WaPo: Can we please cut it out with all of this anti-GMO asininity?

posted at 2:41 pm on June 3, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Human beings have been using various agricultural techniques to genetically modify (i.e., breed for preferred traits in) their food for thousands of years, and the more recent and more rapidly innovative advent of genetically modified foods via laboratory has helped scientists and farmers to develop hardier, more nutritious, pest-and-weather-resistant crops that have the ability to feed more people while using up less space and fewer resources (which, I might mention, is a pretty great environmental development to boot).

Despite their boundless potential for feeding the hungry and alleviate poverty the world over, genetically modified organisms have inspired a small but vociferous and well-marketed opposition campaign among many of the same types of people who would probably dismiss you as a knuckle-dragging, anti-science flat-earther for questioning the absolute and catastrophic imminence of climate-change disasters. If rising global temperatures are indeed the all-consuming environmental problem that The Party of Science portends, then GMOs are going to be an essential part of any adaptation strategy — but let that not deter the voters of Jackson County, Oregon, who last month joined several other counties spread across California, Hawaii, and Washington to ban the cultivation of genetically modified crops:

Residents in a southwest Oregon county voted emphatically to ban genetically engineered crops following a campaign that attracted a bushel of out-of-state money.

With most of the ballots counted in Tuesday’s all-mail election, Jackson County voters approved the measure by a 2-to-1 margin. ..

Though genetically engineered crops are common and no mainstream science has shown they are unsafe, opponents contend GMOs are still experimental and promote the use of pesticides. They say more testing is needed. …

“Regrettably ideology defeated sound science and common sense in Jackson County,” Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said in a statement. “We respect the voice of the voters, but remain convinced Measure 15-119 is bad public policy. While this election is over, this debate is not. We will continue to fight to protect the rights of all farmers to choose for themselves how they farm.”

The editors of the Washington Post would agree with that sensible assessment, as they outlined in a piece this week criticizing the anti-”Frankenfood” “fundamentalism” of these anti-science and trend-chasing yuppies:

There is no mainstream scientific evidence showing that foods containing GMOs are any more or less harmful for people to consume than anything else in the supermarket, despite decades of development and use. If that doesn’t convince some people, they have the option of simply buying food bearing the “organic” label. There is no need for the government to stigmatize products with a label that suggests the potential for harm. Outright bans, meanwhile, are even worse than gratuitous labeling.

The issue is not just one of agribusiness profits, though some companies certainly stand to make money by creating and selling GMOs. The application of current biotechnological tools to agriculture offers a wide array of benefits , benefits that are only beginning to be seen. There is the potential to create crops that are easier to grow, better for the environment and more nutrient-rich. Smart genetic modification is one important tool available to sustain the world’s growing multitudes. Making good on that promise will require both an openness to the technology and serious investment in GMOs within wealthy countries. The prospect of helping to feed the starving and improve the lives of people across the planet should not be nipped because of the self-indulgent fretting of first-world activists.

Amen to that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Amen to that.

Heh. h/t to “Die Hard”…didn’t know you were a fan, Erika…

ladyingray on June 3, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Two words:

Seedless watermelon.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM

What they really need to do is ban all GMO products from being sold in the county. Maybe a little food price sticker shock may change some minds.

AndrewsDad on June 3, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Human beings have been using various agricultural techniques to genetically modify (i.e., breed for preferred traits in) their food for thousands of years,

Yeah, it’s called intelligent design.

corona79 on June 3, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Human beings have been using various agricultural techniques to genetically modify (i.e., breed for preferred traits in) their food for thousands of years,

Yeah, sure. Modern agribusiness is totally the same as local farming techniques practiced over generations.

Hey, sorry your apple tastes like shellfish.

And don’t forget to legalize the helots!

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Two words:

Seedless watermelon.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM

I prefer them now to those old seed bearing varieties, but ah, memories of watermelon seed spitting contests in our back yard on the warm summer evenings of my youth.

GMO is not an evil concept.

hawkeye54 on June 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Do they also refuse to eat the oranges at the store cause they were touching the Tangelo display…

I wonder how many of these hippies bought multi-color roses for their spouses this past Valentines Day…if they only knew how close they were to DEATH!

nextgen_repub on June 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Seedless watermelons, frost resistant wheat, doughnut shaped plums – I’m fine with those. But adding sea worm gene to tomato DNA so it would grow on saltier turf and glow in the dark might be an overkill.

Rix on June 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Monsanto is the new Halliburton.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM

There’s nothing at all wrong with the American food supply. That’s why Americans are in such awesome shape, with historic lows in obesity and diabetes.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Two words:

Seedless watermelon.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Yesterday my wife proudly proclaimed that she’d bought a watermelon that wasn’t genetically modified (probably at Sprouts). So I said, “Oh, so it’s not seedless.” To which she replied, “It’s really sweet.”

(facepalm)

Ward Cleaver on June 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

How about people get a choice if they want to eat GMO or not. Yes to GMO labeling.

