Government Announces Plans To Spray Seattle With ‘GMO Bacteria’

528
90,959 views

Plans To Spray Seattle With ‘GMO Bacteria’

In an attempt to kill Asian and European gypsy moths, the Washington State Department of Agriculture has approved a spraying program to be used OVER the city of Seattle. Scary.

Residents oppose the program and rightly so; many remember the US government testing harmful bacteria on civilians (the 1966 Navy Operation Sea Spray). The citizens of Seattle would be wise to test the state, ask questions, demand answers, and maybe even run independent third party tests on the chemicals (a bacteria with insecticide properties called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the same bacteria gene commonly used in GM crops to kill insects).

According to KOMO News, the moths are invasive and have ferocious appetites for maple, oak, and foliage from trees and plants. The Department of Agriculture is worried about the amount of damage the moths could cause and the economic and environmental implications that would ensue.

An area in Vancouver was sprayed last Saturday and then will move in to Kent, Lacey, Gig Harbor, Nisqually and end at Seattle’s Capitol Hill. The Department of Ag will use a red and white fixed wing plane to drop the insecticide.

Just remember, it’s never to late to make your voice heard. Good luck Seattle!

Source: Your News Wire and KOMO News

Follow US

Erin Elizabeth

ABOUT THE FOUNDER OF HEALTH NUT NEWS

Erin Elizabeth is a long time activist with a passion for the healing arts, working in that arena for a quarter century. Her site HealthNutNews.com is less than 2 years old but has already cracked the top 20 Natural Health sites worldwide. She is an author, public speaker, and has recently done some TV and film programs for some of her original work which have attracted international media coverage. You can get Erin’s free e-book here and also watch a short documentary on how she overcame vaccine injuries, Lyme disease, significant weight gain, and more. Follow Erin on FacebookTwitter, and Instagram.

P.S. You can subscribe to her Youtube Channel for breaking news, free blenders, giveaways and more
Follow US

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

  • Debbie Eggers

    So lets worry about the trees and not the people!! INSANE!!!

  • Amy

    It’s all about money. WA apple industry as well as others like wine and other fruit is huge. Follow the $$$$.

  • RichieRich

    When the cancer and birth defects go on the rise and you citizens are looking for justice, just remember these words….Agent Orange.

  • Your1Friend

    This is beyond bizarre.

    It appears that Washington State Department of Agriculture has seriously flawed leadership. But so does the USDA which is all but owned by Monsanto.

    So, have “GMO Bacteria” been tested for decades with little or no chance of human health impairment?

  • Mark fusa

    Surrey BC already does this been doing it for many years

  • Cynthia

    Bt is not GMO. It has been in use for organic gardening/farming for decades. But its genes have been used to create GMO food crops.

  • Crunkomatic

    Yeah, remember when everyone in America died in 1966?

  • Patti Ireland

    the pesticide Btk is actually a bacteria found naturally in soil, which kills the gypsy moth caterpillars when they hatch and eat it. if you are a gardner yourself, you come in contact when digging in dirt, and eating the fruits and vegetables you grow, whether it has been sprayed or not. It is actually a natural and organic product, has been certified for use in organic farming and gardening. It is actually considered to be the safest of all methods of pesticides (there are many forms of the bacteria, which may target different forms of insects. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis is poisonous to fly larvae, while Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (Btk) is poisonous to moth larvae. It does not affect bees, or other organisms other than moth and caterpillar larva, and is not used during periods when other butterflies/moths are migrating. It has been in use in Europe since 1938, and in the US since 1970 with no issues. As for the breathing issues- Canadian researchers explored this issue during a 1999 application of
    Foray® 48B over Vancouver Island. The lung symptoms and breathing
    capacity (lung function) of 29 children with asthma living in spray zone
    were compared to those of 29 children with asthma living outside the
    spray zone. Measurements, as conducted by parents, were done before and
    after the spray period. There were no differences in asthma symptom
    scores between either groups, neither before nor after the spray. There
    were there no significant changes in measured lung function, as reported
    by parents of study participants, after the sprays. That being said, however, it is always a good idea for those with asthma and other lung issues to remain inside when any type of spraying, or high wind with dust issues, etc, are occurring. Stop sharing this fearmongering garbage.

  • Mandy Pauza

    A pop-up before I can even read the article and decide if it’s worth reading more. I’ll go find another article. Site block.

  • Kd

    No but i remember them getting cancer in 1970!

  • Gary Rogers

    AdBlock is free and it works amazingly well. I didn’t have any ads pop up and went straight to the article.

  • Connie Trott

    They’ll be doing the same thing in Northern Wisconsin very soon. They also did it the last 2 years. They send out flyers saying that it is not toxic to humans. People with allergies or chemical sensitivities may wish to leave the spray area until spraying is done. They also say it is approved for use in certified organic products. Because we all know that if it’s approved for organic use it must be good ……right?

  • Dorkiss

    When it’s genetically modified it’s not natural

  • ethrop

    Erin, you really are nuts. Money-grubbing nuts.

  • Beatrice Marot

    That is really sad . . . but they have been spraying crap into your lungs for a very long time

  • It’s not. It is a natural pesticide, which so happens to be chemically the same as what some GM crops produce.

    But, if you spray vinegar in the sky, all bad things go away. Fact.

  • Nelson Spence

    BT toxin is an approved organic pesticide!! Stop being such a hypocrite!

  • davecox69

    Punishment for staring the 15$ minimum wage

  • Derek Ward

    They have been using this sparay for at least 40 years, long before GMO’s. I remeber years ago they were supposed to spray it in Victoria, BC for the gypsy moth but had to cancel due to weather conditions. Undaunted, dozens of people showed up at hospitals and doctors offices complaing of problems from the spray.

  • Because what do we need trees for, right?

  • No, she’s smart. This article was carefully crafted to not ‘lie’ outright, but to tick all the fear-boxes and get rich.

    But hey… anyone who still believes GM is dangerous is already halfway there, so not really a surprise frauds and scammers push them over the edge. Scared people are easy to fleece.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    No, remember these words. Contrails are harmless.

  • Katie

    Did you copy and paste this from a government website?! Ha!

  • Anti Foodbabe

    I’m sure you could provide proof of that if that’s the case… No? So do tell, what issues do you have with this pesticide that’s approved by the organic industry? (and please don’t copy and paste from Big Organic websites. TIA!

  • Terry Hill

    Wow. Do facts scare you?

  • Terry Hill

    Back to reading comprehension classes for you.
    “as used in GMO”. Bt is natural… the corn or cotton it’s DNA is incorporated in becomes a GMO.

  • Terry Hill

    Yeah, this Erin person make MILLIONS off suckers like you… by spreading fear via half-baked stories, which you swallow unquestioningly. Follow the money all right.

    She carefully doesn’t call the Bt bacteria GMO – if you bothered to read it rather than just knee-jerk react!

    Bt is a soil bacteria. It’s a NATURAL soil bacteria. It’s even INJECTED (yes, by syringes) into organic food crops…

    And if you are wondering what I know… I’m just a university biology student. Not a money-driven activist with zero knowledge of biology or agriculture.

  • Terry Hill

    Why?

    Did you not notice how this self-serving author carefully worded it – Bt isn’t a “GMO bacteria”. It’s a naturally occurring soil bacteria. It’s “used” in GMO crops. But the bacteria itself lives naturally in soil.

    And you (and humanity) have been consuming it since the first homonids pulled a vegetable out of the ground and ate it 4+ Million years ago.

    So yeah, I’d say it’s pretty safe.

  • Terry Hill

    Or these words: Reading comprehension.

    Read it again. Nowhere does she actually say that the Bt bacteria is genetically modified – because it ISN’T. Bt is a natural soil bacteria we’ve been consuming since forever.

    She carefully words this to avoid being called a liar, and notes it’s the same bacteria used in GMO crops. She’s not a liar. An unscrupulous, immoral, shameless charlatan, yes – but not a liar.

  • Terry Hill

    Well, at least you’re correct on that one.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    8000 years according to NPR in their story on the naturally occurring sweet potato.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Not necessary, Erin is nuts as her site says. and g.e. crops are safe. According to npr we have been eating naturally occurring sweet potatoes for 8000 years.

  • Peperino

    The Department of Agriculture is worried about the amount of damage the moths could cause???
    REALLY, What about the damage can cause to all the health of the citizens…?

  • BountyHunterX77

    I just love your oversite of the fact that they actually used humans as the test subject. I don’t care how educated you are or are not it is blatant carelessness to just perform a spray with no real understanding of what the effects will be & downright dangerous to do it just because YOU feel no harm will occur when there was never a real test done before it to prove your theory factual. Stupid. Insane. Did you make a trip to this location to inhale the natural organic solution yourself showing your upmost confidence in the matter? Probably not Ya dillhole.

  • M.M.Vancouver.

    – New Auschwitz ? GMO- Idiots !

  • Demetrio

    But this is GMO not natural so what else is in the spray

  • ghendric

    GMO pesticide my ass… they’re geoengineering people now.. fight back you idiots!!

  • Ed Wade

    How much does the Gov’t pay you for posting this stuff, Patti Ireland? Can I make a good living at it?

  • Ed Wade

    Your first problem lies in the fact you put any merit in ANYTHING on NPR.

  • Ed Wade

    How’s the pay there at Monsanto?

  • braingood

    Why not just create bat habitats? Bats eat moths–it’s what they do.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s are killing us
    All by design

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s are designed to make us sick, enjoy obamacare.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s are dangerous to all

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s in INDEPENDENT studies have shown infertility by the 3rd generation
    BAN MONSANTO

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s destroy natural health and natural living by design

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s are a way for corporations to control our food and health

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s need to stopped and ended. Monsanto controls the FDA, conflict of interest

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s have damaged our minds and bodies in the last 20 years.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s need to be stopped for the sake our children

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s corrupt our bodies and minds

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s should never be allowed on the market

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s are designed to mutate us from being human
    GLYPHOPHATE a known cancer causing agent is in ROUND UP

  • Tyranny Stopper

    GMO’s are deadly and dangerous and should never be allowed on the market

  • M Arfiniki

    It that true? Dozens of crazy people will show up for medical treatment everyday no matter what.

  • hyperzombie

    I dont think anyone pay people to tell the truth on the internet. If you are scared of Bt stop going outside and stop eating Organic veggies and especially Organic melons, they inject Bt right into the plant.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Chemtrails are bad

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Chemtrailing the poor folks (geo-engineering)

  • hyperzombie

    Nothing to do with Monsanto, they produce 0 Bt based pesticides.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Chemtrails and geo-engineering bad ideas from bad people

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Chemtrail and Geo-engineering is another way to destroy humanity

  • Ed Wade

    Nobody moved your rock, dipshit.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Chemtrails (geo-engineering) is designed to destroy us from the inside, combined with gmo foods and obamacare, recipe for disaster, corporate designed death squads

  • hyperzombie

    Bt is harmless to humans. They have been spraying cities for over 40 years now.

  • Ed Wade

    And you know this, how, exactly? Do you work there?

  • Tyranny Stopper

    More chemtrails

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Pay attention watch the skies

  • Ed Wade

    Your total worship of the chemical industry is obvious in your posts.

  • hyperzombie

    Nope dont work at Monsanto or at Valeant the company that sells most of the Bt in North America. It is called DiPel and you can go to the local nursery and buy some.

  • hyperzombie

    Bt is a natural soil bacterium, not a chemical.

  • M Arfiniki

    You say there was ‘no difference’ in the children with asthma, but you didn’t say they were symptom free. If 29 children with asthma were having a bad reaction in the area being sprayed and you were comparing them with 29 children living near a different chemically laden environment (there are many), who are constantly having reactions, you could conclude “there were no differences in asthma symptom scores between either group…….”.
    When the canary flies into the toxin environment, they are going to die with a number of poisons….. Asthma sufferers are are human canaries.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Your first problem is that you didn’t realize that unlike erin. I post facts. As she deletes links with facts in order to hide her errors and deception. You can google naturally gmo sweet potatoes and you will find lots of sources including the university of Ghent. Archaeologists stumbled upon this when they tested residues from a pot found on a dig. Also try snake dna a in cattle. You may actually learn something.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    ahem…

  • Tyranny Stopper

    ahem

  • Tyranny Stopper

    oh boy

  • Tyranny Stopper

    ok derp

  • M Arfiniki

    Yes, Bt and Btk are natural, unlike glyphosate, but an balance is the question now. A lot of bacteria can be good bacteria in certain amounts. Are you sure this will not create an imbalance that will cause bigger problems than moth larvae. What created the gypsy moth ovwegrowth to begin with?

  • Tyranny Stopper

    wow the dumb is thick in this one

  • hyperzombie

    nope it is just regular Bt, no GMO needed.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Do you wake up this retarded or do you practice? You are quote good at it.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    right shill

  • hyperzombie

    The gypsy moth is an invasive species here in North America, and it can be very devastating to forests.

  • hyperzombie

    Bt has been extensively tested for almost 100 years now. It is harmless to humans.

  • hyperzombie

    Wow a chemtrail believer calling someone a retard, so funny.

  • Ed Wade

    You can buy Roundup too, decades after it was proven carcinogenic. Is it OK to sweeten the Koolaid with it, though?

  • Ed Wade

    I was referencing your history of Discus posts. Clearly, you advocate for the industry.

  • Ryan Henke

    That’s really all you got huh. When in doubt use vulgar langue. God knows you can’t make a rational argument. Typical tin hat logic.

  • sb82

    Will it effect pollinating insects though?

  • JC Mansfield

    So all the nimrods posting negative commentary towards the noteworthy facts in this article are saying that they agree that the Dept of Ag has every right to take liberties with our skies despite relative controversy and public concerns? Smells like sheeple to me. GM food, GM air, GM bodies. Who needs to give a damn when our government is the epitomy of integrity and transparency! Not…

  • JC Mansfield

    Define dangerous. My definition of dangerous is turning a blind eye to government activities and assuming that these methods are sound when international objections exist contradicting that claim. We are responsible for the damage and aftermath if we don’t pursue a course of rigorous investigatory research of what our government professes is SAFE.

  • hyperzombie

    I am not advocating ffor anything, I dont care what chemicals or biocides that you buy or not buy. I just like to post the truth.

  • hyperzombie

    Nope, Bt only affects some caterpillars and grubs. It is harmless to bees.

  • suspicius dude

    How suspicius are the people talking in favor of the spraying, they’re all wearing sunglasses

  • StopGMO

    Funny! I have yet to see anything truthful come from you.

  • Ken Gallaher

    Then why are pro-GMO Monsanto trolls like YOU here?

  • Debbie Owen

    That is scary to just spray pesticide over a city like that, no thought at all how this will affect people or animals.

  • Debbie Owen

    How do you know whether or not the Bt has been altered? Besides, it wasn’t meant to be sprayed over cities without any thought to people or animals.

  • Debbie Owen

    No, they don’t get paid for telling the truth, they get paid to twist the truth and lie. Your reply is a great example of twisting the truth or telling half truth. Most organic farms don’t even use Bt spray and even then it’s only when absolutely necessary. As far as the melons being injected with Bt, that’s mostly home gardeners that sometimes decide to do that, unless you believe any large scale farmer will go to each individual plant to inject the toxin.

  • Debbie Owen

    Prove it. Show any study where humans (or animals) were directly sprayed with Bt. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind taking a trip to Seattle and waving to the red and white plane as it passes over you.

  • Debbie Owen

    Come up with another natural GE food, oh right, you can’t. Sweet potatoes have been tested by nature and time so you compare apples to oranges.

  • StopGMO

    Looks like you are well educated about the gypsy moths, well done. Now let’s work on the rest of the nonsense you’ve been spewing here.

  • Jimmy Dean

    Why is everyone on here using such offensive terms to imply that those opposing you lack intelligence? It is a fact that people are paid to post pro subject content on sites such as this, and it is also true that many read a bunch of conspiracy theory tabloids and think they know the truth. The truth I am sure lies somewhere between all this, but can you all try to understand we are the ones losing when we argue in vein and anonymously. Cowards hide in these pages and some are paid for it. be kind to each other, and question why/how someone has such seemingly well thought out argument for these sprays being ok. I’ve not seen one piece from either side stating this is scientifically good or bad when used in an aerosol form, but my gut says spray in the air goes into lungs, and that is not good even if it’s dirt.

  • StopGMO

    “The Bt toxin expressed by GM Bt plants is different from natural Bt, both in terms of its structure and its mode of action.1 Structurally, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialized in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.2 The US Environmental Protection Agency, in its review of the commercialized Monsanto GM maize MON810, said it produced a “truncated” version of the protein – in other words, a much shorter form of the protein that is different from the natural form.3”

    “Such changes in a protein can mean that it has very different environmental and health effects. First, the GM Bt toxin loses its selectivity and can kill non-target insects including beneficial predators. Second, GM Bt toxin can have unsuspected negative health impacts on people or animals that eat a crop containing it. The protein may be more toxic or allergenic than the natural form of the protein.”

