteria.

    I am only really interested in the long term effects of feeding Bt GMO food ie food that contains the bacteria  Bacillus thuringiensis  otherwise known as Bt and its insecticidal cry toxins and spores that make holes in caterpillars guts and cause them to starve to death, contained in every cell of the food, not as an insecticidal Bt spray that can be washed off. I always religiously wash my fruit and vegetables to remove insecticides and fungicides, don't you? 

    Some of the studies you supplied were short term studies on baby animals like calves, pig weanlings etc so they didn't satisfy my criteria of long term studies, however, a couple of these studies for only 31 days did still give some significant potentially adverse health effects. 

    For example the 2012 study by Maria C. Walsh, Stefan G. Buzoianu1, Gillian E. Gardiner, Mary C. Rea, R. Paul Ross, Joseph P. Cassidy and Peadar G. Lawlor. Called 'Effects of short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize on growth performance, organ morphology and function in pigs' was only a 31 day study, and the full PDF is not not free . The abstract concluded that  'the kidneys of the pigs fed GM maize tended to be heavier than those of control pigs (P = 0·06); however, no histopathological changes or alterations in blood biochemistry were evident. Small intestinal morphology was not different between treatments. However, duodenal villi of GM maize-fed pigs tended to have fewer goblet cells/μm of villus compared with control pigs (P = 0·10). In conclusion, short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize to weaned pigs resulted in increased feed consumption, less efficient conversion of feed to gain and a decrease in goblet cells/μm of duodenal villus. There was also a tendency for an increase in kidney weight, but this was not associated with changes in histopathology or blood biochemistry. The biological significance of these findings is currently being clarified in long-term exposure studies in pigs.

    Bernie, do you have any idea when these promised long-term exposure studies in pigs will be completed?

    Another earlier study by the same authors (2011) called 'Fate of Transgenic DNA from Orally Administered Bt MON810 Maize and Effects on Immune Response and Growth in Pigs.' assessed the effect of short-term feeding of genetically modified (GM: Bt MON810) maize on immune responses and growth in weanling pigs and determined the fate of the transgenic DNA and protein in-vivo. Pigs were fed a diet containing 38.9% GM or non-GM isogenic parent line maize for 31 days. In conclusion, there was no evidence of cry1Ab gene or protein translocation to the organs and blood of weaning pigs. The growth of pigs was not affected by feeding GM maize. Alterations in immune responses were detected; however, their biologic relevance is questionable.

    Yes well that is what I'm also questioning. If only a 31 day study in baby pigs created significant alterations in their immune system what is the same Bt maize doing to our babies, children and old people and even us? Surely we are entitled to see free, long term studies on mammals that don't cause these adverse health effects on their immune systems? Especially as these days a very high percentage of people are often complaining about stomach disorders, celiac disease and food intolerances?

    Even the 3 generational rat study by Kılıc A, Akay M T (2008) using  genetically modified Bt corn concluded that 'No statistically significant differences were found in relative organ weights of rats within groups but there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney. Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis.' 

    So Bernie, I'm afraid that your link did not provide even one independent study that showed long term feeding of Bt GMOs diid not have either any significant effects upon the organs or have significant adverse health effects upon any mammals being fed these Bt GMOs.  
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Well, I don't know what to tell you, if after almost 20 years of GM Bt and all the information online from universities and the FDA you still don't believe then nothing will convince you.

    You cherry picked from those studies. They don't conclude what you say they do. The first one is available http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0027177

    You left out this: "In conclusion, there was no evidence of cry1Ab gene or protein translocation to the organs and blood of weaning pigs. The growth of pigs was not affected by feeding GM maize."

    And then there's this:

    "Although the significance of the alterations in immune response have yet to be established, the lack of recombinant DNA or protein translocation to tissues or changes in growth should help to offer assurance to consumers as to the safety of GM feed ingredients."

    This is all a waste of my time.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Bernie, you have replied to me 'Well, I don't know what to tell you, if after almost 20 years of GM Bt and all the information online from universities and the FDA you still don't believe then nothing will convince you. You cherry picked from those studies.' You even said that 'This is all a waste of my time'!

    That is most unfair as I spent Valentine's day morning in Australia unromantically reading through all of the independent studies on the link you gave me while my unromantic husband watched a soccer match on TV and I'm not complaining that it was a waste of my time even though you directed me to do it.