I like choices.

bye Erika

coolrepublica on June 3, 2014 at 2:56 PM

There’s nothing at all wrong with the American food supply. That’s why Americans are in such awesome shape, with historic lows in obesity and diabetes.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

That has more to do with all the carbs that the USDA told us we should be eating, starting back in the 1980s.

Ward Cleaver on June 3, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, climate alarmism, anti-fracking.

It’s all the same mindset and a substantial overlap of believers.

JEM on June 3, 2014 at 2:57 PM

There’s nothing at all wrong with the American food supply.

The very reason it must be attacked and diminished, so we may all starve on the pitiful amount and quality of food on which they would allow us to survive. Just enough to serve our lords and masters in BigGov, but not enough to threaten them.

hawkeye54 on June 3, 2014 at 2:57 PM

I want my food labelled. I don’t like this backdoor crap agribusiness does with the government to allow unknown additives to our food. Pink slime comes to mind. And why the hell does yogurt list milk and cultures as ingredients but then says “contains talapia?” WTF?!?

I can guarantee the additives to our food is not added for our benefit. It is added for the corporations benefit.

No having said all that. I believe in individualism. We buy 1/2 cows from Amish farmers and we grow a lot of our own veggies and some fruits.

Bill-Republic of Texas on June 3, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Yesterday my wife proudly proclaimed that she’d bought a watermelon that wasn’t genetically modified (probably at Sprouts). So I said, “Oh, so it’s not seedless.” To which she replied, “It’s really sweet.”

(facepalm)

Ward Cleaver on June 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

On more than one occasion I’ve come across someone on the anti-GMO bandwagon. Then I ask them if they eat seedless watermelon. When they say ‘yes’ and I tell them that’s a GMO, it’s fun watching their deer-in-the-headlights response.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Montesanto would never sell anything that would hurt you.

Ever.

Remember, trust me and naiveté are closely related.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:00 PM

“Mother it is the crow
with eyes of jealous green.
She tried to steal my beauty,
But now I’ve ebony wings,
Beautiful ebony wings.”

Tard on June 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Montesanto would never sell anything that would hurt you.

Ever.

Remember, trust me and naiveté are closely related.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Montesanto?

Ward Cleaver on June 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM

There’s nothing at all wrong with the American food supply. That’s why Americans are in such awesome shape, with historic lows in obesity and diabetes.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Agreed. I was taken aback when my local grocery store clerk put a gun to my head and whispered, “Don’t think so pal” as I tried to grab a few Fuji apples.

“The Twinkies are down there, why don’t you grab a few boxes of those instead…unless you would rather eat lead.”

I got the picture, oh yes I did.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, climate alarmism, anti-fracking.

It’s all the same mindset and a substantial overlap of believers.

JEM on June 3, 2014 at 2:57 PM

You mean, those people who are by nature skeptical and suspicious?

Down with those people who dare to question what they’re told.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Montesanto?

Ward Cleaver on June 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Stupid spelling error.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM

You mean, those people who are by nature skeptical and suspicious?

Down with those people who dare to question what they’re told.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:03 PM

But AGW is settled science, right?

Ward Cleaver on June 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM

And those farmer’s market stalls packed with fresh local produce? “But where is the chocolate syrup?”, I cried, “Where are the candies and ice cream and sugary drinks?”

But they didn’t listen, just kept peddling the crap that they apparently pulled from the ground. The GROUND! Dirt!

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM

On more than one occasion I’ve come across someone on the anti-GMO bandwagon. Then I ask them if they eat seedless watermelon. When they say ‘yes’ and I tell them that’s a GMO, it’s fun watching their deer-in-the-headlights response.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Same thing when I tell people the beef they’re eating was grown in a lab.

Funny stuff.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM

But AGW is settled science, right?

Ward Cleaver on June 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM

LOL at settled science.

Right up there with evolution.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:07 PM

The science is settled! No more debate!
.
Err, wait, what are we talking about again?

higgins1991 on June 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM

No, we can’t. GMO foods may very well be dangerous. The jury is out. And you guys trust Monsanto??? Have you been following the devastation of Agent Orange, the safe herbicide??? The cover up? The largest post-exposure award by the US military ever? Being accomplished in near secrecy? You want to eat this stuff?

It is not hysteria. It is very real concern. Look into the recent back pay of disability benefits for Vietnam vets. Look into Monsanto clout with maybe Obama?

Am surprised at you guys.

eaglesdontflock on June 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM

So much for the “Party of Science.”

Occams Stubble on June 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM

At the end of the day the anti-GMO is not anti-GMO but anti-Capitalism. The “evil” private company Monsanto leading the GMO charge is only doing it for evil capitalist profit. On the backs of the poor people that will have to eat the food. If the state controlled the seed supply on who can grow want they would be happy.

tjexcite on June 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM

I don’t have a problem with GMOs. I do, however, have a problem with the monopoly that is Monsanto.

melle1228 on June 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM

For starters, selectively breeding animals is not the same as gmo, although gmo supporters like to say it is.