    “Even tiny changes in a protein can completely change its properties. For example, soybeans can be genetically engineered to tolerate a herbicide that would normally kill them by changing a gene that gives rise to a protein differing from the natural protein by just two amino acids.4 As researchers at the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety in New Zealand pointed out in a submission to the Australia/New Zealand GMO regulator FSANZ on the regulatory assessment of this soybean,5 a change even of a single amino acid can radically change the properties of proteins, which in turn can result in changed behaviour of a plant.6,7”

  • StopGMO

    Nope. “The Bt toxin expressed by GM Bt plants is different from natural Bt, both in terms of its structure and its mode of action.1 Structurally, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialized in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.2 The US Environmental Protection Agency, in its review of the commercialized Monsanto GM maize MON810, said it produced a “truncated” version of the protein – in other words, a much shorter form of the protein that is different from the natural form.3”

    “Such changes in a protein can mean that it has very different environmental and health effects. First, the GM Bt toxin loses its selectivity and can kill non-target insects including beneficial predators. Second, GM Bt toxin can have unsuspected negative health impacts on people or animals that eat a crop containing it. The protein may be more toxic or allergenic than the natural form of the protein.”

    “Even tiny changes in a protein can completely change its properties. For example, soybeans can be genetically engineered to tolerate a herbicide that would normally kill them by changing a gene that gives rise to a protein differing from the natural protein by just two amino acids.4 As researchers at the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety in New Zealand pointed out in a submission to the Australia/New Zealand GMO regulator FSANZ on the regulatory assessment of this soybean,5 a change even of a single amino acid can radically change the properties of proteins, which in turn can result in changed behaviour of a plant.6,7”

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Wrong as usual. Google snake dna in cattle. And enjoy your next burger. Then during dessert look up Spontaneous gmos in nature and learn from the Swedes.

  • Linda

    Can you share where you get your information about ChemTrails Tyranny Stopper? I live in the flight path from both Seattle and Portland. We see skies like this all the time. If it isn’t a chemical being dropped to creat cloud cover to cool the earth (conspiracy theory?) what cause the vapor to stay in place and grow wider and wider as you watch it. Vapor trails do not do this….

  • Terry Hill

    I don’t know, I’ve never worked for them. I work for the Australian Government in aviation health science. But I’m studying biology at university.
    So, do you have any reading comprehension skills, or are you simply the ignorant, brain-dead moron you appear with that comment?

  • Terry Hill

    Why do you think that anyone who bursts your bubble of ignorance is a “pro-GMO Monsanto troll”?
    I’m a biology student, and simply comment on here about Bt bacteria being naturally occurring in the soil. If you had any reading comprehension skills you’d note she only says ‘as used in GMOs’, the rest is simply implied, so activists can all be outraged together in their ivory towers of ignorance.

    Now, do you have any argument against the fact that Bt is a natural bacteria that lives in the soil everywhere on the planet, or that this article isn’t just fear-mongering? Because I’d love to hear it.
    But I have a suspicion you’ll either come back with insults, or scurry away and pretend that nothing happened.

  • Terry Hill

    Bt hasn’t been altered. It’s used by every ‘organic’ farm in the US, and has been since the natural pesticide traits of the bacteria were discovered in the 1950s.
    Most people consume Bt every day, and Bt exists with a range of other bacteria in your gut.
    Try getting your science information from an actual biology professor, like I did, not a scare-mongering loony with zero understanding about science, biology or nutrition, like this Erin idiot.

  • Mark C. Danzig

    few us have the training to know whether people who post in favor of this are 1: really “Scientists” 2: are not industry shills or know the fuck what they are talking about; 3: remember that many scientist who are in favor of GMOs etc get their funding from corporations who have an interest in the outcomes of “unbiased” studies-getting more research money/funding depends on it.
    Still the person below COULD be right-I just don’t have a Laboratory handy to confirm

  • Terry Hill

    Seriously, dude. Why are simple, easily verifiable FACTS so hard for idiots like you?

  • Terry Hill

    Really, Debbie? Where, exactly, do home gardeners purchase Bt, exactly.
    Large-scale organic producers usually get crop-dusters to spray Bt by air – I work in aviation and see it regularly.

    I don’t get ‘paid’ by anyone to ‘tell the truth’. As a biology student who comes from a farming family, I’m just really pissed off at the levels of deliberate misinformation and ignorance demonstrated by people like you – urban ‘truth teller’ conspiracy theorists – who brand anything that doesn’t fit your science-ignorant world view as ‘shill’ or ‘conspiracy’.

    Twisting and misrepresenting the truth is what Erin does for a living – to sell ‘wellness’ crap at inflated prices to gullible people. It’s effect is obvious – half the idiots on this site read the title of the article, which implies that somehow Bt is GMO – and are on here defending it! Seriously, you’ve even admitted yourself that organic used Bt, and Bt is natural. Can’t you see how this article is deliberately written to deceive?

    Seriously, tell me exactly which part of this statement is a ‘half-truth’ or ‘twisted’

    Bt is a naturally occurring bacteria that is found in the soil all over the planet.

    I’ll wait.

  • Terry Hill

    Another absolute gem of intellect, Ed. Please, share some more of your coherent arguments to refute anything that has been said here.

    Is Bt a GMO? No.
    Is Bt harmful to humans? About as harmful as air.

  • StopGMO

    Easily verifiable? Please go ahead. Waiting…

  • Terry Hill

    Debbie, don’t let your ignorance stop you commenting. Good for you.

    Take a biology class, please. Bt is one of thousands of bacteria that exists naturally in your gut. It’s been consumed by humans since the first person pulled up a root vegetable and ate it millions of years ago.

  • StopGMO

    BS! The Bt toxin expressed by GM Bt plants is different from natural Bt, both in terms of its structure and its mode of action.1 Structurally, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialized in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.2 The US Environmental Protection Agency, in its review of the commercialized Monsanto GM maize MON810, said it produced a “truncated” version of the protein – in other words, a much shorter form of the protein that is different from the natural form.3

    Such changes in a protein can mean that it has very different environmental and health effects. First, the GM Bt toxin loses its selectivity and can kill non-target insects including beneficial predators. Second, GM Bt toxin can have unsuspected negative health impacts on people or animals that eat a crop containing it. The protein may be more toxic or allergenic than the natural form of the protein.

    Even tiny changes in a protein can completely change its properties. For example, soybeans can be genetically engineered to tolerate a herbicide that would normally kill them by changing a gene that gives rise to a protein differing from the natural protein by just two amino acids.4 As researchers at the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety in New Zealand pointed out in a submission to the Australia/New Zealand GMO regulator FSANZ on the regulatory assessment of this soybean,5 a change even of a single amino acid can radically change the properties of proteins, which in turn can result in changed behaviour of a plant.6,7. Who’s the idiot now?

  • StopGMO

    Laughable! Don’t quit your day job, seriously.

  • Terry Hill

    Are you even READING what you are posting?

    Btk and Bt ARE naturally occurring. They aren’t spraying GMO Corn Bt everywhere, you idiot!

    But I thought I’d humour you, even though you didn’t actually cite where your ‘quotes’ come from. But I can see why you’re embarrassed to do so. I found the GMO Myths article, which clearly states in the first paragraph “Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a natural soil-dwelling bacterium that produces a protein complex called Bt toxin. Some types of Bt toxin possess selective insecticide properties: that is, they will specifically kill certain crop pests such as caterpillars. Therefore Bt toxin has been used for decades as an insecticidal spray in chemically-based and organic farming.”

    Yet you choose to only quote the part from a discredited Seralini report – and an out-of-context quote from a FSANZ report?

    Dude, which bit of “they are using Btk” didn’t you get?

    Seriously, how do you even function?

  • Terry Hill

    I don’t know. I’ve never worked there. I work in aviation health science, and am studying biology at university.

    Do you have anything of value to add, or is that all you’ve got?

  • Terry Hill

    What part. I’m happy to help you out of your well of ignorance. I’ve got all my uni biology books right here.

    Please, which bit would you like me to confirm for you? If you want specific answers, I need specific questions.

  • StopGMO

    I am talking about the differences between GM Bt toxins versus naturally occurring Bt toxins. There is a difference and if you don’t like what I shared, buzz off idiot! Also, I did not say, they are spraying GMO corn bt everywhere, whatever that means!!! FYI, they don’t allow links here, hence why what I shared is in quotes, IDIOT! And DUH! We all know that organic farmers have used naturally occurring Bt toxins, when and if needed. None of this is from Seralini or FSANZ. I D I O T yourself!

  • Terry Hill

    You, still.

    You are regurgitating the same ‘cut and paste’ rubbish. You know, that article you probably got this from, from “GMO Myths” – did you even read the first paragraph:

    “Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a natural soil-dwelling bacterium that produces a protein complex called Bt toxin. Some types of Bt toxin possess selective insecticide properties: that is, they will specifically kill certain crop pests such as caterpillars. Therefore Bt toxin has been used for decades as an insecticidal spray in chemically-based and organic farming.”

    They aren’t spraying ‘GMO Corn Juice”, dumbass.

    Not that you’d even understand, but the assumptions passed as ‘facts’ (ie. the 40% difference), as quoted from Seralini – isn’t even from a peer-reviewed research paper. Get that – it wasn’t researched. It’s mostly assumption and opinion. It’s pretty clear you don’t understand how science works.

  • Terry Hill

    Really? How so?
    Please, share with me your gems of intellect. Do you contest that Bt doesn’t live in our gut? Because I’ve got a quite extensive list here in my Biology text book of all the bacteria in our intenstinal tract, and Bt is on the list.
    What exactly are your credentials? Hours on confirmation-bias reinforcing web sites and your Google-U degree?
    Unless all you’ve got is dismissive remarks?

  • StopGMO

    What part? Why don’t you tell me since you said, “Why are simple, easily verifiable FACTS so hard for idiots like you?” Who’s the one not being specific here? ROFL! Still waiting…

  • Ed Wade

    “I work for the Australian Government in aviation health science.”
    So, you’re on board with the chemtrail spraying of nano-particles of aluminum, barium and the like, then. I see. No reasoning with you then. But how will you answer to your offspring when they find you were passive while the UN, and WHO were shortening their lifespans?

  • Mark C. Danzig

    actually you post without doing research-there are articles that list this as a GMO bacteria-i was at first alarmed by the author way of presenting the info-but look under Patti Irelands post for REFERENCEs about this (unless this site removes it-as they did my previous post) which makes me suspicious that this is a corporate “Front” site for Big Pharma-
    EDIT: yep my post is removed!

  • Mark C. Danzig

    source of info?

  • StopGMO

    I NEVER said they are spraying ‘GMO Corn Juice’ dumbass. I am answering your nonsense, here it is in quotes. “Is Bt a GMO? No. (It can be both, there’s naturally occurring Bt toxin and GMO Bt toxin when altered).

  • Mark C. Danzig

    have you ever taken some BIO 400 level classes? Don’t lie

  • hyperzombie

    History of Bt.

    “Japanese biologist, Shigetane Ishiwatari was investigating the cause of the sotto disease (sudden-collapse disease) that was killing large populations of silkworms when he first isolated the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) as the cause of the disease in 1901.

    Ernst Berliner isolated a bacteria that had killed a Mediterranean flour moth in 1911, and rediscovered Bt. He named it Bacillus thuringiensis, after the German town Thuringia where the moth was found.”

  • hyperzombie

    Why is it scary? Is it not far more scary to have the forest killed by an infestation of gypsy moths? Bt is harmless to humans and they spray cities with it all the time.

  • StopGMO

    If what you are saying is true, (lol) then we are in serious trouble because Bt toxin is a serious gut-destroying toxin and it could seriously affect your overall health. You are looking in the wrong books, dude! lol

  • StopGMO

    Terry Hill is an ignorant bully!

  • Terry Hill

    So the basis of you calling me names is… you don’t have a single argument to refute what I said? If you do, please share.

    And calling someone ‘retarded’? How grown-up of you.

    Actually, I’m doing quite well in my biology degree.

  • StopGMO

    Truth??? Bahahahaha! I have yet to see any from you. Oh wait, I should give you credit for being correct about the gypsy moth.

  • Terry Hill

    Right. It can’t.

    Let me explain some basic science to you.

    Please re-read your own quote again. Then read the reference article your beloved activist article quotes – there’s even a link in there for you.

    You are apparently quoting this bit:

    “Structurally, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialized in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.2”

    Now, what do you notice here? Read it carefully. If you’re still having trouble, it says there is a difference between the toxin from natural Bt and GM maize Bt. If you still don’t get it, the ‘toxin’ is the express Cry1 protein family.

    Did you get that?

    Not the bacteria. The combination of the bacterial DNA (no, the ‘whole’ bacterial DNA is not present in the corn DNA), according to Seralini, interacts with other DNA to somehow change the expression of the protein.

    There is NO GMO Bt bacteria.

    You’re welcome.

  • hyperzombie

    So what is the alternative to spraying? You do know that the gypsy moth kills millions of acres of forest every year, right? In 1989 the moth defoliated over 19 million acres of forest, do you want this to happen again?

    They spray the cities to ensure that the moth never gets a good foothold on the west coast, or it will cause billions of dollars worth of damage to hardwood forests in and around the city. What would Seatlle look like with no Oaks, Maples, and all the other hardwoods?

    Once again Bt is harmless to humans, about as harmful as a rainbow.

  • Terry Hill

    Not at that level yet, Mark. Why?

    Is there a factual error in what I’ve stated? I have my text book right here, so I’ll be happy to correct if I have!

  • Terry Hill

    Actually, it is. It’s quite apparent that you are too thick to check the sources you’re quoting.

    You quote “Structurally, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialized in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.2” – that little number 2 at the end tells you where that little factoid is found.

    It’s found in a meta-analysis by Seralini. So yes, you are quoting Seralini.

    And if you looked at that particular piece, you’ll see he doesn’t have ANY science or research to support that little gem of information. In his ‘report’ (note, not new research), he references a book he self-published as the source of the “40%” figure – in other words, there is not a single piece of research that he can provide, other than opinion or guess, that supports this figure.

    Now, re-read the other thread where I also pointed out that even HE claims the difference in the toxin expressed in the corn, which, by the way, does not contain the entire Bt bacteria, but rather Bt bacterial DNA, inserted into the Corn DNA (rDNA).

    So no, the Bt is still NOT GM.

  • hyperzombie

    People have been sprayed with Bt since the 1940s, they could have done it earlier but there were no spray planes.

  • Terry Hill

    International objections? You mean we should always listen to activist groups, no matter what they are protesting, because…?

  • Terry Hill

    Keep on trolling, little one.

    Thanks for adding your insightful counter-argument to this conversation. I look forward to your next gem of wisdom.

    What part of my post offends your activist anti-intellectualism?

    Have I made an error of fact, somewhere, that you’d like to point out, using citations or supporting evidence?

  • hyperzombie

    If I lived in the eastern part of the US or Canada I would be demanding that they spray more often, the gypsy moth kills over a million acres of hardwood forests per year and damages far more than that.

  • Terry Hill

    It appears you’re tin foil hat is on way too tight, and has starved your brain of oxygen. You need some serious psychological, and probably medical, help.

  • hyperzombie

    Vote for Trump, he will deport all the undocumented Gypsy Moths back to Europe where they came from..

  • Terry Hill

    Yes they do, Linda.
    I am a pilot, I am ex-Air Force, and work currently in Aviation Health Science research and education.
    The misconception around contrails is mostly due to a lack of understanding of fairly elementary meteorology and aerodynamics, and relies on a combination of science illiteracy and the idea that almost every aircraft and pilot in the world is somehow in on some giant conspiracy, but no-one ever seems to have ‘hard’ evidence.
    Most contrails at altitude that are persistent are because there are different air currents at altitude. It might be blowing a gale at ground level, but super-still at altitude. Contrails are caused by the pressure difference of the air behind the aircraft. This pressure difference is caused by combinations of airflow (eddys, overwing v underwing) and heat (from the engine exhaust). There’s plenty of science-based information on how and why, with the specifics, on aviation, meteorology and science websites.
    The still air at altitude is why commercial aircraft fly at those altitudes – less wind means better fuel economy, hence lower cost/more profit for the airline.
    Ask any weather guy at your local met station or airport (ask for the met office). They actually are quite helpful.

  • Terry Hill

    Bt is a natural bacteria that actually we all already have in our intestinal tract. It’s not harmful.

  • Terry Hill

    False flags aside, Mark, please explain where anyone who questions the validity of this emotively-worded article is wrong?

    All has been said, from what I’ve read, is:

    1. There is no such thing as GMO Bt bacteria.
    2. Bt bacteria is natural, and used extensively in organic farming for that very reason.

    No, I’m not a scientist (yet, and don’t claim to be), but I am studying biology at university (first year). I already have education degree and another (master’s level). I am a researcher and educator in Aviation Health Science.

    No, I’m not ‘paid’ by anyone to comment. The ‘shill’ nonsense I read actually makes me laugh, and kind of sad – that someone is so enamoured by a belief that anything that contradicts their view MUST be a lie.