    I was looking for just one independent study in your link that satisfied the criteria of being free to the public, long term, reputable study on mammals being fed Bt GMO food, showing no adverse or significant affects on their health or internal organs.

    It is not my fault that there was only one study that even vaguely satisfied the criteria, how is that an example of me cherry picking? I couldn't find one cherry! Also can you please get it straight in your head that there is a big difference between Bt insecticide spray being safe because it can be washed off and Bt insecticide or their cry toxins being present in every cell of the Bt GMO cherry that we eat, that can't be washed off?

    If what I am saying is not true then I challenge you to pick one cherry for me in the link you provided! I could only find one mouldy half cherry, which wasn't even free to the public, only the abstract was, and it was that 3 generational study done on rats that can reproduce in 35 days. Hardly a long term study on mammals in general, rats can probably still reproduce while being fed rat poison which is a slow killing poison. Where is the reassurance in that?
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Thanks Bernie for this link to the website 'Sense About Science, equipping people to make sense of science and evidence' where you can ask expert scientists questions, I wish I'd known about it years ago! 

    Dr Kevin Folta is a GMO plant expert who used to write articles here like 'Food Fear, Food Labels, And My Two Cents'  about GMOs and he was happy to answer questions too but he hasn't been around for quite a while now. He also couldn't supply me with one single, independent, Bt GMO, scientific, long term study showing no significant or adverse health effects on mammals eating Bt GMO food that is available to the general public and not behind a pay wall. He gave me the same list as you did and another larger one but not one reassuring Bt GMO cherry to pick there either. 

    Non of the other Science20 writers who write here about GMOs are science experts in this field, so it was not quite so surprising that Dr Michael Eisen who is an insect geneticist for example, who also wrote a series of GMO articles here like this article 'How Bt Corn And Roundup Ready Soy Work - And Why They Should Not Scare You' could also not supply one single reassuring, independent, long term scientific study, feeding BT GMOs to mammals that satisfies these criteria.

    So now maybe hopefully you don't still think its quite so surprising that quite a lot of the general public want GMO labelling, until they are reassured that Bt GMOs for example, are not causing health problems, such as digestive problems or allergies, when a couple of even the 31 day studies in the link you and others here gave me, imply that this might be happening and no one can provide reassuring, long term, independent, scientific evidence to the contrary. Why is it so difficult I wonder? I will now go and ask the plant experts at Sense About Science :)

    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
     He also couldn't supply me with one single, independent, Bt GMO, scientific, long term study showing no significant or adverse health effects on mammals eating Bt GMO food
    I wish you would stop writing this stupid stuff on my articles. I click thinking I might have a meaningful comment and it is you trotting out the same nonsense about biology that you used to trot out when insisting that no physicist could prove the LHC wouldn't cause our magnetic poles to flip.  The only biologist on the friggin' planet you ever chose to believe was the one who was a confirmed crackpot, Seralini - and only then because he confirmed the nonsense you choose to believe.  Every biologist who has tried to talk with you gave up because you refuse to listen.
    I kind of figured. Thanks for waiting so long to weigh in. ;-)

    Hank
    Letting people beat their heads against that wall is kind of a Science 2.0 hazing ritual.  :)
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Just one study will do :)
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    Seralini actually did that study for you. In his rather criminal 2-year trial using rodents, one group only had 50% cancer - but 70% of that line of rats gets cancer by that age ordinarily. So not only did it not cause cancer, the GMOs actually prevented cancer. You'd know that if you read the paper rather than reading anti-science activists talking about how awful GMOs are while you passive-aggressively refuse to listen to any of the many biologists who have tried to reply to you.

    You now want a study of 100 years - outside France, that is a criminal act. That is why ethical researchers don't do it.  But until you have that, you now have a new reason to hate science.  Go away, you bug sensible people.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    I just want one scientific, reputable study please Hank, that one has been discredited. i don't see why me asking for that upsets you so much? Anyway I'll shut up now, please don't delete this thread, I have not said anything to deserve that. Bernie Mooney has been very helpful replying to me and other people here and I would like his links and this thread to remain here please?
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    savage

    I don't get your obsession with this one insecticide, which is only harmful to specific insects, when there are others that can be a lot more toxic than Bt, like copper sulphates used in organic farming.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Bernie, why can't you understand that I'm not bothered about any insecticide that I can wash off? 
    This is the last comment i am going to make on this blog because Hank is getting annoyed with what he sees as my passive aggression, which is sad because I am not feeling aggressive at all. 