GMO is like global warming. You have to find the research of the scientists brave enough to go against the “grain” if you want to know what’s real and what’s propaganda.

huckleberryfriend on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

but let that not deter the voters of Jackson County, Oregon, who last month joined several other counties spread across California, Hawaii, and Washington to ban the cultivation of genetically modified crops

…these people on the coast…need to have genetically modified orgasms so they can quit having kids and populating that side of the country with stupidity.

KOOLAID2 on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

When they say ‘yes’ and I tell them that’s a GMO

Just what commercially produced foods haven’t been modified over the course of the last 100 years or so? For that matter, home grown ones.

hawkeye54 on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

I’m ok with GMOs.
I’m actually hoping some day a mutant fruit or veggie gives me superpowers…..

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Just what commercially produced foods haven’t been modified over the course of the last 100 years or so? For that matter, home grown ones.

hawkeye54 on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

How about Cliff Clavin’s “beetabega”?

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I’m actually hoping some day a mutant fruit or veggie gives me superpowers…..

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

I’ll drink, or eat, to that. :)

hawkeye54 on June 3, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Human beings have been using various agricultural techniques to genetically modify (i.e., breed for preferred traits in) their food for thousands of years, and the more recent and more rapidly innovative advent of genetically modified foods via laboratory has helped scientists and farmers to develop hardier, more nutritious, pest-and-weather-resistant crops that have the ability to feed more people while using up less space and fewer resources (which, I might mention, is a pretty great environmental development to boot).


Erika No!

You really need to educate yourself. Taking genetic material from a petunia and inserting it into soy so that it is resistant to pesticide is a dangerous thing. The farmer uses more pesticide not less. This does not happen in nature and is akin to taking a gene from a sheep and inserting it in humans. Proteins have a 3 dimensional structure and these are new and untested. It is a brave new world and I for one do not want this shoved down my throat.

dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 3:18 PM

How about Cliff Clavin’s “beetabega”?

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I believe that is an organic ingredient in Vitameatavegamin. Or so I’ve heard.

hawkeye54 on June 3, 2014 at 3:20 PM

At the end of the day the anti-GMO is not anti-GMO but anti-Capitalism. The “evil” private company Monsanto leading the GMO charge is only doing it for evil capitalist profit. On the backs of the poor people that will have to eat the food. If the state controlled the seed supply on who can grow want they would be happy.

tjexcite on June 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Nice hasty generalization. I’m opposed to GMO for the same reason I’m opposed to some vaccines.

This idea that we need to just trust whoever is contrary to my nature.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Erika No!

You really need to educate yourself. Taking genetic material from a petunia and inserting it into soy so that it is resistant to pesticide is a dangerous thing. The farmer uses more pesticide not less. This does not happen in nature and is akin to taking a gene from a sheep and inserting it in humans. Proteins have a 3 dimensional structure and these are new and untested. It is a brave new world and I for one do not want this shoved down my throat.

dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Yep.

You’re eating something that Round-up won’t kill.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM

There is very little that we put in our mouths that isn’t “genetically modified” in one form or another. Have you ever seen what the ancestors of corn look like? You would never recognize them.

By the way, does anyone know what a dachshund is? A dachshund is nothing but a wolf which has been genetically modified on the installment plan.

Steelweaver52 on June 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM

There’s nothing at all wrong with the American food supply. That’s why Americans are in such awesome shape, with historic lows in obesity and diabetes.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Correct, there is nothing wrong with the American food supply. I contend that our food supply, and our diet, has nothing to do with obesity. Not a thing.

What’s wrong is our lifestyle. No one, from birth on up, gets off their lazy butts and does something besides use Facebook anymore. That’s where the problem lies. Not with what we’re eating.

Shump on June 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM

You guys forget that these GMO’s are newbies. Frankenstein types, modified to resist herbicides like Roundup. Roundup is not a benign herbicide. THey are engineered to also be a pesticide to common pests. This is not the same as marrying two types of tomatoes.

eaglesdontflock on June 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I’m ok with GMOs.
I’m actually hoping some day a mutant fruit or veggie gives me superpowers…..

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

It’s called agave, the main ingredient of Tequila, and the worm juice can give you super powers such as the ability to become fantastically funny and good looking to all women.

For women themselves it provides them the super power of removing their shirts at incredible speeds.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM

I believe that is an organic ingredient in Vitameatavegamin. Or so I’ve heard.

hawkeye54 on June 3, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Could be – but it was explained as a beet and rutabega hybrid Cliff grew at home.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Shump on June 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Sir, you are off base. Lifestyle is a part of it. Engineered food, e.g. transfats, HFCS, etc, are the rest of it. Diet is a major cause of obesity, with or without exercise.

eaglesdontflock on June 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM

The LOL’s are getting thick in this one.

GMO chicken little “The GMO sky is falling!”

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 3:28 PM

It’s called agave, the main ingredient of Tequila, and the worm juice can give you super powers such as the ability to become fantastically funny and good looking to all women.