    I have a respect for facts, science and evidence, and I am just so appalled by the misinformation these self-promoting ‘health and wellness’ idiots are pushing that I have to point it out.

  • Terry Hill

    I don’t know. I’ve never worked for them.

    Are you on Mercola’s staff now?

  • Terry Hill

    Why?

    Because I pointed out that you were wrong?

    Shame on me.

  • Terry Hill

    Mark, I’d love to see a single one.

    I’ve had my links removed by Erin, because they pointed to PubMed research showing the error in her implied GMO comment. She routinely screens and removes ALL references, just like her guy Mercola does, that threaten her echo chamber. Facts are NOT her friend.

    If you have a single PubMed piece, or ANY article that even references any research, to support your claim that GM Bt bacteria exist, please just post some exerts (not links – her adminions will delete them)

  • Terry Hill

    LOLOL… yeah, false flag global conspiracy chemtrail blah blah…

    No, really, this is comedy GOLD!

    I love how you guys go on personal attacks, and scream off-track about all the other conspiracy theories (read up on “Gish Gallop”) when presented with something you can’t refute.

    Back on track: Bt bacteria is NOT a GMO.

    If you have a valid argument or contest that statement, please step forward.

    If all you want to do is rant about Monsanto, GMO, Chemtrails, or any other conspiracy theory, STFU.

  • JoeFarmer

    Hmm, maybe you comment would have more gravitas if you knew how to spell, “suspicious”.

  • JoeFarmer

    Are you a U.S. citizen? Did you ever take an American Government course?

    It really floors me that immigrants studying for citizenship know more than people like you.

  • kfunk937

    I should think that using science to preserve ecosystems would appeal. I personally miss eastern trees, and wish we’d been able to do something to forestall chestnut, ash and elm loss. (I lost 30+ trees at once in my back yard alone. They were replaced for the most part with edge spp and invasive ones. Although the locusts did spread out some.)

  • JoeFarmer

    LMAO!

    I’ll bet all those, “As”, “Cs”, “Ts” and “Gs” are pretty confusing to you, huh?

  • JoeFarmer

    Yes, “Bt” is a natural protein. However, in GE crops, the traited crops express a protein, not a bacteria.

  • JoeFarmer

    Dutch Elm disease was a big thing when I was a little kid. My parents had a really old, big one removed from the front yard. I still remember counting 77 growth rings on the stump. While that’s not an infallible dating method it’s still sad. I was five at the time, so that means that tree started out in the late 1800s…

  • JoeFarmer

    And yet you’re unequipped to make any kind of factual rebuttal…

  • JoeFarmer

    And yet, you offer no fact-based rebuttal.

    I wonder why?

  • JoeFarmer

    “Who’s the idiot now?”

    Clearly you are, since you’re obviously pasting from Claire Robinson’s Big Book of Gish Gallops!

  • JoeFarmer

    How about you explain your knowledge of cry proteins, Dumb Debbie?

    Your answer will surely be amusing!

  • StopGMO

    Sorry, you’ve just proven yourself to be a liar!

    You claim “he doesn’t have ANY science or research to support that”

    Well, that’s funny because here is what Ciba Seeds said in their own words :

    “The cryIA(b) gene expressed in the transgenic corn plants encodes a protein that is identical to the first 648 amino acids of the full-length 1155 amino acid CryIA(b) protoxin that occurs in nature.”
    http//wwwaphisusdagovbrsaphisdocs9431901ppdf
    I realize you are an idiot and a liar so I’ll help you out. That means it is only about 56.3% identical. Which since you can’t do basic math means “Structurally, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialized in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.”

  • Terry Hill

    I know – I’ve been trying to explain this to StopGMO…

    He keeps posting cut-and-paste nonsense from Seralini about a claimed difference between the expressed Cry1 protein family in GMO corn is different to the Cry1 protein expressed by natural Bt bacteria, therefore ‘GMO Bacteria”!

    I’ve (multiple times, now) tried to explain that a) the whole Bt bacteria is not present in GMO corn, it’s selected genes from the bacteria…

    But then “CHEMTRAILS” !

  • StopGMO

    Joe Farmer, you sound just like Terry Hill, is that your new sock puppet? Is this why you are speaking for him?

  • StopGMO

    Again, nobody was talking to you.

  • Terry Hill

    Again, (this is getting repetitive) – Bt bacteria produces a range of proteins, in the Cry1 family, none of which have ever been shown to be harmful to humans.

    My books are pretty much the entire history of biology. They are uni biology books. They are supported by millions of scientists with hundreds of years of actual research.

    But I’m sure you’ve got one ‘paper’ from Seralini or Carmen which will trump all that, right?

  • JoeFarmer

    Doesn’t matter. The nonsense you, “debbie 3554” and “Debbie Owen” spew is cringe-worthy.

    Either you can back up what you post or you can’t. The track record shows, “can’t”.

  • JoeFarmer

    I speak for no one but myself.

    I do find it interesting how every single agricultural creationist-type like you has a locked comment history, though. It’s almost as if all of you know you are spewing nonsense and you know it.

  • JoeFarmer

    Yep.

    These people paste stuff from activist sites and not one of them can defend what they paste.

    Press them on the issue, and you’ll be called a, “shill” or worse. If I had a nickel for every time one of these doofs called me, “fake farmer”, I’d be able to take me and the Mrs. on a nice Carnival cruise.

    You’re dealing with agricultural creationists here. Just like the biblical creationists that think the earth is only 6,000 years old. Confront those folks with the fossil record, and they’ll tell you that was planted by beelzebub as a way to undermine your faith. Confront the agricultural creationists with actual agricultural science facts, and you get the same arguments.

    Have you noticed the overlap between the anti-vaxxers and the anti-“GMO” bunch?

  • Terry Hill

    Oh dear. Dude…again, with the sadly lacking comprehension skills… It’s just saying it’s roughly HALF THE LENGTH of the full DNA strand. It’s not 40% different. Do you get that? It’s because they only introduced 4 (four) genes from the Bt bacteria into the corn DNA.

    As you continually avoid the actual studies, because reading is hard, here is the full context for you:

    “The cry1A(b) gene introduced into Bt-176 corn was truncated version of the native cry1A(b) gene equivalent to the coding region for the N terminal 648 amino acids of the 1155 amino acid full length native Cry1A(b) protein”

    Secondly – and this is the whole point, which you sidestep rather than being caught out and have to admit you are, so obviously, WRONG…
    ITS THE PROTEIN. It is NOT, as you have claimed over and over in your blind ignorance – the Bt bacteria. THERE IS NOT GMO Bt BACTERIA!

    You can admit you’re wrong any time you like. Your multiple cut-and-paste claim that there is GMO Bt bacteria is wrong and continues to be wrong.

    Or just continue to raise false flags in an attempt to hide your ignorance.

  • Terry Hill

    Funny how no one who’s actually studies science every uses terms like ‘sheeple’ or ‘shill’ in response to presented evidence.

    People on here with knowledge and some science literacy are pointing out the blatant misrepresentation and implied nonsense in the article for the fear-mongering twaddle it actually is. The point is that they AREN’T facts.

  • Terry Hill

    It’s worse that that, Joe. It’s a magnet for every loose screw.

    Anti-vax, Chemtrail (like Tyranny Stopper), Anti-GMO, 9/11 Truthers, Obama Birthers, Big-Pharma, Big-Government… it’s the ‘who’s who of woo’ and conspiracy theories.

  • JoeFarmer

    I can only conclude that you’re a masochist given what you post.

    Congrats, I guess…

  • JoeFarmer

    FYI, “StopGMO” is a she.

    She also posts using the usernames, “debbie3554”, “Debbie Owen” and used to post under, “NoToGMO” where she tried to science, but was shut down by so many people she eventually abandoned that username.

  • kfunk937

    Or is a Poe? That’s what one would hope, at least.

  • JoeFarmer

    I think the common element with these people is a strong feeling of lack of control over their lives.

    It’s easy to latch on to fringe-woo when a person doesn’t have an education and just feels like they’re along for the ride.

    A first-world problem, to be sure. Darwin used to dispatch these people before the intertubes…

  • Terry Hill

    That makes sense. Never their real name, always changing. ‘Harder to hit a moving target’ approach.

    Still, thankfully, science doesn’t change to suit their beliefs.

  • JoeFarmer

    I wonder about that. Especially the ones who are so prolific at pasting “infographics”.

    It’s kind of like body modifications: “Please pay attention to me because I’m unique. I have the same thread-spool sized ear lobe expanders as everyone else at the coffee shop!”

  • hyperzombie

    Hey i didn’t notice the spelling mistake, Damn sunglasses.

  • Samuel Adams

    Actually, you are wrong. Monsanto even admits BT is a genetically modified mutation of what is in the plant. You had it wrong by the way. It is not a chemical in the soil. Many plants have a very mild form of a protection chemical. Monsanto took that and highly modified it. They have the patent on it. Go do your research and practice what you preach. I used to be involved in the Ag industry and watched people die from cancer due to using all of the monsanto crap. This genetically modified form ( BT) is not safe, if it was it would not kill insects. It destroys the digestive systems as well as other things in mammals. The powers that be know this and it is insane and evil to use this on the general public. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, or chemtrails. This has to do with fact. By the way, for your information stupid, the govt. has already come out and admitted they spray chemicals ( chemtrails ). That is not a theory. even a child can look up and see that what the planes do is not normal. So that tells me, you either rode the short bus to school and licked windows, or you are a stooge shill. Either way, you are a fool. As for the name calling, etc… you deserve it. You come on here and talk total bs and expect respect? Pfft… dream on sissy boy. Respect is earned and you haven’t earned it. It is extremely easy to google the patent for BT and the truly independent research done outside the U.S. on gmo crops that monsanto won’t allow in this country. Research in the U.S. for monsanto is a total fraud. That is why more and more countries such as Hungary, France Czech Republic, Russia etc… are banning gmo crops. Hit the road slick. You are in over your head this time. Go pick another topic where you might actually know what you are talking about. Like how to color with crayons on a kindergarten level.

  • JoeFarmer

    Sunglasses in Canada at this time of the year?

    Hmm…

    Sounds like someone stole an anhydrous tank and has been cooking some crystal…LOL!

  • hyperzombie

    Hmmm, I think that is an Organic farmer spraying. Roundup requires less safety equipment than is recommended to use a hammer.

  • hyperzombie

    Oh the lumpy rats. You do know that these rats get all lumpy all by themselves.

  • StopGMO

    Are you really so stupid that you can’t figure out that “it’s roughly HALF THE LENGTH of the full DNA strand” = about “40% different” Seriously, can you actually be this stupid?

    If you have 56.3% of a car are you really trying argue it is not “40% different” than a full car? LOL!

    You are clearly braindead! LOL! This is a perfect example of how you trolls just can’t stop lying!

    You claim, “THERE IS NOT GMO Bt BACTERIA!”

    Well that’s just another lie. http//wwwncbinlmnihgov>SLASH>pmcarticlesPMC168264pdf624367pdf

  • hyperzombie

    Shhhhh, I dont want the RCMP to show up.

  • JoeFarmer

    Share the wealth and no one will ever know…

  • ingram1225

    well it is a good thing they are only using BT not GM Bt This author even GIVES you the source and yet, you failed to read it (as did she).

  • hyperzombie

    LOL steal an anhydrous tank, In this part of the world they beg you to take them.

  • Terry Hill

    Oh dear.
    OK, the context still doesn’t occur to you. You are so lacking in science education. You seem totally incapable of establishing context, less it destroy your strongly held beliefs.

    Right – continuing with your false flag rubbish… the 40% different claim is used to intimate (do you need me to explain big words?) that there is a somehow a fundamental difference in the expressed protein(s), because of some ‘Frankenstein’ hypothesis. 40% of a gene, truncated or not, if it still contains the correct amino acids for producing the protein, that protein will occur.

    Continuing from the report (the NEXT sentence):
    “This 648 amino acid peptide includes the portion responsible for insecticidal activity, and is processed by proteases in the lepidopteran gut to yield an insecticidal protein of 564-578 amino acids.”

    It is the entirety of the DNA required to produce the Cry1- proteins. There is NO difference, within the included DNA sequence, to the full DNA sequence of the Bt bacteria.

    Just because you don’t understand the science, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    Now, back to your false assumption that even Nutbag Erin isn’t stupid enough to make – that there is some type of GMO Bt bacteria (which there isn’t)…

    Your “link”, if that’s what it is supposed to be, has been cut off. If you believe you have some research or study that shows there is actually a Genetically modified Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria in existence, please post the 8-digit PubMed ID number at the end of the URL.

    I’d REALLY like to read it. Really. It’d be a change for you to present some actual evidence to support your claims.

    Oh, are you still claiming the first article you posted shows ‘GMO bacteria’, or do you still claim it shows that?

  • JoeFarmer

    Lots of them around here right now. Hopefully you don’t see one rolling down the highway on its own after some doof tried to use a bolt as a hitch pin…

  • ingram1225

    mine was too

  • StopGMO

    I have read it and I am well aware, but thanks.

  • hyperzombie

    Yep, nothing worse that seeing a anhydrous tank passing you, and then realizing that it is your anhydrous tank..,.

  • Terry Hill

    Hi Sam, welcome to the stupid party, and thanks for your contribution.
    Can I ask what science education you have? Any? Or is the ‘feels’?

    1. “Monsanto even admits BT is a genetically modified mutation of what is in the plant’? I guess you don’t understand how genetics work. Bt crops use rDNA, which is the corn’s DNA with a section of Bt bacteria (sorry, it IS a bacteria) DNA spliced in using some really cool science you wouldn’t even begin to understand. So, for a start, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacteria. Google it. Go to Wikipedia – or go to Cornell Univesity and search “Bacillus Thuringiensis”

    2. “It’s not a chemical in the soil”. Well, duh. I’m sorry if you have trouble with words, but I clearly said “it’s a bacteria”. Maybe you should look that up, too.

    3. “Monsanto took that and highly modified it. They have the patent on it.”. I’d like to see their patent on Bt bacteria. Because I’m pretty sure they have a patent (several) on GMO Bt crops (oh, I better explain that again – crops into which they’ve inserted part of the DNA sequence of the Bt bacteria), but you can’t patent the naturally occurring, soil dwelling bacteria that is present all over the world.

    OK, funny enough, you then spear off into conspiracy theory land…
    4. “By the way, for your information stupid, the govt. has already come out and admitted they spray chemicals ( chemtrails )”. If by this, you mean that the government occasionally does cloud seeding for rain, then you are correct. But if you read the newspapers, or bothered asking the local meteorological office, they actually advise when and where they do this. The term ‘chemtrails’, indicating some global depopulation/social engineering/whatever conspiracy something-something you choose (Big Government!!!), then… no.
    Again, your apparent lack of understanding of other simple science such as meteorology, physics and/or aerodynamics, seems to mean you are unable to grasp what are actually quite simple concepts of how contrails form, and why they persist at certain altitudes and certain conditions. The guys at Contrailscience try and explain it for the less aeronautically minded of us, so it should suit you fine – Search “why do some contrails persist”.

    5. “It is extremely easy to google the patent for BT”. Then show me. Because again, you confuse the patent for Bt Crops, not Bt bacteria. Please, how many more times… please check your facts.

    6. “the truly independent research done outside the U.S.” – like me, who studies biology at an Australian university, with NO money from biotech (no, not even Monsanto), and are, like HUNDREDS of other universities around the world, working to develop GM crops for our future. But facts…ouch!

    7. “That is why more and more countries such as Hungary, France Czech Republic, Russia etc… are banning gmo crops” Oops! Fact check time!!

    Some of these countries bandied about as “banning all GMOs” are simply banning some GMO breeds or types, but continuing with others – but NaturalNews and Dr Mercola aren’t going to tell you that, because it’d spoil their fear campaign. No, sorry, but there are only about one or two actually ban all. Even those that ban growing them have no ban on importing or eating them. And MOST of these are temporary ‘moratoriums’ until they gather more evidence from their own science agencies (News Flash, the EU has recently approved more GMO crops by DuPont. Nope, nothing about that from activists.

    Have you Googled ‘countries who ban GMO’ lately? There’s a whole RANGE of numbers, from 19 to about 57. Because they’re all made up for a collective ‘argumentum ad populum’ – arguing that ‘everyone else does it, so we should’.
    If I was to say “homosexuality is banned in more countries than GMOs”, should we do that too!
    What if I said “there are also heaps of countries where WOMEN can’t vote or drive, so WE should do that too!”
    It’s the ‘lemming’ approach.
    Can you see what a great argument that is? No, I guess you don’t.

    8. One last time. I am degree qualified educator and researcher, working in Aviation Health Science, currently studying biology at university. I also happen to have grown up on farms, coming from farming families. I would hazard a guess I have FAR more knowledge and understanding of this than you ever will.

    I will ignore your name calling, because frankly, I couldn’t be bothered.