    I am happy to continue the conversation with you by email as I have done with Kevin Folta who has always been very helpful and informative but has still not been able to supply me with a credible study that satisfies these simple criteria. 

    I don't see why a long term study feeding Bt GMOs to young rats until they become old rats, or pigs and calves is any more unethical than feeding Bt GMO corn and maize to people for their lifetime as we are already doing?

    All my life I have religiously washed all of my fruit and vegetables to remove any pesticides and fungicides and bacteria from the soil. Other mothers in my mothers group happily gave their toddlers unwashed strawberries and grapes to eat as they were being pushed around the supermarkets in their trolleys. Bt GMOs were used in many of these discredited studies that have shown adverse or significant health effects, fats rats etc so that's why I'm interested in GMO Bt and Cry toxin insecticide in every cell of the Bt GMO plant but to be honest I'm also interested in toxic leptins, I was just trying to keep things simple here :)


    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    PS You asked me why I left out this quote from the study: "In conclusion, there was no evidence of cry1Ab gene or protein translocation to the organs and blood of weaning pigs. The growth of pigs was not affected by feeding GM maize." even though I did quote exactly all of that, please reread my comment.

    rholley
    Somewhat related to your culinary choice, I tried to access the Science Codex article:

    New study finds neither HFCS nor table sugar increases liver fat under 'real world' conditions

    but got a message that I am not authorized to view that page.  This was after watching a BBC debate on whether one should tax sugar either to reduce obesity or fund the extra care required for obesity-related diseases.

    For those who can access the BBC iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qrn8t/The_Big_Questions_Series_6_Episode_6/
     
     
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Other then this write being completely bigoted, your belief in science has you blinded to the simple fact about why a majority of people want GMO's labeled. It is not that they are Anti-science, that is just an ignorant word to belittle anyone who is against this human experiment. No see they understand that man is fallible and iare willing to cut as many corners as needed to make a good profit margin, even if your health might be at risk. Since the majority of studies have been by the designers and little funding goes to unbiased scientific studies, we only see the perfect score of mans ultimate brilliance, even thou the grow yields are still the same. Myself, if tested properly and promise quicker grow yields then I am for GMO's, as long as they are labeled. We now have been living in the whoops generation since the 50's. Every year we hear about another chemical or pill that has negative effects and how "whoops we're sorry, you shouldn't have taken that," that I don't trust anything they say without proper testing and education first..

    Does this twenty five years of EU-Funded GMO research count?

    The main conclusion
    to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research
    projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research,
    and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is
    that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se
    more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

    http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_re...

    I completely agree with this article. The wording used in the original article are bias. They should not just display that the GMOs have "never been proven safe," but also that they have never been proven harmful. Unfortunately, from what I've noticed throughout this country, many people are so easily convinced by tricky wording of things that they read, instead of the actual content and science behind it. If companies are forced to put on these labels, people will generally just assume that GMOs are negative, when that is not necessarily true. I really don't understand why there is such an uproar against these. Science is simply trying to create better, more efficient food sources. No one is out there trying to create food that causes cancer; they are trying to make them better.
    I also noticed that the orignial topic throws in the fact that Hershey's is known to use child labor. While that is a separate issue, it was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the topic. It's sole purpose was simply to evoke negative feelings from the reader, thus making them more likely to choose to dislike the GMOs.

    Original Post: http://gmoinside.org/warning-your-valentines-day-treats-may-be-filled-wi...

    Stellare
    Our European chocolate is much, much better than any US version. GMO or no GMO, that is irrelevant.
    (The best is Norwegian, but there are some good Belgian and Swiss ones to be found too...)

    Having a GMO warning on Valentine's chocolate smells money making machine all the way over the pond. And has nothing to do with caring for consumers. Ha! Who bites on that bate? Enough people to feed a whole company and more. hahaha Nice debunking, Hank.

    We eat so much chemical stuff (that are not pure vegetables etc which of course also consist of chemicals...) anyways. By the way, when you put a brilliant blue M&M in your mouth further warning is a complete overkill!