For women themselves it provides them the super power of removing their shirts at incredible speeds.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Ah yes – good stuff.
Unfortunately, the superpower effects wear off way too soon, and I end up feeling like Superman on a heavy dose of kryptonite.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM

I’m with dentalque.

If it’s the old fashioned way of genetic modification where you’re using pollination and specific natural methods then that’s cool. But laboratory frankenstein modifications I’m against.

ConDem on June 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM

But laboratory frankenstein modifications I’m against.

ConDem on June 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Don’t you ever eat a papaya. Don’t even think about it.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM

You guys forget that these GMO’s are newbies. Frankenstein types, modified to resist herbicides like Roundup. Roundup is not a benign herbicide. THey are engineered to also be a pesticide to common pests. This is not the same as marrying two types of tomatoes.

eaglesdontflock on June 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

As long as my ear of corn doesn’t try to bite my face off while I eat it, or I end up like a tribble on bad grain, I’m ok with it.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Wow, I couldn’t disagree more with this post. Very misleading story.

cat_owner on June 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Hey, at least the GENE GUN(soundssss sooper scary!) isn’t used much anymore.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM

You really need to educate yourself. Taking genetic material from a petunia and inserting it into soy so that it is resistant to pesticide is a dangerous thing. The farmer uses more pesticide not less. This does not happen in nature and is akin to taking a gene from a sheep and inserting it in humans. Proteins have a 3 dimensional structure and these are new and untested. It is a brave new world and I for one do not want this shoved down my throat.

dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Except, they don’t make the plants resistant to pesticides. They make the plants naturally resistant to pests - so they don’t need to use as much pesticide.
You’ve got it backwards.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Luther Burbank saved millions of lives from starvation by developing a blight-free potato.

John the Libertarian on June 3, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Between 1960 and 2000, the world’s population nearly doubled.

In the same time frame, food production tripled.

Because of the rapid growth of agricultural technology and the lure of profits for those who produce innovative ways of producing food, man is able to produce far more with far less than in any time in human history.

That bunch of Lester Brown loving neo-Malthusians should only be pointed at, laughed and then ignored.

Conservative Mischief on June 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM

It’s called agave

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Also has the ability to wipe your memory clean.

John the Libertarian on June 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM

It’s called agave

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Also has the ability to wipe your memory clean.

John the Libertarian on June 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Which is usually a good thing. Most people don’t really want to remember what they did with those superpowers….

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

I want irradiated food

tmitsss on June 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Luther Burbank saved millions of lives from starvation by developing a blight-free potato.

John the Libertarian on June 3, 2014 at 3:39 PM

I’m working on an orchid-barracuda hybrid with a taste for human flesh – to be planted under windows for home defense.
I expect to get rich…..

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Remember that recent article posted in headlines about how obesity rates are so low in France because their food actually tastes good?

France just recently banned genetically engineered corn and is seeking further restrictions in EU policy against similarly engineered crops.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/france-gmo-idUSL6N0NR2MZ20140505

May 5 (Reuters) – The French parliament gave final approval on Monday to a law prohibiting the cultivation of any variety of genetically modified maize in the European Union’s top grain producer, where a majority of people remain strongly opposed to foods based on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

The French Senate voted on a law already adopted by the lower house of parliament last month that banned GMO maize (corn) cultivation, even though it has been cleared at European Union level, saying it poses a risk to the environment.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 3:50 PM

I want irradiated food

tmitsss on June 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

I wonder what kind of powers I can get if I let a spider sit on my tritium night sights for awhile, then have it bite my hand….

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Correct, there is nothing wrong with the American food supply. I contend that our food supply, and our diet, has nothing to do with obesity. Not a thing.

What’s wrong is our lifestyle. No one, from birth on up, gets off their lazy butts and does something besides use Facebook anymore. That’s where the problem lies. Not with what we’re eating.

Shump on June 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Yeah, that’s a load of crap.

“Cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer”

– American cigarette executives, right before they got busted and started investing heavily in food production

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 3:53 PM

You really need to educate yourself. Taking genetic material from a petunia and inserting it into soy so that it is resistant to pesticide is a dangerous thing. The farmer uses more pesticide not less. This does not happen in nature and is akin to taking a gene from a sheep and inserting it in humans. Proteins have a 3 dimensional structure and these are new and untested. It is a brave new world and I for one do not want this shoved down my throat.

Bass ackwards. The soybean farmer can now use less Roundup than he did previously, because what he does apply to his field only kills the weeds before the soybean plant can grow and crowd out the competition.

That said, Roundup is not toxic. The glyphosphate compound that serves as the active ingredient is less toxic that the soap-like surfactant that allows Roundup to stay on the foliage and kill the target. Once that surfactant is dry, you can eat it all day and you’ll get the same tummy ache you’d get from drinking a bottle of Dawn.

There is also a genetically modified version of the soybean plant that can grow in nearly desert conditions and is resistant to salt poisoning from being irrigated with seawater.

Imagine how many millions of starving Africans could receive nourishing food by putting such plants in the ground.