    If you are interested in actual science, though, please ask – I am very willing to assist you by pointing to a mountain of non-propaganda, non-Monsanto/biotech/big Pharma studies from around the world – universities, science institutes, government safety and science agencies – that might be able to help you.

  • StopGMO

    I have and always will, it is you who can’t back anything up and continue bullying people while you’re at it. Give it up fake farmer!

  • ned kelly

    they did this over Auckland NZ years ago, still hearing/meeting people who got sick from it, one has just had her thyroid removed. All for a “supposed” moth, as well.

  • StopGMO

    You are so wrong. I am not the people you think I am fail! lol. What a joke! You’ve just proven you know absolutely nothing!

  • dujaa74

    Isn’t this how a fictional movie ‘Zombie Apocalypse’ supposed to begin? Just saying …

  • Jest

    A health nut expert who doesn’t know that bt has been used for decades in organic gardening.
    credibility shot.

  • JanS

    when you started calling the other poster “stupid”, I stopped reading.

  • JanS

    how do you know the opposaite…Opinions are a dime a dozen…got facts? Quote sources(or your scientific credentials)…thanks..

  • JanS

    WTF is up with all this childish name calling? Who the hell wants to listen to you try to talk intelligently about the subject when you act like a 5 year old ?

  • JanS

    we use Bt on our apple trees in our back yard 25 years ago…it’s nothing new..

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Oh good boy, hes going to school. So what we all did. I am not here to blow up my ego by talking about my degree, what a shallow person you are. I have little patience or respect for idiots. Therefore you get the “retarded” line, I got others but that one seemed to fit. Still does.

  • Biron_1

    ” they get paid to twist the truth and lie”

    Oh that’s rich. This coming from someone who never backs her claims with evidence.

    I’m still waiting for you to present a shred of evidence that I’ve posted as “Mikey.” I have yet to see one comparison of posts showing similarity.

    Not only do you not present evidence — you lie about presenting evidence.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Trouble finding a toilet, because the BS coming from your mouth belongs there

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Derpa Derp Derps

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Shill compartmentalization and absolute fear that you are responsible for the chemtrails. We already know the Navy uses the trails for WIFI. You might think you know something, but you don’t.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    go to geoengineeringwatch dot org
    tons of info gathered by educated people who are not owned by the government and might offer actual truth as opposed to the talking heads “who work in the field”
    can’t tell you how many “shills” come out whenever this discussion is brought up.
    geo-engineering (chemtrails) is a tool to be used to force climate change on us
    among other possibilities

  • StopGMO

    You just can’t stop lying can you?

    “There is NO difference, within the included DNA sequence, to the full DNA sequence of the Bt bacteria.”

    There is no difference except for that 40%! LOL! You are just too stupid to understand basic math and science! “Structurally, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 maize (formerly commercialized in the EU, now withdrawn) and natural Bt toxin.”

    You just keep repeating the same lie as if you think if you repeat it enough times it will become true. LOL!

    You claim, “THERE IS NOT GMO Bt BACTERIA!”

    Well that’s just another lie

    PMC143673

    PMC168264

    etc.

    I’ve given you plenty of evidence, and all you’ve posted is lies. Since I’ve proven you to be a liar over and over now, and all you have done is repeat the same lies over and over, there is no point in continuing on because you are just a flat out liar.

    This site does not accept links, therefore you get what you get.

  • Kimberly Ireland

    WTF is wrong with people? Will they EVER learn????????

  • Jimmy Dean

    May I ask how you seem to know so much about this moth and bt? If there is no good alternative to spraying does not mean it should be used in that manner. I don’t know if there is, but it would seem hand application would be preferable. Do you have any unbiased scientific research to show that inhaling aerosol bt is ok? The asthma study is not. Seems from the info I can find that this is primarily an east coast issue, not NW. Further, according to the USDA past aerosol sprays have only been done in forest lands or with permission from land owners, not cities:
    “Over the last 20 years, several millions of acres of forest land have
    been aerially sprayed with pesticides in order to suppress outbreak gypsy moth populations.Though some areas are treated by private companies under contract with land owners, most areas are sprayed under joint programs of state governments and the USDA Forest Service. Your local

    extension service”
    can provide more detailed information about programs in your area.

  • razorjack

    Fake farmer is a well known industry troll unless he was canned when he and hyperzombie got banned at EcoWatch for bad behavior and trolling.

    You are a disgrace to the human race, Porky. You are a liar and a misogynistic low life scum dweller.

  • razorjack

    TRANSLATION: Gish gallop = any study or other valid information that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda. GMO pesticide industry disinformation goons use this term to try and dismiss truthful information instead of dealing with information they can not refute.

  • razorjack

    Your comments about the Seralini study are not base on the actual facts. The Seralini study was a toxicology study that was not looking for tumors or cancer.

    The industry corrupted the journal that rescinded the study by having their Monsanto operative appointed to a brand new special editorial position. The study was republished it has been peer reviewed three times ad it remains in the scientific literature today.

    THe GMO pesticide industry likes to talk about the tumors because it diverts attention away from the very serious and troubling toxacollogy finding of this important study.

    The industry suppression of Seralini and his work just demonstrates one thing and that is the fact that corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science cult ideology must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

    You can read about the real facts of this sleazy affair here: http://www dot sgr dot org dot uk/resource…

  • Debbie Owen

    Oh look, the dumb fake farmer is here to add his usual nonsense and defend poisons.

  • Debbie Owen

    Can’t dispute the facts so you claim conspiracy, typical of pro-GMO activists.

  • Debbie Owen

    Hello Mikey, i see you are still obsessed, too bad for you.

  • Debbie Owen

    Then you wouldn’t mind having it sprayed all over you.

  • Debbie Owen

    LOL, now you are trying to spin the facts. There is still at least a 40% difference so they are not the same as you are trying to claim.

  • Debbie Owen

    Ahh, look at the silly pro-GMO/poison activist. He/she still believes that claiming others are ignorant makes him/her look smart, another failed pro-GMO/poison tactic.

  • Ben Jammin

    Yeah it only took them 32 years to “conclusively” determine that it was bad…

  • Debbie Owen

    Another failed pro-GMO/poison tactic, trying to discredit any study that doesn’t support the pro-GMO/poison agenda. Stay in school, maybe one day you will learn to think for yourself.

  • Ben Jammin

    Folks – I just posted a whole bunch of my writings and scientific cites on BTK spraying from my research prior to the 2000 spray. It is on my Facebook timeline and publicly posted.

  • Debbie Owen

    How is that proof that people were directly sprayed with Bt since the 1940s? It isn’t.

  • Ben Jammin

    You are dead wrong. Do some research. Furthermore, it is the inert ingredients in the BTK formulations that are of most concern…

  • Debbie Owen

    As I already said, you can go to Seattle and wait for the red and white plane if you believe it’s harmless.

  • Mav Black

    iF THEY WERE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE DAMAGE THESE INSECTS BRING THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE IMPORTED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE THAT CAME WITH THEM.

  • Debbie Owen

    It isn’t natural for crops to be genetically engineered to produce Bt, you seem to miss that point.

  • Ben Jammin

    An Open Letter to the Community by Benjamin S. Schroeter TO: All Community Members

    DATE: April 3, 2000

    RE: The Ballard/Magnolia 2000
    Gypsy Moth Eradication Project

    SUBJ: Corporate America,
    Regulatory Agencies and The Public
    Health – a Prescription for Death and
    Disease.

    The Seattle Post Intelligencer, and Andrew Schneider, have recently taken the time in a series of investigative articles on vermiculite and asbestos, to uncover
    some of the dangers of toxic exposures that we, the American public, would
    never dream could occur. Exposure by the media of the fallacy of our perception of presumptive public health security is sorely needed and greatly appreciated.

    It is quite clear to all that have read the articles, that the agencies that are supposed to protect the public and their health have been failing us since their creation. It is my opinion that the best way to get results is, unfortunately, to publicize the death of many people while showing a direct correlation of agency failures to protect public health. This was well done by Mr. Schneider in the vermiculite / asbestos articles as evidenced by immediate corrective reaction from (ir)responsible governmental agencies.

    The recent exposure of vermiculite and asbestos being “recycled” in lawn and garden products has illustrated serious health oversights by our governmental agencies. Another serious “oversight” is ready to occur in Seattle; with the Washington State Department of Agriculture’s 2000 Gypsy Moth Eradication Project. The Asbestos story and the Ballard Gypsy Moth Spraying story are one and the same.

    It is the story about how corporate America has been “recycling” hazardous
    waste in consumer products and (EPA approved, USDA recommended) pesticides. It is a story of science bought and paid for by corporate America.
    It is the story of the poisoning of America. The issue is not about Ballard but about exposing the American public to dangerous chemicals and toxic waste. It is
    about the relationship between corporate America, regulatory agencies and death. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    The facts of the Ballard spraying are standard for defining the corporate-governmental relationship. The story is about the complete disregard of common sense by placing profit over public health concerns. It is about government spin-doctors that do the bidding of the corporations. It is about “what we don’t know will kill us”.

    The following facts about the Ballard project are not in dispute:

    WSDA wants to spray 750 square acres of residential and commercial area of The City of Seattle.

    The chosen product is a Btk formulation; FORAY 48B from Abbott Laboratories / Valent BioSciences.

    FORAY 48B is 97.9% inert ingredients. (see label)

    The Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) allows hazardous
    chemicals to be put in pesticides and not be disclosed under the claim of “trade secret” (as is the case here FORAY 48B). WSDA, USDA and the manufacturer are refusing to identify the inert ingredients.

    By admission of WSDA, USDA and the manufacturer; FORAY 48B has multiple unidentified inert ingredients which are found on EPA “List 4” and one unidentified inert ingredient that is found on EPA “List 3”.

    Some of the chemicals on EPA “List 3” which have been found in previous FORAY 48B formulations include:

    SODIUM HYDROXIDE
    SULFURIC ACID
    PHOSPHORIC ACID
    METHYL PARABEN
    POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE

    See Bacillus Thuringiesis by Carrie Swadener; Journal of Pesticide Reform Fall 1994, Vol. 14, No.3. here.

    The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for FORAY 48B clearly states that the following HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS have NOT been DETERMINED:

    Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure – NOT DETERMINED
    Oral Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED
    Dermal Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED
    Inhalation Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED
    Corrosiveness – NOT DETERMINED (see ingredients in above #6)
    Dermal Irritation – NOT DETERMINED
    Ocular Irritation – NOT DETERMINED
    Dermal Sensitization – NOT DETERMINED
    Target Organs – Possibly skin, eyes and respiratory tract
    Special Target Organ Effects – NOT DETERMINED
    Carcinogenicity Information – NOT DETERMINED

    There are two ways of interpreting the Health information from the MSDS. We can continue with our historical disregard for common sense and listen to
    corporate and agency spin-doctors, or we can pay attention to the facts we do know and opt to err on the side of caution.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that if you get sprayed with sulfuric acid that it is probably and likely not a good thing to have happen. Understand that for an Agency determination of adverse health probability there must be a 95% chance that this is true. A 90% probability finding gets a “not determined” rating. It usually takes at least 20 years of science to make the determination.

    Just the other day the P-I had an article about Agent Orange (a USDA approved pesticide) being tied to diabetes. This took 30 years of science to figure out. A governmental apology in the year 2030 for the spraying of Ballard residents in 2000 is no consolation.

    The WSDA is implying that FORAY 48B is safe because it has never been determined (by at least 95% probability) that it is harmful. Ask any officer of the EPA, USDA, Abbott Laboratories, or the WSDA if the aerial spraying of Ballard and Magnolia is safe. They will never ever say “yes, it is safe”. They will say that no adverse health effects have ever been proven. They will say it is an approved pesticide. They will say that the active ingredient is biological and approved for organic gardens. However, they will never say that FORAY 48B is safe.

    The public health is at risk and we can not trust our government to watch over us. The known facts of the Ballard Gypsy Moth project make clear the dangerous relationship between the regulatory agencies and corporate America.

    Unfortunately, the law allows these types of projects to occur (which is a
    whole other story). Libby Montana and vermiculite is small potatoes to the issue that faces Seattle. There are plenty of dead bodies already associated to this systemic societal failure to grasp the issue and understanding of this relationship; lots of dead bodies. We do not need a body count in the future and we do not want to have to count them here in Seattle.

    Ben Schroeter

  • Ben Jammin

    We’ve been through this before…

    An Open Letter to the Community by Benjamin S. Schroeter TO: All Community Members

    DATE: April 3, 2000

    RE: The Ballard/Magnolia 2000
    Gypsy Moth Eradication Project

    SUBJ: Corporate America,
    Regulatory Agencies and The Public
    Health – a Prescription for Death and
    Disease.

    The
    Seattle Post Intelligencer, and Andrew Schneider, have recently taken
    the time in a series of investigative articles on vermiculite and
    asbestos, to uncover
    some of the dangers of toxic exposures that we, the American public, would
    never
    dream could occur. Exposure by the media of the fallacy of our
    perception of presumptive public health security is sorely needed and
    greatly appreciated.

    It is quite clear to all that have read the
    articles, that the agencies that are supposed to protect the public and
    their health have been failing us since their creation. It is my opinion
    that the best way to get results is, unfortunately, to publicize the
    death of many people while showing a direct correlation of agency
    failures to protect public health. This was well done by Mr. Schneider
    in the vermiculite / asbestos articles as evidenced by immediate
    corrective reaction from (ir)responsible governmental agencies.

    The
    recent exposure of vermiculite and asbestos being “recycled” in lawn
    and garden products has illustrated serious health oversights by our
    governmental agencies. Another serious “oversight” is ready to occur in
    Seattle; with the Washington State Department of Agriculture’s 2000
    Gypsy Moth Eradication Project. The Asbestos story and the Ballard Gypsy
    Moth Spraying story are one and the same.

    It is the story about how corporate America has been “recycling” hazardous
    waste
    in consumer products and (EPA approved, USDA recommended) pesticides.
    It is a story of science bought and paid for by corporate America.
    It
    is the story of the poisoning of America. The issue is not about
    Ballard but about exposing the American public to dangerous chemicals
    and toxic waste. It is
    about the relationship between corporate America, regulatory agencies and death. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    The
    facts of the Ballard spraying are standard for defining the
    corporate-governmental relationship. The story is about the complete
    disregard of common sense by placing profit over public health concerns.
    It is about government spin-doctors that do the bidding of the
    corporations. It is about “what we don’t know will kill us”.

    The following facts about the Ballard project are not in dispute:

    WSDA wants to spray 750 square acres of residential and commercial area of The City of Seattle.

    The chosen product is a Btk formulation; FORAY 48B from Abbott Laboratories / Valent BioSciences.

    FORAY 48B is 97.9% inert ingredients. (see label)

    The Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) allows hazardous

    chemicals to be put in pesticides and not be disclosed under the
    claim of “trade secret” (as is the case here FORAY 48B). WSDA, USDA and
    the manufacturer are refusing to identify the inert ingredients.

    By
    admission of WSDA, USDA and the manufacturer; FORAY 48B has multiple
    unidentified inert ingredients which are found on EPA “List 4” and one
    unidentified inert ingredient that is found on EPA “List 3”.

    Some of the chemicals on EPA “List 3” which have been found in previous FORAY 48B formulations include:

    SODIUM HYDROXIDE
    SULFURIC ACID
    PHOSPHORIC ACID
    METHYL PARABEN
    POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE

    See Bacillus Thuringiesis by Carrie Swadener; Journal of Pesticide Reform Fall 1994, Vol. 14, No.3. here.

    The
    Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for FORAY 48B clearly states that the
    following HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS have NOT been DETERMINED:

    Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure – NOT DETERMINED
    Oral Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED
    Dermal Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED
    Inhalation Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED
    Corrosiveness – NOT DETERMINED (see ingredients in above #6)
    Dermal Irritation – NOT DETERMINED
    Ocular Irritation – NOT DETERMINED
    Dermal Sensitization – NOT DETERMINED
    Target Organs – Possibly skin, eyes and respiratory tract
    Special Target Organ Effects – NOT DETERMINED
    Carcinogenicity Information – NOT DETERMINED

    There
    are two ways of interpreting the Health information from the MSDS. We
    can continue with our historical disregard for common sense and listen
    to
    corporate and agency spin-doctors, or we can pay attention to the facts we do know and opt to err on the side of caution.

    It
    doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that if you get sprayed with
    sulfuric acid that it is probably and likely not a good thing to have
    happen. Understand that for an Agency determination of adverse health
    probability there must be a 95% chance that this is true. A 90%
    probability finding gets a “not determined” rating. It usually takes at
    least 20 years of science to make the determination.

    Just the
    other day the P-I had an article about Agent Orange (a USDA approved
    pesticide) being tied to diabetes. This took 30 years of science to
    figure out. A governmental apology in the year 2030 for the spraying of
    Ballard residents in 2000 is no consolation.