    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Hank
    (The best is Norwegian, but there are some good Belgian and Swiss ones to be found too...)
    Yes, yes, Norwegian chocolate is famous the world over. :)

    In America, a lot of things have HFCS and some of them are just as good as cane sugar and some are not. I prefer to get my Coca-Cola from Mexico, for example, because they use cane sugar rather than HFCS and it just tastes better. But I can't say I really remember the taste of cane sugar Coke from being a child, so it wasn't nostalgia, it was in my mid 30s that I finally discovered the common denominator. So maybe European chocolate is better for due to it is made or the water or if it has cane sugar.  But GMOs in some corn that went into corn starch is the last thing on any rational person's mind.



    Hank, you have to watch that Mexican Coke. Always check the label. Recently in my local deli noticed that some batches have both corn syrup *and* sugar. Some just sugar. What I learned is that the bottling plants closest to the US border are more likely to use HFCS.

    Hank
    Marion Nestle did a test on Mexican Coke and didn't find any sucrose - but she didn't say when it was bottled. So it could be even correctly labeled Mexican Coke may not have cane sugar. Or it split into glucose and fructose over time, which is more likely.
    You just want to browbeat everyone into your wold view and most sane people would avoid even trying to respond to your GMO worship.

    So here goes nothing:

    To be clear: People don't want frankenfoods/ GMOs. They never did and never will.

    But you and Monsanto say we have to eat them anyway.

    Inquiring minds want to know: Why?

    So why are GMOs in my candy?

    The FDA is clearly a revolving door. And the regulation is as questionable as the regulation of the 'too big to fail banks. So this is a political and social issue. No, you wont convince me. The *paid* science is clear on that for at least 20 years. Yeah, sure. The *paid* science. Who paid for what exactly?

    So why do we have to buy it again? There is no other option in the food desert- supermarket. There is no freedom of choice. Just Monsanto and Con-Agra.

    Where is my freedom to be free of your evil GMOs? Excuse me I'm not rich like you either, so I can't buy everything you can. I have to shop in the food desert or starve. So this is class warfare by corporations against average people.

    Monsanto has been destroying farming for decades. And now these corporations and their enablers have made it so people should not have any trust in anything they eat from a package. The horse-meat scandal in Europe is a good example of how perverted and unaccountable your corporate masters really are and what they want.

    Major corporations work in secret, behind the backs of their customers and against their wishes all the time. They pay lobbyists, create ultra- radical right tea party groups, and anti-science front groups to erode what people want and believe and give people the shit the corporations want to sell. Within this, scientists are merely prostitutes for power and social control.

    So.. why again should I trust them- or you? Major corporations are in charge of what we get to eat --and what we get to hear and see. Average people are just rats in a cage, or rather, in a food desert called a supermarket.

    I really have to laugh at your religious worship of Monsanto.

    Ok RAW, you appear to be convinced there is a pretty huge (and astoundingly successful) capitalist conspiracy to do harm going on.. What evidence would you need to see to convince you that this is not the case?

    If there is no evidence that could convince you there is no conspiracy, you might ask yourself why evidence plays no part in formulating your opinions on this subject?

    With that gmo valentine meal and chocolate, don't forget to wash it down with a nice glass of glyphosate...or is it dicamba...wait, it's 2-4-D. But then of course mixing all these ingredients will make you a nice cocktail. Don't forget, gmo and all these toxic chemicals are PERFECT together!

    Hank
    Which product does not have chemicals in it? Which food is not grown using toxins? None on planet Earth, unless you count if you grew some herbs in a flower box at your house.
    OH honey, I am so sorry! You did not know that the ingredients of that cocktail is the recipe for Agent Orange! THat is what they use on GMO crops since roundup is not toxic enough anymore...This recipe produces one of the most toxic & dangerous substances on earth, dioxin. http://www.ffrd.org/Voices/AgentOrange.htm

    Hank
    Yes, yes, I know what a herbicide is.  You didn't answer the question; which food are you eating that has no chemicals?  Which of your food has no toxins?  I don't see why agent orange is so special to you. If I pour pyrethrin and rotenon all over myself, I will get Parkinson's too - but organic farmers spray it on crops all of the time, including the day they are shipped.

    Now tell me which farmer is spraying agent orange on your food?