The most serious threat to our food supply is the “organically” grown produce. The farmer must use naturally oncurring fertilizers and no pesticides. That means the produce is much more likely to be contaminated by the animal feces used to serve as the natural fertilizer, not to mention the contaminants carried by the pests who thrive on those particular plants.

Eat organic, roll the dice. Eat conventional, roll dice that are weighted in your favor.

Conservative Mischief on June 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

That said, Roundup is not toxic. The glyphosphate compound that serves as the active ingredient is less toxic that the soap-like surfactant that allows Roundup to stay on the foliage and kill the target.

Truth. Even the surfactant package is heavily tested for toxicity to terra and aqua fauna.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM

One more thing–GMO seed manufacturers have attempted to produce seed that grows into sterile plants, eliminating the ability of cross pollenation with non-GMO plants.

That has been largely successful, but not 100% so. There are documented cases where GMO soybeans and corn have cross pollenated and produced a hybrid that shows the same pest and pesticide resistance that the parent possesses.

This is a serious threat to the profitability of the GMO industry. There could come a day when everything is already pest and pesticide resistant. Farmers could collect seed from their hybridized crops for the next season’s planting, and never pay another nickel in royalties to Monsanto et al.

Conservative Mischief on June 3, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Except, they don’t make the plants resistant to pesticides. They make the plants naturally resistant to pests – so they don’t need to use as much pesticide.
You’ve got it backwards.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Wrong. Roundup ready soybeans are genetically altered to be highly resistant to herbicides. The fields are soaked with herbicides and only the beans survive. I recall farm ladies talking about their kids ‘riding the beans’, sitting on combines holding sprayers which they used to soak the fields row by row. GMO soy therefore also contains higher amounts of the herbicide, which IMHO is not safe

The holy grail would be an hervicide resistant wheat. If that happens, wheat has many cousins in the plant world which could cross breed, creating a superweed, resistant to herbicide yet non nutritious

GMO corn is spliced with a toxin from a bacillus. That toxin is in every cell of the corn plant, including the kernels. When the insect feeds it dies. This has led to die offs in certain butterflies, mainly from the toxin imbued pollen of GMO corn transferring to other plants, by wind or bees, and poisoning the butterfly. The soy toxin is found in the blood of many people now

It is getting impossible to buy non GMO corn, because pollen travels thousands of miles. Organically grown corn can only be verified non GMO with DNA testing due to cross pollination

Genetic splicing moves DNA across species, making people at risk from allergy. GMO labeled food does not identify the source of the splice. One of the first genetically altered food was a tomato given a gene from a cold water fish, to make it cold resistant. And yes, many tomatoes now taste fishy, especially after being cut, and refrigerated. What do you think that gene may be generating, in that cut tomato

Further, the testing of GMO product is mainly done by the marketeers and is subjective

Food derived from GMOs is not tested in humans before it is marketed as it is not a single chemical, nor is it intended to be ingested in specific doses and times, which makes it difficult to design meaningful clinical studies.[90] Regulators examine the genetic modification, its protein products, and any intended changes that those proteins make to the food.[91] Regulators also check to see whether the food derived from a GMO is “substantially equivalent” to its non-GMO-derived counterpart, which provides a way to detect any negative non-intended consequences of the genetic engineering.[90] If the newly incorporated protein is not similar to that of other proteins found in food or if anomalies arise in the substantial equivalence comparison, further toxicological testing is required

Very Subjective:

In a 2013 review published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Rod A. Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and William D. Price (retired from FDA) argue that transgenesis is less disruptive of composition compared with traditional breeding techniques which routinely involve genetic mutations, deletions, insertions, and rearrangements.

Dow AgroSciences….
GMO is out of control. Humans had natural selection going back in time, and the ones who survived were the ones who fit best to the environment. That sort of evolution is slow, humans keeping up with natural environmental mutation. Now science has accelerated the alteration of species we need for survival, and all they can see is fools gold. The science behind GMO is corrupted by money. Otherwise we would have had mandatory GMO labeling on day one, which included the source genus species, and biochemistry of the splice, for the protection of the consumer.

The facts are being hidden and bad science reigns

entagor on June 3, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Conservative Mischief

I dig your contrarian style, but in this case…Holy Christ.

Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

Glyphosate Poisoning

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083

And on and on and on.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Glyphosate is supposed to be the “active ingredient” of Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and it is present in a large group of Roundup-like herbicides. It has been safety tested on mammals for the purposes of regulatory risk assessment. But the commercial formulations of these pesticides as they are sold and used contain added ingredients (adjuvants). These are often classified confidential and described as “inerts”. However, they help to stabilize the chemical compound glyphosate and help it to penetrate plants, in the manner of corrosive detergents. The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) can affect all living cells, especially human cells. This danger is overlooked because glyphosate and Roundup are treated as the same by industry and regulators on long-term studies. The supposed non-toxicity of glyphosate serves as a basis for the commercial release of Roundup. The health and environmental agencies and pesticide companies assess the

long-term effects on mammals of glyphosate alone, and not the full formulation. The details of this regulatory assessment are jealously kept confidential by companies like Monsanto and health and environmental agencies.
Conclusion and consequences:

This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone, and explains why. Thus their regulatory assessments and the maximum residue levels authorized in the environment, food, and feed, are erroneous. A drink (such as tap water contaminated by Roundup residues) or a food made with a Roundup tolerant GMO (like a transgenic soya or corn) were already demonstrated as toxic in the recent rat feeding study (2) from Prof. Séralini team. The researchers have also published responses to critics of the study (3). This new research explains and confirms the scientific results of the rat feeding study.