    The WSDA is implying
    that FORAY 48B is safe because it has never been determined (by at least
    95% probability) that it is harmful. Ask any officer of the EPA, USDA,
    Abbott Laboratories, or the WSDA if the aerial spraying of Ballard and
    Magnolia is safe. They will never ever say “yes, it is safe”. They will
    say that no adverse health effects have ever been proven. They will say
    it is an approved pesticide. They will say that the active ingredient is
    biological and approved for organic gardens. However, they will never
    say that FORAY 48B is safe.

    The public health is at risk and we
    can not trust our government to watch over us. The known facts of the
    Ballard Gypsy Moth project make clear the dangerous relationship between
    the regulatory agencies and corporate America.

    Unfortunately, the law allows these types of projects to occur (which is a
    whole
    other story). Libby Montana and vermiculite is small potatoes to the
    issue that faces Seattle. There are plenty of dead bodies already
    associated to this systemic societal failure to grasp the issue and
    understanding of this relationship; lots of dead bodies. We do not need
    a body count in the future and we do not want to have to count them
    here in Seattle.

    Ben Schroeter

  • Debbie Owen

    It isn’t natural for plants to have been genetically engineered to produce Bt. Natural Bt mostly degrades in the sunlight, but the Bt can’t do that when it’s produced within the GMO plant. Now humans are consuming more Bt than ever due to GMO Bt crops, so claiming it’s ok because humans have been consuming it “forever” is just ridiculous.

  • Ben Jammin

    There’s always an uneducated bigot posting here. Please try and finish high school okay?

  • Debbie Owen

    This isn’t about all spontaneous GMOs in nature, just food crops. Nice try though.

  • Debbie Owen

    Clearly you missed the point again, and you call others idiots. LOL

  • Debbie Owen

    Don’t you know others can read the comments for themselves? Or perhaps you are a little slow at reading comprehension. You keep repeating that Bt is not GM as if anyone claimed it was. But at least you admit that there is a difference between Bt spray and the Bt within some GMO crops. Most pro-GMO activists don’t like to admit that.

  • Debbie Owen

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You’re just trying to spin the facts and it’s not working at all, LOL.

  • Ralph

    What this article does not mention…. The pesticide being used is called Foray 48B, which uses a naturally occurring soil bacteria, Btk. This bacteria is harmful to caterpillars in the larval stage, but not to humans. This is not a GMO. (The claim that this is a GMO because companies that make GMO’s use this bacteria is akin to saying a glass of water is poison because many poisons are mixed with water.) This pesticide is regularly used in organic farming, so if you eat organic vegetables, you have eaten something that has been treated with Foray. Likewise, you have been exposed to naturally occurring Btk through the food you eat or through dirt that you have come into contact with.

  • Debbie Owen

    Pretending to be smart about science by claiming others are lacking in education is just a failed pro-GMO tactic. Most people can see right through that nonsense, your spin isn’t really working here.

  • Debbie Owen

    Prove it.

  • Debbie Owen

    I post using my real name. You should stay in school and perhaps you will someday learn not to believe everything a fake farmer on the internet tells you.

  • Debbie Owen

    Then go have yourself sprayed and let us know what happens.

  • Debbie Owen

    LOL, what a hypocrite. Your comments are full of personal attacks and you have nothing except claims of conspiracy. And no one here claimed that natural Bt is GMO, nice attempt at trying to deflect though. By the way, some of your comments are sounding a lot like the fake farmer’s. Hmmm……..

  • Debbie Owen

    You do know that Monsanto used the same type rats in their studies.

  • Derek Ward

    A pity that there isn’t a limit on how many meme’s and stupid comments that someone like “Tyranny Stopper” is allowed to post on one article. Makes it difficult to follow the comments.

  • Debbie Owen

    LOL!!!! Did you forget about all the name calling you’ve done here? Hypocrite.

  • Debbie Owen

    Hypocrite.

  • Lorna Walker

    Whomever is right in this discussion, either way this is not normal. Not how nature intended. We need to stop fucking with it.

  • Biron_1

    You have this thing about “Mikey.” What you don’t have is evidence linking us. Just lies.

  • Ben Jammin

    The chosen product is a Btk formulation; FORAY 48B from
    Abbott Laboratories / Valent BioSciences.

    FORAY 48B is 97.9% inert ingredients. (see label)

    The Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
    (FIFRA) allows hazardous chemicals to be put in pesticides and not be disclosed
    under the claim of “trade secret” (as is the case here FORAY 48B).
    WSDA, USDA and the manufacturer are refusing to identify the inert ingredients.

    By admission of WSDA, USDA and the manufacturer; FORAY 48B
    has multiple unidentified inert ingredients which are found on EPA “List
    4” and one unidentified inert ingredient that is found on EPA “List
    3”. Some of the chemicals on EPA “List 3” which have been found
    in previous FORAY 48B formulations include:

    SODIUM HYDROXIDE

    SULFURIC ACID

    PHOSPHORIC ACID

    METHYL PARABEN

    POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE

    See Bacillus Thuringiesis by Carrie Swadener; Journal of
    Pesticide Reform Fall 1994, Vol. 14, No.3. here.

    The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for FORAY 48B clearly
    states that the following HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS have NOT been DETERMINED:

    Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure – NOT DETERMINED

    Oral Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED

    Dermal Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED

    Inhalation Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED

    Corrosiveness – NOT DETERMINED (see ingredients in above #6)

    Dermal Irritation – NOT DETERMINED

    Ocular Irritation – NOT DETERMINED

    Dermal Sensitization – NOT DETERMINED

    Target Organs – Possibly skin, eyes and respiratory tract

    Special Target Organ Effects – NOT DETERMINED

    Carcinogenicity Information – NOT DETERMINED

    There are two ways of interpreting the Health information
    from the MSDS. We can continue with our historical disregard for common sense
    and listen to corporate and agency spin-doctors, or we can pay attention to the
    facts we do know and opt to err on the side of caution.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that if you get
    sprayed with sulfuric acid that it is probably and likely not a good thing to
    have happen. Understand that for an Agency determination of adverse health
    probability there must be a 95% chance that this is true. A 90% probability
    finding gets a “not determined” rating. It usually takes at least 20
    years of science to make the determination.

  • Ben Jammin

    FORAY 48B is 97.9% inert ingredients. (see label)

    The Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
    (FIFRA) allows hazardous chemicals to be put in pesticides and not be disclosed
    under the claim of “trade secret” (as is the case here FORAY 48B).
    WSDA, USDA and the manufacturer are refusing to identify the inert ingredients.

    By admission of WSDA, USDA and the manufacturer; FORAY 48B
    has multiple unidentified inert ingredients which are found on EPA “List
    4” and one unidentified inert ingredient that is found on EPA “List
    3”. Some of the chemicals on EPA “List 3” which have been found
    in previous FORAY 48B formulations include:

    SODIUM HYDROXIDE

    SULFURIC ACID

    PHOSPHORIC ACID

    METHYL PARABEN

    POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE

    See Bacillus Thuringiesis by Carrie Swadener; Journal of
    Pesticide Reform Fall 1994, Vol. 14, No.3. here.

    The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for FORAY 48B clearly
    states that the following HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS have NOT been DETERMINED:

    Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure – NOT DETERMINED

    Oral Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED

    Dermal Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED

    Inhalation Toxicity – NOT DETERMINED

    Corrosiveness – NOT DETERMINED (see ingredients in above #6)

    Dermal Irritation – NOT DETERMINED

    Ocular Irritation – NOT DETERMINED

    Dermal Sensitization – NOT DETERMINED

    Target Organs – Possibly skin, eyes and respiratory tract

    Special Target Organ Effects – NOT DETERMINED

    Carcinogenicity Information – NOT DETERMINED

  • razorjack

    Everyone knows you are little Mikey boy.

  • hyperzombie

    I know a bit about Bt and the gypsy moth because this issue came up where I live, when they were spraying years ago. I also use Bt occasionally.

    They gypsy moth lives in the crown of the tree, and I dont how if you have ever been to seattle but the trees can be well over 100 ft tall. Bt degrades fairly fast so you need to hit the little critters all at once so there is a very small chance of some of them surviving. A couple of survivors and you will have 1000s next year.

    Well I dont have any studies on the inhalation of Bt, but it is a natural soil bactrim and every time it is windy or dusty you are inhaling it.

    The Max application rate for Bt is 2 lbs per acre, so it is very little. You are most likely exposed to more Bt when you knock of the mud from your boots after a hard days work in the garden.

  • hyperzombie

    We already fucked with it when we unintentionally imported the moth from Europe back in the late 1800s. So according to you we should just let the moth kill millions of acres of forests?

  • hyperzombie

    ust the other day the P-I had an article about Agent Orange (a USDA approved
    pesticide) being tied to diabetes”

    Agent Orange was never a USDA approved pesticide (plus the USDA does not approve pesticides) it was a weapon of war.

    The rest of your post is just as ill informed.

  • hyperzombie

    Maybe he is a native. Colonists from Europe and Asia imported the moth, and without them there would be no gypsy moth to worry about.

  • hyperzombie

    Well they did spray the East Coast years ago, maybe that explains Washington DC.

  • hyperzombie

    I have been sprayed, nothing happened. You most likely have as well.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Correction. Nice success. Last time I checked sweet potatoes and beef were food.

  • Debbie Owen

    Perhaps that’s why you are now a hyperzombie.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Isn’t it a little past time for you to learn to abandon the naturalist fallacy.

  • Debbie Owen

    And as I already said, sweet potatoes is the only one you could come up with, beef doesn’t come from a crop.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Also it has been found on the bottoms of leaves and in the water we swim in. Not dangerous at all.

  • Debbie Owen

    Isn’t it about time you come up with a good argument.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Just did, you are just to daft to realize it and learn.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    I think you would find that livestock is considered a crop by those who raise them. But then that would require asking a farmer a question. Now go look up the Swedish study I mentioned and find out there are more.

  • hyperzombie

    And your point is what?

    SODIUM HYDROXIDE, ??? This chemical is everywhere, it is commonly known as lye.
    SULFURIC ACID??? It is already in the air, and in higher concentrations in cities.
    PHOSPHORIC ACID?? this is also already in the air and is a food additive.
    METHYL PARABEN?? A food additive and it is also used in cosmetics, found in nature all over the place.
    POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE?? Also a food additive, and is also found in nature. It is a insect pheromone.

  • hyperzombie

    Well if you live on the east coast or in the North west, you have been sprayed with Bt. If you live in the middle of the continent, farmers spray Bt all the time. Good chance you have been sprayed.

  • Ben Jammin

    Agent Orange wad DDT, an approved pesticide. I have the letter to prove it.

    Try doing your research Before You cast aspersions it might serve you well!

  • hyperzombie

    Totally false, Agent Orange was a combination of 2-4-d and 2-4-5t, not DDT. DDT is an insecticide, and is still in limited use today. Agent Orange is a defoliant, that was only used during the Vietnam war, and for nothing else.

  • hyperzombie

    Debbie is Daft? say it ain’t so….

  • hyperzombie

    So we should just let the moths kill all the hardwood trees in Seattle?

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Not melons, squash. They inject the squash because the squash vine borer hatches and burrows into the stem right away. Thus it is not susceptible to most insecticides. Also, it only takes on per plant to reduce yields to near zero. Typically what happens is the plant produces about 2 or 3 fruits and then loses vigor due to the tunneling. Now try to remember this.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Sorry, that would damage my rep for being honest.

  • hyperzombie

    I thought Squash were melons? Round fleshy edible fruits are melons… Ooops, sorry Squash is not edible..

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Correct, it is a game similar to handball or raquetball. the main difference is that the squash ball is grown on a vine.

  • StopGMO

    I bet Terry Hill is Fake Farmers sock puppet. They sound so much alike. Rude, name-calling bullies. They have nothing better to do so they continue making up more lies and bs! They must have really boring lives.

  • Terry Hill

    Calling someone ignorant is a bit different than calling them a ‘retard’, don’t you think?

    And I’ll take that as ‘no, I don’t have any valid argue eat’

    Well done.

  • Terry Hill

    You are very entertaining, but also sad. It doesn’t seem to matter to you how many facts or evidence people place in front of you, you’ll not adjust your deep-set beliefs based on fear and lack of education.
    All those wonderful conspiracy theories you hold so dear must play havoc with your paranoia and general mental health, though.

    But I’ll just take all these personal attacks for what they are : that you simply have no facts or evidence to refute my argument.

    Luckily for the rest of us, science doesn’t care what you ‘believe’.

  • Terry Hill

    Please explain which ones have scary names you don’t understand?

  • Terry Hill

    Everyone is waiting for you to actually present any evidence you have to support any of your claims.
    How many other identities do you use on these forums, again?

  • Terry Hill

    You really need help with your reading skills.
    I’ve presented a large volume of evidence supporting my claims here, including the initial reason I posted, stating that there is no GMO Bt bacteria – the basis of Nutjob Erin’s entire article.
    I’ve even reposted a few as Erin’s Adminions have deleted my posts with links to PubMed research that destroys the entire basis of her hypothesis.
    But you continue to ignore this, with false flags, to divert the conversation.

    There is no GMO Bt bacteria.
    If you have some evidence to contradict this statement, please post it.

    If you don’t (because the whole world of biology knows there isn’t), then this entire article has been proven to be propaganda with no basis in fact.

    Prove you are actually an adult who is capable of reasoned argument.

    (And please, don’t be like that other conspiracy theorist who posts about differences in toxins from Bt crops – that has nothing to do with the Bt or Btk-strain of bacteria)

  • Terry Hill

    No evidence Or anything to argue your point, so to avoid slipping back into irrelevance, you start personal attacks. Excellent work, Einstein.

  • Terry Hill

    Another conspiracy! Yes, the mysterious operatives of big industry suppressed the lone voice trying to expose the truth.

    No.

    You haven’t even got the right study. He’s pumped out quite a few. He’s even good enough to show how the organic food industry has paid for his ‘opinions’, though.

    Let’s just get back on track – Gish gallop is where you obfuscate the point of the argue me t by taking off track whenever You cannot defend a point – effectively diverting rather than admitting the obvious…that you’re wrong.

    I referenced the point of Seralini in StopGMOs cut-and-paste mania, where he tries to say GMO Bt bacteria is real because he’s referencing an article that claims differences in the Bt toxin between natural Bt bacteria and the Bt genes present in Bt crops.

    No, there is no GMO Bt bacteria.

    As this is the basis of the entire article – note the title – the whole article’s validity is questionable. It’s nothing more than propaganda, feeding the ignorant.

  • Terry Hill

    Sure. Quite happy if you do. Ian’s they’ve done eating studies, id even eat it. No problems!

  • Terry Hill

    Do it for yourself. There are several easily accessible university studies. It’s actually even on the Bt MSDS. It states results of human consumption tests as well as inhaling tests.
    Right back at you: “do some research” – all you anti science troll love throwing that out, yet demanding ‘research’ from everyone else, only to dismiss or ignore it when it’s presented… I’m still waiting to see any actual, valid research from anyone stating there are any problems here.

  • Terry Hill

    Show me that study, Debbie. You keeping claiming they exist.
    I came on here claiming that there is no GMO Bt bacteria, as your apparently infallible oracle Erin has implied (lied).
    If there is, prove it.
    If there is t, her whole article has just been shown up for the propaganda-based lies she’s famous for.

    Funny enough, I know you’ll still believe all the rubbish she’ll post anyway, over all the science presented to you. Sad.

  • Terry Hill

    Still waiting for you to present this evidence you claim to have.

    Are there GMO Bt bacteria, Debbie?

    No? Then this article is just another lie. Sorry for destroying your delusion.

  • Terry Hill

    Do me a favour, Debbie – list how many plants produce natural insecticides? Google it for yourself. You should be able to find a few hundred pretty easily.

    How many of those do we eat?

  • Terry Hill

    Except you disappear when you’re shown to be wrong. Big, brave activist.

  • Terry Hill

    I believe what I can see, and what science shows me. Pity you don’t.

    My information comes from biological sciences. Where does your’s come from? The Internet? Nice one, calling me the hypocrite.

    So, my initial post, that there is no such thing as GMO Bt bacteria… Are you still arguing that, or do you concede (therefore proving that Erin’s article is pure propaganda BS)?

  • Terry Hill

    Still waiting, Sam…

  • Terry Hill

    Launching personal attacks and going off-topic (false flags) whenever anyone presents contradictory evidence, rather than defending your arguement with evidence – because you can’t – is a typical anti-science, conspiracy theorist tactic.

  • Derek Ward

    But, but he was so sure he was right, that must count for something, lol.

  • razorjack

    If you want people to understand you you should cite the study in a way that tells them which study you are referring to.

    GMO bt is a protein. The natural bt is a soil bacteria. I have not posted anything but the truth.

    TRANSLATION: Gish gallop = any study or other valid information that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda. GMO pesticide industry disinformation goons use this term to try and dismiss truthful information instead of dealing with information they can not refute.

    You are presenting here as a GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR scripted goon squad member and you posting history and followers support that knowledge

    You are an industry troll.