Overall, it is a great matter of concern for public health. First, all authorizations of Roundup-type herbicides have to be questioned urgently. Second, the regulatory assessment rules have to be fully revised. They should be analyzed in a transparent and contradictory manner by the scientific community. Agencies that give opinions to government authorities, in common with the pesticide companies generally conclude safety. The agencies’ opinions are wrong because they are made on the basis of lax assessments and much of the industry data is kept confidential, meaning that a full and transparent assessment cannot be carried out. These assessments are therefore neither neutral nor independent. They should as a first step make public on the Internet all the data that underpin the commercial release and positive opinions on the use of Roundup and similar products. The industry toxicological data must be legally made public.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/roundup-is-more-toxic-than-declared-new-criigen-study/

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Another triumph of the academic community over reality.

I’ll believe there is a crisis when the people telling me there is a crisis change their behavior.

If GMO food is such a danger, it should be stripped from the shelves.
The science is settled!

Another Drew on June 3, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Here’s a really interesting “connect the dots” one for the conspiracy minded.

Hmm…the same people pushing GMOs are the same people who’ve been so stridently pushing this inane “war on Russia” stuff in recent months. And lo and behold….

The Medvedev government in Russia recently announced it would ban import and commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the Russian Federation. That is commendable to be sure, but new evidence suggests that the health and safety dangers of the GMO assault on our food quality involve the paired agrichemicals that are used in almost all GMO seeds today, namely Monsanto Roundup and other glysophate-based weed killers.
Growing Russian opposition

In December 2013, Professor Irina Ermakova, vice president of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety, together with a group of Russian scientists, called on the government to impose a 10-year ban or moratorium in order that the influence of GMOs and their chemical herbicides can be thoroughly studied for their influence on human health. Ermakova some years before conducted GMO rat-feeding tests that showed alarming results, including extreme mortality rates. “It is necessary to ban GMO, to impose a moratorium for 10 years. While GMO will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed,” Ermakova said. “It has been proved that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMO is dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMO are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous,” Ermakova added.

At a congress of United Russia deputies from Russian rural villages in Volgograd on April 5, 2014, Medvedev expressed his clearest opposition to GMOs to date. He stated that Russia will not import GMO products. “If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food,” he said.

At the end of February, the Russian parliament asked the government to impose a temporary ban on all genetically altered products in Russia. The Russian State Duma’s Agriculture Committee backed a ban on the registration and trade of genetically modified organisms. Indicating support for Ermakova’s call, they suggested that until specialists develop a working system of control over the effects of GMOs on humans and the natural environment, the government should impose a moratorium on the breeding and growth of genetically modified plants, animals and microorganisms.

http://rt.com/op-edge/154000-toxic-herbicide-gmo-monsanto/

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Sir, you are off base. Lifestyle is a part of it. Engineered food, e.g. transfats, HFCS, etc, are the rest of it. Diet is a major cause of obesity, with or without exercise.

eaglesdontflock on June 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Yeah, that’s a load of crap.

“Cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer”

– American cigarette executives, right before they got busted and started investing heavily in food production

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 3:53 PM

I disagree with both of you, and I maintain that there is nothing wrong with out food supply. In fact, the average American diet is probably healthier today than it was 50 or 60 years ago because of the way the constant lobbying has changed the way we cook.

The thing that has changed in American society is the lack of any physical activity in the average lifestyle. That is the factor that is causing obesity, almost singlehandedly. I do not believe it has, to even the slightest, most miniscule degree, to do with diet. Give what we eat today to the average person in the 50′s and they would still be thin.

But, then again, I don’t think climate change is real, let alone man-made, so I’m already anti-science.

Shump on June 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Except, they don’t make the plants resistant to pesticides. They make the plants naturally resistant to pests – so they don’t need to use as much pesticide.
You’ve got it backwards.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM

and

Conservative Mischief on June 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

NO

They use more because they grow the soy (or other crops) and then blast them with roundup. Killing everything else as the soy can take a higher dose now. Also I am not sure why (other GMO’s) that are engineered to make a controlled pesticide are safer than spraying it with such pesticide. Like I said this is all new, protein has a 3 dimensional structure and changing its structure can have consequences that are not apparent yet. I do not want to be part of a science experiment. Please educate yourselves.

dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Wrong. Roundup ready soybeans are genetically altered to be highly resistant to herbicides. The fields are soaked with herbicides and only the beans survive. I recall farm ladies talking about their kids ‘riding the beans’, sitting on combines holding sprayers which they used to soak the fields row by row. GMO soy therefore also contains higher amounts of the herbicide, which IMHO is not safe

RR soya is resistant to glyphosate, not ‘herbicides.’ glyphosate is a salt, meaning…it dissociates in water. Glyphosate is temporarily sequestered in the cell, but only temporarily.

GMO corn is spliced with a toxin from a bacillus. That toxin is in every cell of the corn plant, including the kernels. When the insect feeds it dies. This has led to die offs in certain butterflies, mainly from the toxin imbued pollen of GMO corn transferring to other plants, by wind or bees, and poisoning the butterfly. The soy toxin is found in the blood of many people now

BT, Bacillus thuringiensis. That is the bacteria,from which a specific protein that is toxic to LEPDOPTERA(not humans) comes. Yes it is expressed in the plant. Farmers planting BT crops also plant border rows and (the word escapes me) ‘safe-haven rows’ which are not GMO. I have no idea what ‘soy toxin’ is.

Genetic splicing moves DNA across species, making people at risk from allergy. GMO labeled food does not identify the source of the splice. One of the first genetically altered food was a tomato given a gene from a cold water fish, to make it cold resistant. And yes, many tomatoes now taste fishy, especially after being cut, and refrigerated. What do you think that gene may be generating, in that cut tomato

That is sheer, pure religious fantasy. No reason to specifically address any of it. I can’t deconvert you.

The rest I don’t have the time or desire to address.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:25 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/pop_genetic_gallery/

Certain rumors and horror stories mention square tomatoes or tomatoes that glow in the dark, but, in particular, skeptics have focused on research conducted by DNA Plant Technology, a company that developed an experimental, genetically engineered tomato in 1991. The tomato included a modified gene from a breed of arctic flounder that, it was hoped, would allow the tomatoes to be more resistant to frost and cold storage. Activists decried these so-called “fish tomatoes,” protesting their entry into our food supply. But the experiment ultimately did not prove successful, and the pursuit of a cold-resistant tomato was abandoned. No one has ever purchased a tomato or tomato-based product with fish genes.

Religious fantasy.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:27 PM

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop
improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

( http://bit.ly/11cR4sB )

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of
genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and
during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or
substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

( http://bit.ly/166OUdM )

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the
consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been
approved.”

( http://bit.ly/18yzzVI )

Murphy9 on August 29, 2013 at 1:21 AM

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:27 PM

The European Commission: ”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 no more
risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

(http://bit.ly/133BoZW )

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds
of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or
legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most
litigious of countries, the USA.”

( http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z )

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified
crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the
ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.”

(http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y )

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:28 PM

American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of
safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the
environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural
biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.”

( http://bit.ly/12hvoyg )

American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that
agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional
value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food
production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste
management.”

( http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE )

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which
represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they
cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant
health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.”

(http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL )

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops
in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area
of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM)
crop plants.”

( http://bit.ly/163sWdL )

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food
produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We
are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with
biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-
life.”

(http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak )

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of
gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical
breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight,
GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its
people.”

(http://bit.ly/13bLJiR )

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers
and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their
conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops
and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human
health or the environment.”

(http://bit.ly/138rZLW )

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have
grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries.
These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops
on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so
given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.”

( http://bit.ly/11cTKq9 )

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and
research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of
biotechnology.”

(http://bit.ly/138sQMB )

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left
further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.”

(http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK )

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry
consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.”

(http://bit.ly/133F79K )

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the
evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy
public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In
addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be
substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.”

(http://bit.ly/18yFDxo )

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market
today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are
to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal
consumption.”

( http://bit.ly/166WHYZ )

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is
unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The
level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional
foods.”

( http://bit.ly/13bOaSt )

“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences , the Brazilian Academy of Sciences , the Chinese Academy of
Sciences , the Indian National Science Academy , the Mexican Academy of Sciences , and
the Third World Academy of Sciences: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM
technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting –
bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”

( http://bit.ly/17Cliq5 )

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:31 PM

French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly
scientific criteria.”

( http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO )

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants
approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding
conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior
with respect to health.”

(http://bit.ly/17ClMMF )

International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods
derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been
deemed appropriate.”

(http://bit.ly/15Hn487 )

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Sorry for the spamming, but that exhaustively puts all this nonsense to rest. /back to #HAcott

You’re better off burning witches than converting the luddite anti- crowd.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

I disagree with both of you, and I maintain that there is nothing wrong with out food supply. In fact, the average American diet is probably healthier today than it was 50 or 60 years ago because of the way the constant lobbying has changed the way we cook.

The thing that has changed in American society is the lack of any physical activity in the average lifestyle. That is the factor that is causing obesity, almost singlehandedly. I do not believe it has, to even the slightest, most miniscule degree, to do with diet. Give what we eat today to the average person in the 50′s and they would still be thin.

But, then again, I don’t think climate change is real, let alone man-made, so I’m already anti-science.

Shump on June 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM

No, the American obesity epidemic pretty much began with the switch to HFCS in the late 80s. Americans began ballooning shortly thereafter.