  • Peaceful Warrior

    Look’s like goonlite in drag to me ….. 😉

  • JoeFarmer

    It’s really kind of sad how you only have about 12 pre-programmed responses to draw from, Ted.

    I’ve offered dozens of times to have an adult crop production discussion with you, yet every time you’ve demurred. But I’ll extend the invitation once again.

    How about we talk about challenges in soybean production, either under organic or “conventional”?

    Are you man enough to do it?

  • windummie

    Samuel, as a plant biologist, exterminator too: BT is a naturally occurring soil bacteria. Several strains have been developed, for example Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis which is effective on certain Dipteran larvae- Culicidae, Simuliidea for example. In this case the bacteria is able to grow in their alkaline hind gut, crystaline structures mechanically destroy the gut leading to death. In the case of BT IN plants; the gene which codes for the protein has been extracted from the bacteria and inserted into the plant genome, first corn in the 90’s now others. The BT strain being used on the west coast is one suited to act in the same manner for Lepidopteran larvae. In each example, the activity really is limited to the target species.

  • razorjack

    You are a sad case, Porky.

    You’ve been flushed by the decent people in this world who are not interested in your corrupt GMO pesticide industry bully boy spin and the constant need to try and change the subject.

    You’re a loser who seems fascinated with some mythical Goliath called ted. Are you on some drugs besides the booze you are so fond and overdone on?

  • JoeFarmer

    Thanks for weighing in, Dumb Debbie.

  • JoeFarmer

    Yes, your posts prove the concept of mean reversion.

    You didn’t actually have to post to prove it, but thanks anyway. That’s why everyone who understands science calls you, “Dumb Debbie”!

  • JoeFarmer

    Yawn.

    You just used one of your 12 pre-programmed responses again. Good for you.

  • JoeFarmer

    Yawn…

    Why can’t you carry on an adult discussion about agriculture?

  • JoeFarmer

    Thanks for sharing.

  • JoeFarmer

    Wow, you deserve some kind of cluelessness award for your monoparagraphic non-factual rant.

  • razorjack

    The truth doesn’t change, Porky.

    It sucks to be you.

  • JoeFarmer

    Says the agricultural creationist that calls anyone with real experience a, “fake farmer”!

    Grow up, Dumb Debbie.

  • JoeFarmer

    Dumb Debbie Owen never has an argument. She’s a blatant agricultural creationist.

  • razorjack

    Because I’m not interested is discussing anything with agenda driven GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR scripted goon squad members like you, Porky.

    Buzz off!

  • JoeFarmer

    How about you explain exactly what, “BTK” is, champ?

  • JoeFarmer

    And once again you prove that you know nothing about agriculture.

    If you did, you’d be able to carry on an adult conversation. Thanks for playing, Ted!

    How about we talk about Gray Leaf Spot disease in corn, Ted? That’s a disease that can affect organic, non-“GMO” and “conventional” corn.

    Maybe you could tell me what the best practices are for reducing Gray Leaf Spot?

    I’m sure you can’t. But I enjoy thumbing your nose because you’re such an ignorant troll.

  • J. Randall Stewart

    A lot better than titan.

  • JoeFarmer

    Heh!

    When he/she typed, “BTK” I was wondering if he/she meant Bti (the mosquito dunks that you throw in the pond) or the BTK Killer from Wichita, Kansas.

    When you say, “Titan” do you mean the tire company that used to be Armstrong? Just wondering…

  • J. Randall Stewart

    Thanks for filling in for NTPC. I was just looking for the certain value I get from his posts, and you more than filled the void.

  • JoeFarmer

    So when are we going to have an adult discussion about agriculture?

    Based on your response, I’m thinking never. But man up and surprise me!

  • razorjack

    Nonsense.

    What is it that you don’t understand about the fact that I told you that “I’m not interested is discussing anything with agenda driven GMO
    pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR scripted goon squad
    members like you, Porky.”

    Are you going to throw another of your crude off color egotistical adolescent hissy fits, or will you finally figure out that you are and obnoxious industry troll who has been exposed and who I don’t want to have anything to do with?

    Piss off, troll.

  • J. Randall Stewart

    Yeah, same as Goodyear, Grizz keeps promising to fix the problems. Maybe someday…..

  • razorjack

    No one can have an adult conversation with an agenda driven GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon squad member who has been dispatched here to confuse and deceive the readers about the truth.

    You are an industry troll and a low life to boot. Are you into the booze again, Porky? Last time you posted with a snoot full you got banned.

  • JoeFarmer

    You mean Titan’s creative definitions about bead sizes and stuff like that?

    You’d think that when one company made both the rims and tires they would actually work together.

    Personally, I have mixed feelings about Grizz. I like how he’s kept production in the U.S., but with his attitude, I guess I wouldn’t feel bad about buying Korean tires, given as much effort he’s put into busting unions, etc. My 2 cents worth…

  • JoeFarmer

    “Monsanto even admits BT…”

    Sorry bub, but if you can’t even spell, “Bt” then there’s no way I could possibly take you seriously.

    Find some other cause to protest, champ.

  • JoeFarmer

    Have you ever read what Dumb Debbie Owen posts?

  • Terry Hill

    Gish gallop: “I haven’t posted anything but the truth”
    Fact: you haven’t posted anything relating to the point being argued.

    Gish gallop: (assorted name calling because I don’t blindly support your opinion)
    Fact: I’ve presented several studies, but in order to maintain your echo-chamber’s integrity, Erin’s admin staff remove anything I’ve posted with links to research.

    Gish gallop: calling people ‘shills’ by any other name because they don’t support your unsupported views, then raging about conspiracies like GMOs and chemtrails. (As responders to my post have)
    Fact: my first post on this thread was simply challenging the title of this piece – that GMO Bt bacteria exist. Which they don’t.

    Read what ‘Gish gallop’ is. I’ve attempted to stay on point, while the assorted lunatic fringe that surrounds the anti-GMO argument have attempted to turn it into a debate about chemtrails, social engineering, mass experiments, big government, anti corporate whatever.

    You admit that there is no such thing as GMO Bt bacteria? Excellent.

    Because this destroys the validity of yet another of Erin the Nut’s propaganda-based misinformation that you and the rest of the drooling horde gobble up unquestioningly.

    While your at it, look up ‘troll’. Because you fit that definition far better than me.

    I’m not paid by anyone to support science against stupidity – I’ll call out ignorant idiots all day long. It’s quite satisfying when you need to resort to ‘shill’ or ‘troll’ comments (along with the more vulgar names of some of your less educated cohort), because it demonstrates you neither have the knowledge nor the evidence to support your argument.

  • Terry Hill

    No, it’s never been ‘proven’ carcinogenic. Not like the sun, coffee, smoke, alcohol. No link between RoundUp and cancer has ever been shown.

  • Terry Hill

    Take a few seconds to read the thread again, Debbie. Blame -shifting, now?

    I will retaliate when called names. I did not ‘start’ this. Take some responsibility for the actions of you fellow anti-science minions.

    Oh, and by ‘full of personal attacks’, do you mean calling someone ignorant for not bothering to actually educate themselves of both sides of an argument before engaging in debate?

    That’s not an insult, Debbie, it’s an observation.

    Calling me a ‘retard’? Yeah, that is a juvenile insult. And yes, it does provide an excellent perspective on the intellect – or lack thereof – of the name caller.

  • With this perspective the while organic farming is oné huge human experiment.☺

  • Well the naturalness or familiarity does not equal safety. I would actually be quite curious to see the long time feeding studies Done by organic industry to prove the safety of bt Spray.i would not be surprised that the first Real studies were Done onlyafter it was used in GMO.

  • Actually the discussion here is about organic poison. To make things even words do you know that bt bacteria is related to anthrax. If we want to use the favourite tactics of anti gmo fear experty we could say, that it cannot be excluded that some other harmful bacteria such as anthrax is not deliberately or otherwise mixed with bt Spray to cause havoc.☺

  • Teri Schroeder

    My understanding that when used widespread this natural agent can harm other beneficial insects. I think is is important to consider unintended consequences. Will this make the problem better or worse?

  • razorjack

    Bla bla bla bla bla…

    You sure are a whiny industry $hiil boy.

    Go outside and play in the sandbox with the other children. They are playing farmer.

    Bye bye ….. buzz off!

  • Joshua Putnam

    While we have European gypsy moths around Puget Sound, the bigger invasive threat in the Seattle area at least is the Asian gypsy moth, which also eats conifers.

    Seattle has been doing aerial Btk spraying for gypsy moths for more than 30 years, but spraying expanded significantly around the state when the Asian moths started spreading around 25 years ago.

  • Terry Hill

    Again with the ‘shill’ claims. You’re big on unsupportable claims and low on reasoned argument, so I really expect nothing more from you.

    Thanks for proving my point though.

  • Terry Hill

    Really? You’re ‘well aware’, but can’t tell the difference when arguing that Bt toxin and Bt bacteria are the same thing?

    Ah, no. You are definitely not ‘aware’.

  • Terry Hill

    Oh, do you think I only have ‘claims’? Unlike your chemtrail/GMO/Illuminati friends, I have plenty of science to support my claims.

  • StopGMO

    Give it up Terry. I was talking about the differences between naturally occuring bt toxins versus bt toxins which have been altered by genetic modification. I have provided more than enough information, even a 10 year old would understand. Why do you keep trying to twist words and make up your own nonsense? You have nothing to offer here other than insults and quackery. Do you have nothing better to do with your time?

  • Terry Hill

    Nice. I’ll help translate for everyone else reading along:

    “I’m not interested is discussing anything with agenda driven GMO
    pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR scripted goon squad members like you, Porky.”

    For those new to razorjack, he’s saying:
    “I don’t have a single supportable argument for my position, which has been destroyed by science facts, so I’ll act like a petulant pubescent teenager and have a hissy-fit, while accusing anyone trying to engage me with more facts as trolls and shills (despite still having no evidence), to make myself feel superior. I don’t care whether anyone else might actually know what their talking about, because I’m so deeply invested with this delusion that no amount of evidence will ever convince me (not that I’d either bother to read it, or understand it even if I did). Oh, and you’re all $HILL$!”

    This is what passes for reasoned argument. SMH.

  • razorjack

    You are trolling, Terry.

  • razorjack

    You are trolling now, Terry. Any more troll posts will be flagged.

  • NecktopPC

    Condensation trails may be harmless, albeit the pollution from the Jet A1 fuel. But the geoengineering process known as “cloud seeding” leaves trails that persist, only to to form cirrus clouds, and are by no means harmless.

  • NecktopPC

    Forest fires are a an integral part of nature’s cycle, and yet, so many governments are doing all they can, and with great taxpayer expense too, to put the fires out.

    Their concerns rest with the wishes and profits of the lumber industry.

    Natural forest fires destroy EU and Asian moths, beetles et al., which simply end up destroying the forest anyway – and then; they spray.

  • razorjack

    Come on now Porky

    Anyone who has been reading both of you will tell you Debbie has you beat in the brains department by 100%

    Your specialty is misogyny, bully boy harassment and low life values.

  • razorjack

    Your specialty is misogyny, bully boy harassment and low life values.

  • NecktopPC

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    requires no testing of B.t. for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or
    chronic toxicity.

    Each of the more than 800 strains of Bacillus thuringiensis
    may exhibit different toxicity to insects, rodents and humans.
    This fact complicates any discussion about the toxicity of B.t.

    Rats who
    breathed air containing B.t.k. spores experienced respiratory
    depression,~4 and B.t.k. spores injected into rats’ veins
    aggravated preexisting disease.~5 Both B.t.k. and Foray 48B are
    irritating to rabbit skin, and Foray 48B is moderately irritating
    to rabbits’ eyes.

    There have been few
    experimental studies assessing the toxiciy of B.t.k. to humans.

    Monitoring studies following large-scale B.t. spray programs
    have shown that exposed people carry B.t. in their tissues. For
    example, more than 11 percent of nasal swab samples taken from
    patients surveyed by doctors in Vancouver (Canada) following a
    gypsy moth spray program were found to contain B.t.k.

    During the Vancouver spray program, almost 250 people
    reported health problems, mostly allergy-like or flu-like
    symptoms. During a Washington gypsy moth spray program, over 250
    people reported health problems and 6 were treated in emergency
    rooms for allergy or asthma problems.

    READ MORE: Journal of Pesticide Reform – BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS (B.T.)
    Ecological Agriculture Projects, McGill University

  • razorjack

    Stomp you little foot and have a tantrum.

    You sound like an adolescent child who has got caught with the truth.

    Suck it up and get over it.

  • razorjack

    Fantastic mirror moment for us all to see the projection of your pitiful pathetic self loathing on others, Porky

  • Biron_1

    Pathetic, upvoting yourself twice with your PW and Cletus sock puppets, and of course, with not a shred of evidence linking me to “Mikey.”

  • razorjack

    You pathetic attention seeking industry trolls got to do what you do, little Mikey boy.

  • Biron_1

    “attention seeking industry trolls”

    Unsubstantiated.

    “little Mikey boy.”

    Unsubstantiated.

  • razorjack

    Yawn … nobody cares about you, little Mikey boy … you are done here.

  • Biron_1

    “little Mikey boy”

    Unsubstantiated.

  • razorjack

    LOL! ……. you wish, little Mikey boy.

  • Biron_1

    “little Mikey boy.”

    Unsubstantiated.

  • razorjack

    LOL!!!!!

  • Biron_1

    OK, you’ve dropped the “Mikey” claim from this post, perhaps you’ve learned something.

  • Biron_1

    Glad to see you’ve dropped the “Mikey” claim from this post, perhaps you’ve learned something.

  • razorjack

    Self obsessed narcissists always try and keep their drama on display.

  • Biron_1

    Projection

  • razorjack

    You have to get past your denial before you can recover from your ou of control narcissism.

  • Biron_1

    Projection

  • razorjack

    You wish, $hill boy.

  • Terry Hill

    Your “truth” =/= THE truth. Still awaiting any coherent argument from you.

    Keep up the name calling, it’s obvious that’s all you’ve got.

    Disprove my initial post on this thread: There is no GMO Bt bacteria.

    I’ll wait for your “truth”…

  • Terry Hill

    My post – read it: “there are NO GMO Bt bacteria”
    Your post: “you’re wrong” followed by your rant re: Bt toxins.

    Now you’re back peddling like crazy.

    You cut and pasted this exact post into several threads in response to my NO GMO Bt bacteria posts… But now you’ve been shown up as a liar, you no longer post on “those” threads.

    By the way, this whole article is about spraying Bt bacteria, not Bt toxins. My initial post has always been that Erin is lying by implying there is GMO Bt bacteria… You’re a liar and too gutless to admit you’re wrong and you’ve been called out.

    Typical

  • StopGMO

    You just keep repeating the same lie as if you think, if you repeat it enough times it will become true. LOL!

    You claim, “THERE IS NOT GMO Bt BACTERIA!”

    Well that’s just a big fat lie that you keep lying about.

    PMC143673

    PMC168264

    etc.

    I’ve given you plenty of evidence, and all you keep posting is lie after lie. You should really quit embarrassing yourself.

  • razorjack

    You don’t even know what the truth is. All we get from your is corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber troll drool.

  • StopGMO

    “Three B. thuringiensis strains modified through recombinant DNA techniques have been registered as active ingredients with the U. S. EPA.: EG7673 £ (Raven™ OF bioinsecticide), EG7841 z (CRYMAX™ WDG/WP bioinsecticide), 2 and EG7826 (Lepinox™ WDG/G bioinsecticide).”

    James A. Baum “Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis” Phytoprotection, vol. 79, n° 4, 1998, p. 127-130.

  • Pogo333

    None of those countries have banned any Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) use to my knowledge. Bt remains the most widely used insecticide in organic agriculture, and is not genetically engineered. The bacteria are mass produced via fermentation, then killed, dried, and formulated so they can be mixed and sprayed. There have never been reports of people suffering significantly from Bt, other than occasional problems with dust inhalation or reactions to the formulation. But these are minor concerns and easily resolve themselves.

    Bt is unsafe to select groups of insects (Btk is most effective on lepidopteran caterpillars – moths are the chief target), but highly safe to everything else. It has previously been heavily used in forest systems in the US and Canada for control of spruce budworm, with no ill effects on most things (it has killed some of the native butterflies and moths inadvertently, which to me is the bigger problem than human health).

    So, would you prefer that they overspray everything with a baculovirus that is highly specific to the gypsy moth (although it works best on European gypsy moth relative to the Asian strain)? Again, like Btk not genetically engineered, but would that be preferred? A more difficult option is a host-specific fungus found in the northeastern US, but that one is an obligate pathogen and cannot be mass produced so it would have to be released in small amounts.

    Or would you prefer that no action be taken at all? The European gypsy moth can be bad enough, but the Asian strain is worse, and they can defoliate and kill large swaths of trees. And on top of that, the caterpillars possess long urticating hairs that can shower down on people below and cause severe allergic and respiratory reactions. The numbers of gypsy moths in Washington State are low right now, which is the best time to manage them. If people wait and argue about what constitutes safe control measures until the moths’ population numbers are greater, then the costs of management and damage will go way up.