Of course, people can educate themselves about this and make appropriate choices. However, a well-run, functional society that cared about its people wouldn’t be offering them poison in shiny packages as default “food” in the first place. People still have a long-standing trust that the stuff on the supermarket shelves is basically ok, because they want to believe, after everything, that their society/government/culture has at least some of their interests at heart. It doesn’t. And therefore, American libertarians have proven themselves the ultimate useful idiots in this and so many ways.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

we can have unlabeled gmo but not raw milk.
I don’t have any real issues with gmo but do like to know.
I also would like ability to get milk straight from a cow if I wanted.

dmacleo on June 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM

You’re better off burning witches than converting the luddite anti- crowd. libertarian useful idiots.

vlad martel on June 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Science Lesson alert:
when we eat ANYTHING, including “foreign” genes (Ma’s cucumber seeds, stray bacteria, newly enhanced recombinant genes, etc) our digestive tract enzyme secretions are VERY good at breaking it all down to inert, indistinguishable substances– the 4 universal nucleotides (A,C,T,G) and then any “foreign” protein (beef ribs, tofu, new tomato enzymes, etc) will become the 20 universal amino acids…..
ONLY after this happens, can these now-harmless products then leave the GI tract and enter our blood, where our body cells cannot possibly distinguish the original sources, because there is no longer any difference at this point, thanks to digestion. This was all determined back in the 70′s.
GMO-scaring is due to science illiteracy amongst the general population, sadly. Learn about digestion; stop worrying.
Interestingly, some textbooks consider the entire GI tract “outside” of our body, a passage where foods enter & are quickly attacked before ever being allowed “in”…. our body surrounds the GI tract…. weird, right??

Deb on June 3, 2014 at 4:43 PM

They use more because they grow the soy (or other crops) and then blast them with roundup. Killing everything else as the soy can take a higher dose now. Also I am not sure why (other GMO’s) that are engineered to make a controlled pesticide are safer than spraying it with such pesticide. Like I said this is all new, protein has a 3 dimensional structure and changing its structure can have consequences that are not apparent yet. I do not want to be part of a science experiment. Please educate yourselves.

dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM

You need to get your terminology correct.
Pesticides kill or keep away pests – like bugs.
Herbicides kill unwanted plants – like weeds.
Roundup is an herbicide – not a pesticide.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

The mistake you are making is that you think the word “science” comes from a Greek word that means “consensus.” It does not. It comes from a Greek word that means “skeptic.” I prefer to follow the tenants of evolutionary biology. A subject that is neither taught nor a requirement for medical school, anywhere. Eat what we have the most evolutionary exposure to, not what is newest in the human foodstream is the sage-ist advice you can take.

dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Don’t you ever eat a papaya. Don’t even think about it.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I don’t. And won’t. Of course, now I’ll think about it a bit because you “forbade” me from doing it. But I think I’ll resist the temptation. Nice spam, btw.

The thing that has changed in American society is the lack of any physical activity in the average lifestyle. That is the factor that is causing obesity, almost singlehandedly. I do not believe it has, to even the slightest, most miniscule degree, to do with diet. Give what we eat today to the average person in the 50′s and they would still be thin.

Shump on June 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Not quite. For some people increased activity does work. Others talk about no matter how much they work out they never lose weight. It’s not until they work out and change their diet do they lose weight.

It’s almost like we’re all different and perhaps we don’t really understand what goes on in food and how it really benefits or hurts us. It’s why we can take vitamin supplements and our bodies do not absorb them, but if you eat a vegetable you get what you need. Something is in play that our science doesn’t understand yet.

ConDem on June 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

high fructose corn syrup is 5% more fructose, which makes it more suitable for baking/processed foods.
it’s insignificant really.
there’s surely other likely causes of obesity’s prevalence….
“It’s All the Corporate HFCS Conspiracy Fault” is much easier to take the blame off ourselves though.

Deb on June 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Meh. What is natural? Seriously. Everything comes from this Earth. It’s one big chemistry set for us to play with…

Fallon on June 3, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Sorry for the spamming, but that exhaustively puts all this nonsense to rest. /back to #HAcott

You’re better off burning witches than converting the luddite anti- crowd.

Murphy9 on June 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

No problem.

I didn’t read any of it.

Bigbullets on June 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Reminds me of a guy I went to school with who later became one of these holistic medicine practitioners. He’d be all over Facebook telling people to get rid of their microwave ovens because he believed that using a microwave irradiated your food thus altering its molecular structure, turning it into plastic or some other undigestable substance.

Never mind the fact that microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM

dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM

You need to get your terminology correct.
Pesticides kill or keep away pests – like bugs.
Herbicides kill unwanted plants – like weeds.
Roundup is an herbicide – not a pesticide.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Disregard – according to wiki – pesticide is an umbrella term that includes herbicides.
I was going off my common usage.

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM

I prefer to follow the tenants of evolutionary biology.
dentalque on June 3, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Tenants or tenets?

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2