  • hyperzombie

    well maybe they should stop spraying and just let the moths have their way with the trees…Just imagine how many new “Ocean Views” would be opened without all those pesky trees in the way. Hmmm, should I invest in Seattle Real Estate?

  • hyperzombie

    During the Vancouver spray program, almost 250 people reported health problems, mostly allergy-like or flu-like symptoms.”

    2.5 Million people live in the Vancouver area.

    Almost 4 million live in the Seattle metro area.

  • hyperzombie

    Nope, The west coast is a rainforest, It rarely burns, only about once per 1000 years.

  • Pogo333

    Very good questions. The Bt will most certainly have unintended consequences for nontarget lepidoptera, but they will likely recover based on considerable experience with previous large-scale treatments of Bt for spruce budworm. Another important question is what the consequences will be if no action is taken and the gypsy moth populations grow significantly. That will also adversely affect native lepidoptera and trees. With gypsy moth, those risks usually outweigh the problems associated with the use of Bt. It is a bad-news exotic pest in our forests.

  • Rickinreallife

    Thank you for that comment.

  • NecktopPC

    Hmm?

  • NecktopPC

    Was the “west coast” mentioned in this story?

    The 2015 wildfire season was the largest in Washington state history,[5] with more than one million acres (400,000 ha; 1,600 sq mi) burning across the state from June to September.[1] As many as 3,000 firefighters including 800 Washington National Guard members were deployed to fight the fires.

    SEE: Wikipedia: “2015 Washington wildfires”

  • NecktopPC

    Where do you get these ideas from?

    Large wildfires are burning themselves into the memories of thousands of residents along the West Coast. In a region reeling from a historic drought, intense fires this year have raged from San Bernardino in Southern California, through Oregon, and up to Pateros near the Canadian border in northeast Washington, where Perry serves as mayor pro tem.

    SEE: The Washington Post – West Coast residents caught in a line of fire from California to Washington

  • NecktopPC

    SEE: Wikipedia – List of Washington wildfires.

  • hyperzombie

    And were these wildfires near the rainforest? Nope, Wa state is not all rainforest.

  • hyperzombie

    Eastern Washington is not a rainforest, it has the same climate as Calgary or Denver.

  • hyperzombie

    All the big fires were in the Okanagan a semi arid desert, not a rainforest.

  • Warren Lauzon

    Debbie you really should just shut down your computer. Every time you type something you just prove once again how ignorant you really are.

  • Rickinreallife

    “Rats who breathed air containing B.t.k. spores experienced respiratory depression,~4 and B.t.k. spores injected into rats’ veins aggravated preexisting disease.~5 Both B.t.k. and FORAY 48B are irritating to rabbit skin, and FORAY 48B is moderately irritating to rabbits’ eyes.”

    Are you making a distinction between the bt bacteria and one of the individual Cry proteins made by the bacteria. The bt spore is more or less the bt organism in a caccon like state that enables the organism to survive hostile conditions and as a means of dispersal. And I don’t dispute that there are over 800 known strains of the bt bacteria and each strain likely produces a different array of Cry proteins, and that not all of the thousands of Cry toxins produced by the 800 or more different strains of bt are known and perhaps some have allergenic or toxic implications for humans under the right conditions. But, what you quoted above would actually be an indictment of any use of the bt organism itself, and would be an argument for being suspicious of the safety of broadcasting bt in that form for any purpose, as is widely done in both organic and conventional agriculture. It would not be an indictment of incorporating a single gene from the bt organism that codes for producing a single, specific cry protein for which we precisely know its function and target susceptibility into a plant genome as a PIP (plant incorporated protectant) trait. If no bt derived pesticidal inputs were ever used, and if no bt traits had ever been incorporated into crops through genetic engineering or other means, either in agriculture or forestry pest management, we humans would still be exposed to bt spores that are present in the air and in our foods.

    I am not sure how the experiment that injected bt spores (the caccoon phase of the entire bt organism) into the veins of rabbits has any relevance to any realistic exposure, but I won’t dispute the effect reported in the article cited. I wouldn’t come as a shock to me that if you injected spores of wild mushrooms, the pollen from the thousand types of plants floating in the air at any given time, etc. into rabbit veins it would probably have a negative effect on rabbit health.

    I am not dismissing what you are getting at, that broadcasting a bt could trigger sensitivities in a portion of the population. That is a valid consideration. I think Pogo333 below makes a good point that there are risks, including environmental and human health risks, of not doing anything about the gypsy moth. It is a balancing of risk and benefit.

  • NecktopPC

    There were wildfires on the west coast, which you specifically mentioned – and also; you mentioned rain forest.

    SEE: The Nation – “The Wettest Rainforest in the United States Has Gone Up in Flames”

  • NecktopPC

    Read the headline again: “West Coast residents…”

    You’re all over the map now.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “Nope, The west coast is a rainforest, It rarely burns, only about once per 1000 years.

    Olympic National Park is very close to the “west coast” – “Paradise Fire”.

    You’re the one that used the west coast, for some underlying criteria or motive.

    Is there a Gypsy Moth problem in the rain forest?

    Is that where (rain forest) the Department of Agriculture is planning to spray their insecticide?

  • NecktopPC

    Western Washington is not a rain forest either.

    The Hoh rain forest is on the west side of Olympic National Park.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “Are you making a distinction between the bt bacteria and one of the individual Cry proteins made by the bacteria.”

    No.

    RE: “there are risks, including environmental and human health risks, of not doing anything about the gypsy moth.”

    I agree.

    Have you ever seen forest which have been devastated by gypsy moth or pine beetle?

    They move from tree to tree and pesticides just add insult to injury.

    Mother nature’s way of controlling these pests were through forest fires, for the most part. Now we spend billions of dollars to keep the forest from burning, to the point that the animals (Buffalo) can’t even navigate through these cluttered woodlands anymore.

  • Rickinreallife

    Bt, or specifically, Cry proteins naturally produced by the bt organism, can indeed act as a “pesticide” in that they can have fatal or deterrent effect on pests and thus have the effect of minimizing damage to the plant organism. I suspect that bt bacteria coevolved with plants in a symbiotic relationship whereby the bt bacteria helped protect the plant roots from attack by larval pests in the soil. Thus, as we adopt crop management strategies in both conventional and organic agriculture to improve soil health and restore and optimize diverse soil ecosystems, we are probably increasing the population of bt bacteria present in the soil and thus loading the soil with the “pesticides” they produce.

    You are trying to equate the pesticidal function of proteins naturally produced by the bt bacteria to synthetic, man-made chemicals. If I pour vinegar on ants, it will kill them. Vinegar is thus a “pesticide” to ants. We just don’t use vinegar as a pesticide because it would be very impractical and expensive, and the vinegar odor would be very unpleasant if used in that way on any scale. Some organic gardeners suggest placing beer in flat containers around plants to protect them from slugs (I’ve tried this myself, it didn’t work well in terms of observable reduction in slug damage, the beer evaporates quickly or is drank by pets and attracts other pests, and the cost of the beer and my time to maintain beer slug pest deterrents would be more than the value of the produce saved, even if it did work). The beer is toxic to the slugs and deters them from getting to the plants you are trying to protect. Thus beer in this context is a “pesticide.” When you eat nightshade plant species like tomatoes and eggplant, you consume solanine, which is a biologically produced chemical that functions as a fungicide and insecticide. Solanine produced naturally by plants (yes, even present in organically grown, heirloom varieties) is known to be very toxic to humans, and is a suspected carcinogen based on rat feeding studies. The solanine chemical produced by nightshade plants has been replicated and produced synthetically and sold commercially as a pesticide. We don’t normally worry about solanine, not because it is “safe” (it is known to be very unsafe, and there are hundreds of examples of solanine poisoning), but because the amount present in foods is rarely enough to have any effect. But, when you eat a tomato, egg plant, potato, etc, you are ingesting a known “pesticide”.

    You are using the term “pesticide” to classify all things that can have a pesticidal function even if they have little to no health implications for humans as a nasty, synthetic chemical produced in a factory by Dow Chemical company but that does not very accurately describe proteins produced by bt bacteria either in function, composition or effect on humans.

    I suspect that you will reject anything I might offer that challenges you to rethink your use of the term “pesticide” as an irritation to you. But, I am not offering it to insult you, but as food for thought.

  • NecktopPC

    Less than 936 years ago, there was a fire which consumed 38,000 acres on the Olympic Peninsula. This being the Forks Fire.

    In 1978; the Hoh Fire burnt 1050 acres of rain forest – and in the past 40 years, there have been more than 900 fires in Olympic National Park.

  • Rickinreallife

    I’ve hiked in the Black Hills a couple times since the pine beetle has caused problems, whole mountainsides defoliated. I suspect that over the milleniums of natural history, long before man, forests have been cyclically devastated by insect and disease pests that wiped out whole tracts of forests or specific species in the forests.
    Here in Nebraska, we are anticipating an invasion of the emerald ash borer. It is in Kansas and Iowa, and probably a matter of time until we see it show up here. Once infested, the tree is doomed. On the grounds of University of Nebraska and state government buildings, they are experimenting with two chemicals, one worked into the soil and absorbed by tree roots and the other injected under the bark periodically, to protect the trees of high value as ornamental amenities in parks and around government buildings.

    I would not dispute that naturally occurring wildfires throughout natural history can have the benefit of removing pest species for a time, until forests regrow and return as habitat for pests. I suspect you could have the same effect if you just let the infestation occur and eventually the trees would be gone and there would no longer be habitat in the area to support the pest for a time. Under either scenario, the forests would regenerate without the pest for a time, until a mature forest was established to again be attractive habitat for the pest species to return to.

    A difference is today that our forests now coexist with a human population that derives multiple benefits from the forest. The gypsy moth, or pine beetle, or emerald ash borer are only a “pest” because there are human values — economic, aesthetic, recreational, environmental services — that humans derive from the forests they decay. If there were no human civilization to care or suffer the consequences, there would be no issue with the pests destroying the trees.

    I’m not trying to be confrontational or to dismiss your thoughts, and I actually agree that wildfires are an element of maintaining forest health. I just question whether we always have the luxury, considering our dependence on forests, to depend on wildfire to manage our forests for the purposes that human society depends upon them for today. If there is value in preventing loss to pests, then the bt spray may very well be the best tradeoff in terms of benefit vs. risk.

  • Ben Jammin

    and 17 years after the Vancouver spray 4 of the 29 children (of 22 that have been located) have cancer. Causation cannot be proven however so there are no published studies. What does that mean?

    You ma’am are ignorant to what we call “science” I possess a letter to KING-TV’s Ann Stadler dated October 19, 1978 from the Washington Forest Protection Association touting a report prepared by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. This report – “The Phenoxy Herbicides”, requested by Congressman Tom Foley; extols the virtues of 2,4,5-T (DDT). Mention is made to “scientific” studies that conclude that:

    “. . .the data permit the conclusion that there is no evidence to implicate 2,4,5-T as a causal factor in human birth defects.”

    and here we are 40 years later and we now know it’s a killer. It takes a long time to “conclusively” prove harm when the pesticide companies are writing the laws…and paying for the science…

  • Ben Jammin

    Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally
    occurring live microorganism that kills insects. In a purified form it can be
    acutely toxic to mammals. Bt (both kurstaki and israelensis) is closely related
    to Bacillus cereus, a bacterium that causes food poisoning and to Bacillus
    anthracis – commonly known as Anthrax. Just because it’s naturally occurring
    doesn’t mean it’s OK to be exposed to it.

  • razorjack

    Warren you should really just shut down your computer. Every time you type something you just prove once again how disingenuous and corrupted you are in your PR designed astroturf troll scripts and how ignorant you really are.

  • NecktopPC

    An integral and proactive approach to proper forest management, includes prescribed burning of the forest; not only to kill pests, but to clean the forest of dead fall (fuel) and other serious impediments to herd migrations.

    I’m not being confrontational, but spraying millions of gallons of toxic chemicals is not advantage to to our already fragile ecosystems and environment. DDT was used extensively for spraying pests in the forest, until the DDT became useless, due to the pests adapting to the DDT.

    Granted; DDT and Btk are horses of a very different color, but the information provided, regarding the use of FORAY 48B speaks for itself.

  • Joshua Putnam

    Long before the era of radar navigation and motorized shipping, coastal pilots guides warned mariners that the Strait of Juan de Fuca was frequently covered in impenetrable smoke from forest fires in the Olympic Rain Forest, triggered by lightning in late summer.

  • JoeFarmer

    LOL! Copying and pasting from woo sites is bad form, champ.

    Go back to school, ‘mkay?

  • hyperzombie

    Your so funny, read your own info. The paradise fire was only 2400 acres. The park that the fire was in is 922,650 acres, at this rate it would take about 500 years for the park to burn.

  • hyperzombie

    Yes, that is true because wet wood is very smoky.

    Very little forest in the pacific Northwest burns, it is just a simple fact.

  • hyperzombie

    Yes, this is true like I said, Forests in the pacific northwest burns about once per 1000 years.

    A 1000 acre forest fire is very small. 38,000 is also small.

    In 1950 there was a forest fire that was over 3.5 million acres. (but not in the rainforest)

  • hyperzombie

    Is that where (rain forest) the Department of Agriculture is planning to spray their insecticide?”
    Yes, have you never seen a map? Seattle is a rainforest.

  • JoeFarmer

    This guy just has no grip on reality…

  • JoeFarmer

    Umm…except you’re comparing a DOD weapon to insect control.

    You’re not even close to comparing apples and oranges here.

  • Ben Jammin

    What a Troll you are. If you were old enough to do any research, whoops, let me help you – Ben Schroeter or Benjamin Schroeter, you would have found the whole PUBLISHED article.

    Smart as a sack o’ rocks Mr. Farmer! I pity your children…. M’kay?

  • JoeFarmer

    Yawn…

  • NecktopPC

    It is you who should read their own asinine info.

    RE: “Nope, The west coast is a rainforest, It rarely burns, only about once per 1000 years.”

    Later you add to it and now say the “pacific northwest”.

    You’re all over the map.

    The info which I provided, included the following: In the past 40 years, there have been more than 900 fires in Olympic National Park.

    So do you have a point, or are you just wanting to be belligerent and or argumentative, as usual?

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “Yes, this is true like I said, Forests in the pacific northwest burns about once per 1000 years.”

    You must either be delusional, or are simply being belligerent and argumentative. This seems to be a trait of yours; very immature.

    The following, again, is information which I supplied, with a reference:

    “In the past 40 years, there have been more than 900 fires in Olympic National Park.”

    That’s where the rain forest is located.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “have you never seen a map? Seattle is a rainforest.”

    I know how to read them…maps.

    And to see that others (the usual gang of fools) are giving you up votes for the diatripe balderdash which you have been posting, simply solidifies my perspectives of you and your cohorts.

    The Quinault Rain Forest, and the Hoh Rainforest, are both in Olympic National Park, on the Southwestern sectors – and at best; the rain forests (Quinault) are an 2 hour and 45 minute drive, from Seattle. This is owing to the rain forest being situated, approximately 152 miles away from Seattle – Hoh even further, away from Seattle.

  • NecktopPC

    More than 900 fires in Olympic National Park in the past 40 years.
    And the rain forest are not in the Northwest.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “Vapor trails do not do this….”

    You’re absolutely correct.

    Normal “condensation trails” do not, and have never done this.

    These trails are as a result of sulfates and other particulates added to the Jet A fuel that most all jet (turbine) aircraft burn, and it causes these persisting trails, which then forms cirrus clouds, which was intentionally planned. Tyranny Stopper is correct in referencing Geoengineering, because this is what it is correctly known as, or, “Cloud Seeding”.

    SEE: “What in the World Are They Spraying?”

  • Pogo333

    Bacillus is a huge and complex genus. Simply because they have the same generic name doesn’t mean that they are identical. There are numerous Bacillus spp. that are known to be beneficial probiotics. Look up Bacillus subtilis and see all the good things that bacterium does. You are far more closely related to Hitler and Charles Manson than any strain of Bt is related to Bacillus anthracis, but it would be foolish to assume that you behave the same way that they do, right?

    Where is the literature on mammalian toxicity of the “purified form”? Are you referring to some of the work with delta-endotoxins on mammalian cell lines, which results the same researchers were unable to duplicate in vivo?

    You seriously misread the label for Foray 48B. What you cite above is from the section for nonagricultural use – i.e. home and non-commercial landowners. The product is indeed registered for agricultural use in forest and tree-fruit/nut systems, as is clearly indicated in the left column of page 2. The label indicates that it is registered for agricultural use on the following: Forests, Shade Trees, Ornamentals, Shrubs, Sugar Maple Trees, Seed Orchards, Ornamental Fruit, Nut & Citrus Trees. It also provides information on the pre-harvest interval for applying the product: “Foray 48B may be applied up to and on the day of harvest” (bottom of label page 2, left column). In other words, you can spray it, pick it, and eat it. Sounds like someone thinks it’s pretty safe, which would be an accurate assessment based on decades of studies and use of the product.

  • Pogo333

    Raven are Lepinox are long gone. Crymax is genetically modified to express the delta endotoxins of two different caterpillar strains (kustaki and aizawi) of Bt in the same bacterium so growers don’t have to purchase and apply the two different strains if they have both loopers and armyworms. Both toxins are widely used separately. Nothing fancy there. Just saving producers time and resources in controlling pests, although the cost of Crymax limits its adoption by growers. So, yes, there is one functional example of GE Bt, and it isn’t used very much. It is certainly not going to be used for gypsy moth since it is more costly, and no more effective against gypsy moths than the standard fermented kurstaki bacterial powder.

  • RichieRich

    Yeah…Monsanto is as pure as the wind driven snow.

  • Travis

    Contrails are not harmless, even regular contrails contain toxins from burned fuel.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    So, we must ban all flights? What about the smaller contrails from auto exhaust? Are you aware that ISIS and the illuminati have been “salting” them with high potency alkaloid coomutators and heavy metals?

  • Marcus

    Wow that was quite a comment! I must admit, I am just as suspicious about your claims as I am about the motivations of all these websites with misleading headlines. Is it for the money, or do they have some other agenda as you mentioned? What exactly is your motive to sit here and spend hours spewing this semantic garbage? Regardless of how many facts you have in here, logically, this seems like a terrible idea. And don’t even try any of your condescending bullshit on me, as I am far more educated than you are, since we are into bragging here.

  • joan001

    wake up people

  • Marcus

    I am currently researching all your claims here and while you are almost totally factually correct, the scientific evidence is mixed on whether Bt is safe for humans or other mammals, GM or not. So I guess sometimes logic does prevail over endless scientific jargon. Also, I just thought of this and its pretty funny to me: Shill Hill

  • StopGMO

    So you admit that Terry Hill was lying when he/she said “THERE IS NOT GMO Bt BACTERIA!” Thanks for clearing that up.

  • AgrSci1

    Just to stir up some trouble, why don’t we discuss GM mosquitos. I’m amazed how little attention they receive from the anti-science, anti-GMO crowd.

  • Pogo333

    What makes you think that Terry was lying? All of us make mistakes without lying, and there’s no reason to assume that the person isn’t simply misinformed rather than being deceitful. For example, your argument that the GE plant version of the Bt Cry toxin is different than the natural version is certainly misinformed. But are you lying about it? I don’t know, but I prefer to assume you are just misinformed about this and are just repeating something that you believe to be correct, although it isn’t.

  • A different world view about ‘PESTS’. This is from a PhD thesis awarded by Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay in 1996. NATURE IS WELL DESIGNED says Dr. U.S.B. ‘PESTS’ are the INSPECTORS & POLICE of NATURE who appear only when there is imbalance of nutrient. The NITRATE BAND theory states that all animals and plants are functions of Carbon to Nitrogen ratio. MOTHS appear and multiply to consume leaf foliage only when the trees themselves are unable to process toxic pollution by themselves. Instead of adopting clever tactics, spraying the trees with moisture retrofitted with Eco Technology derived from natural processes can crack the toxicity in the foliage, to vacate the role of the moths. I still recall hearing the late Dr. Rankin in a conference in POONA ( PUNE ) telling us how during a LOCUST attack in AFRICA which devoured his neighbour’s farms, his non toxic organic farm was untouched. My associates have grown fruit and vegetable of quality without any pests bothering them. Thank you ERIN ELIZABETH.

  • Karen Oneil

    Don’t you all realise what Monsanto are doing ?

  • StopGMO

    For the same reason that you are clearly a liar. I provided the evidence to Terry multiple times after he claimed “THERE IS NOT GMO Bt BACTERIA!” which is false. Yet even though I provided the evidence Terry continued to claim that I didn’t provide the evidence. It is one thing to make a mistake however, when Terry continues to repeat his/her “mistake” even after being corrected with peer reviewed studies to support the correction, he still continued on calling me the liar.

    Now back to you. I have already provided evidence for Bt176 “The cryIA(b) gene expressed in the transgenic corn plants encodes a protein that is identical to the first 648 amino acids of the full-length 1155 amino acid CryIA(b) protoxin that occurs in nature.” If even after I provided evidence that it is clearly not exactly the same, you want to say, “your argument that the GE plant version of the Bt Cry toxin is different than the natural version is certainly misinformed” well then that makes you a liar too. Of course since you have proved to be one already in previous conversations I’ve seen you participate in, then this only further provides evidence that you are a liar. It is pointless to continue such a conversation with a known liar such as yourself. No matter what is said you will simply lie about it. I have better things to do than to waste my time reading your lies & dealing with liars.

  • Pogo333

    Yes, you provided your evidence, but EarthOpenSource is a rather poor source of evidence. Evidence need not be correct, and yours isn’t, simply put. Event Bt176 is just one minor example of transformations, and included glufosinate tolerance. Your source failed to mention that element which is significant relative to the transformation product. Your source also notes that the MON810 event truncates the Bt Cry1Ac toxin protein. Well, yes it does, although technically this is incorrect usage. The event modification bypasses the protoxin to toxin conversion that normally occurs in the gut of the caterpillar by producing the already activated toxin.Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars – they are functionally the same. But they failed to mention that. They also failed to note numerous other transformation events that retain the protoxin form. So, your evidence is incomplete and incorrect. But then you probably haven’t spent decades studying Bt toxins and their nontarget effects, so you lack complete and accurate information on the subject. Based on that, I can conclude you are misinformed in your judgment, and I can withhold castigating your character.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    Anti-GMO doesn’t mean Anti-science
    When the GMO industry will actually do what is right then the science would be better.
    But BIG AGG is pushing to stop labeling, wonder why, because folks don’t want it.
    Round up is connected to cancer, so spray more?
    You’re a paid shill and your comments hold zero weight

  • StopGMO

    You claim, “Event Bt176 is just one minor example of transformations, and included glufosinate tolerance. Your source failed to mention that element which is significant relative to the transformation product.”

    Huh? Most Bt crops are engineered with a selectable marker whether for herbicide tolerance or an antibiotic resistant marker. They may also be stacked with multiple Bt events or herbicide tolerant events, etc. If you are claiming this is the reason for the difference…who cares? There is still a difference!

    You lie saying “Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    The lie detector test has determined…that is another big fat lie! Since you claim to be informed when you say inaccurate things I must determine that you are lying, and once again the evidence clearly shows you are.

    Unfortunately this site does not accept links, otherwise I’d be posting one.

  • Pogo333

    The point is that you are generalizing from the exceptions to make sweeping statements that are true for some things but not for most. Life is rarely an all-or-none affair, as you are painting the Bt toxin picture.

    You lie saying “Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    The lie detector test has determined…that is another big fat lie! Since you claim to be informed when you say inaccurate things I must determine that you are lying, and once again the evidence clearly shows you are.

    Apparently you are unfamiliar with the substantial nontarget literature showing what I stated. Some examples (and there are many more) that I’ve used in my publications:

    Al-Deeb, M.A., Wilde, G.E., 2003. Effect of Bt corn expressing the Cry3Bb1 toxin for corn rootworm control on aboveground nontarget arthropods. Environmental Entomology 32, 1164–1170.

    Al-Deeb, M.A., Wilde, G.E., Blair, J.M., Todd, T.M., 2005. Effect of Bt corn for corn rootworm control on nontarget soil microarthropods and nematodes. Journal of Economic Entomology 32, 859–865.

    Baumgarte, S., Tebbe, C.C., 2005. Field studies on the environmental fate of the Cry1Ab Bt-toxin produced by transgenic maize (MON810) and its effect on bacterial communities in the maize rhizosphere. Molecular Ecology 14, 2539–2551.

    Baur, M.E., Boethel, D.J., 2003. Effect of Bt-cotton expressing Cry1A(c) on the survival and fecundity of two hymenopteran parasitoids (Braconidae, Encyrtidae) in the laboratory. Biological Control 26, 325–332.

    Bernal, C.C., Aguda, R.M., Cohen, M.B., 2002. Effect of rice lines transformed with Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes on the brown planthopper and its predator Cyrtorhinus lividipennis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 102, 21–28.

    Bernal, J.S., Griset, J.G., Gillogly, P.O., 2002. Impacts of developing on Bt maize intoxicated hosts on fitness parameters of a stem borer parasitoid. Journal of Entomological Science 37, 27–40.

    Bhatti, M.A., Duan, J.J., Head, G., Jiang, C., McKee, M.J., Nickson, T.E., Pilcher, C.L., Pilcher, C.D., 2005. Field evaluation of the impact of corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)-protected Bt corn on ground-dwelling predators. Environmental Entomology 34, 1325–1335.

    Bhatti, M.A., Duan, J.J., Head, G.P., Jiang, C., McKee, M.J., Nickson, T.E., Pilcher, C.L., Pilcher, C.D., 2005. Field evaluation of the impact of corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)-protected Bt corn on foliage-dwelling arthropods. Environmental Entomology 34, 1336–1345.

    Naranjo, S.E., 2005. Long-term assessment of the effects of transgenic Bt cotton on the abundance of non-target arthropod natural enemies. Environmental Entomology 34, 1193–1210.

    Naranjo, S.E., 2005. Long-term assessment of the effects of transgenic Bt cotton on the function of the natural enemy community. Environmental Entomology 34, 1211–1223.

    Romeis, J., Bartsch, D., Bigler, F., Candolfi, M.P., Gielkens, M.M.C., Hartley, S.E., Hellmich, R.L., Huesing, J.E., Jepson, P.C., Layton, R., Quemada, H., Raybould, A., Rose, R., Schiemann, J., Sears, M.K., Shelton, A.M., Sweet, J., Vaituzis, Z., Wolt, J.D., 2008. Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nature Biotechnology 26, 203–208.

    Romeis, J., Dutton, A., Bigler, F., 2004. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology 50, 175–183.

    Romeis, J., Meissle, M., Bigler, F., 2006. Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nature Biotechnology 24, 63–71.

    Torres, J.A., Ruberson, J.R., 2006. Interactions of Bt-cotton and the omnivorous bigeyed bug Geocoris punctipes (Say), a key predator in cotton fields. Biological Control 39, 47–57.

    Torres, J.A., Ruberson, J.R., 2006. Spatial and temporal dynamics of oviposition behavior of bollworm and three of its predators in Bt and non-Bt cotton fields. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 120, 11–22.

    Torres, J.A., Ruberson, J.R., 2007. Interactions of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin in genetically engineered cotton with predatory heteropterans. Transgenic Research. doi:10.1007/s11248-007-9009-8.

    Torres, J.B., Ruberson, J.R., Adang, M.J., 2006. Expression of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protein in cotton plants, acquisition by pests and predators: a tritrophic analysis. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8, 191–202.

    Vojtech, E., Meissle, M., Poppy, G.M., 2005. Effects of Bt maize on the herbivore Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and the parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Transgenic Research 14, 133–144.

  • jazzfeed

    What makes you singularly “aware”, especially of such detail? What is your privileged information portal the rest of us lack?

  • jazzfeed

    Most of us do Karen but don’t waste your time with the likes of “JoeFarmer” and “Terry Hill” who have all the obvious characteristics of biotech shills. There is no rational dialogue with them, only denial and divisive, demeaning hostility – part of their standard operating procedure.

  • jazzfeed

    Another walking dead troll from many, many sites, who enjoys and is paid to disrespect anyone who even hints at the truth: that the mutation and patenting of food plants is a plague on the planet and a crime against humanity. “Terry Hill”, “JoeFarmer” and “hyperzombie” are nothings but they have already successfully disrupted these comments. IGNORE THEM–DO NOT RESPOND TO THE RUDE LOW-LIFE PROVOCATIONS.

  • jazzfeed

    DON’T ENGAGE THEM. These are disinformation professionals attempting to provoke your rage with BS, thereby distracting the truth seekers.

  • jazzfeed

    You’re right, but “JoeFarmer”, “Terry Hill”, “hyperzombie” and the tribe of trolls who don’t otherwise have a life are also disinformation professionals who will never respond in a spirit of truth seeking, equality or humanitarian values. That’s not what they’re here for. DON’T TAKE THE BAIT AGAIN.

  • jazzfeed

    I know your impulse when insulted and enraged by lies. Try hard to NOT RESPOND to “JoeFarmer”, “Terry Hill”, “hyperzombie” or others who are easily recognizable by their insults and diversions from the issue at hand. Stick to the issue so we learn from each other.

  • jazzfeed

    “JoeFarmer”, “Terry Hill”, “hyperzombie” are much worse than idiots. They are dissimulators who are programmed to get you to react exactly as you have, thereby ignoring the life-threatening issues of the promotion of mutated, patented food plants and their associated biocides contaminating the entire human environment, inner and outer. Again: IGNORE. DO NOT RESPOND.

  • jazzfeed

    It (“Terry Hill”) has nothing better to do that also pays! In particular, this is an example of obfuscating by particularization, one of several tools in trolls’ toolbags. ‘Obfuscating by particularization’ means snowing you with trivial details that are not germane to the overriding issue of contaminating the planet with mutated food plants and biocide residue. “It” (all shills collectively) will never “give it up” as long as it provokes your reaction. The GMO mutation industry is going down and therefore is desparate these days to self-justify and prop up their image before their trial takes place at the Hague this fall. The multiplicity of trolls such as “Terry Hill”, “hyperzombie”, “JoeFarmer” and others is a reflection of that fact.

  • jazzfeed

    The trolls are swarming now – “Warren Lauzon” joins “hyperzombie”, “Terry Hil” and “JoeFarmer” in the troll brigade. IGNORE! DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THEM. None of them will ever further discussion of the issue we’re concerned with.

  • razorjack

    With all respect I say this to you.

    I understand how you feel and you are right on many levels, but I have been dealing with these trolls for several years and I will continue to call them out and correct their spin, lies, and disinformation. When we allow them to run their games uncontested we are helping them to achieve what they came here for.

  • jazzfeed

    You are right.

  • jazzfeed

    Wrong. Organic farming is 10,000 years old, not an ‘experiment’. Mutating food plants and marinating them in biocides, then putting the result on the commercial food market is the psychopathic ‘human experiment’.

  • jazzfeed

    Kimberly, the swarm of trolls all over this board are not here to learn.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Yes, they are selling safe quality products.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    I am not allowed to divulge that upon pain of death.

  • Christopher Pare

    So you claim aerodynamics, physics, and meteorology are simple science? So unless you mastered in these fields you are most likely a biased Google searcher (one that only searches for news backing up your point of view). That’s easy to do. The fact is Monsanto only has Monsanto scientists that perform “scientific studies” on everything they produce. They do not allow independent scientific research to be performed on their products. If YOU did any unbiased research you would find that scientists in numerous countries have indicated Monsanto’s GMO’s as causing multiple health issues in humans. Yet, you stick up for them and claim others who are against them as being “conspiracy theorists.” I don’t trust anything that has to do with Monsanto and anything they produce and that’s just due to a lack of scientific information and the fact they do not allow independent research to be performed on their products. It’s obvious they also have government influence since there are no laws requiring them to label GMO foods.

    Now regarding the spraying, you have not produced any scientific studies from independent researchers saying this spraying is not harmful to humans. Would you put anything in your body just because a doctor says it is safe without any studies performed and the scientific community agreeing that it is safe first? It is easy to toss insults around but actually proving your point is the difficult part. Usually the person who gets upset and insults the other first is the one who cannot hold logic in their arguments. Critical thinking is not with you.

  • Christopher Pare

    Safe quality products with no independent scientific research to back it up. Why have other countries scientists claimed they are unsafe then? and why won’t they allow independent scientific research to be performed on their products?

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    There is plenty of independent research. If I post a link Erin will delete it. Google” Medical doctors weigh in on glyphosate.” Then llook up “A Decade of EU funded GMO research” The folks who told you those things are either wrong or liars.

  • Christopher Pare

    Okay, a decade of EU funded GMO research that led to a bunch of EU countries banning GMO’s. Look up the countries that banned them. There are plenty. And medical doctors “weighing in on GMO’s” are nothing but opinions. There are scientists who are supposed to do that kind of research that Monsanto prevented. The only research that has been done is out of the US and company funded scientists. On that note, some scientists out of the country say it’s harmless, whereas some say it is harmful. There is a lot of inconclusive evidence to support GMO’s. Uncertainty is not what I want in my body. Lastly, glyphosate is only half the battle since it is a herbicide (roundup in particular) which is not designed for human consumption. There are many other arguments against GMO’s that have not been researched. The fact is, we cannot declare their products as being safe when they will not allow any US independent scientific research. Not to mention the organic farmers that went out of business due to cross pollination of GMO plants and organic plants. I don’t trust a company that is so secretive about their products. If you do, that’s your prerogative. But that doesn’t mean its safe

  • StopGMO

    Well said jazzfeed, thank you.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    I told you that people have been lying to you for a reason. You need to dump the commitment to those people and their agenda. “led to banning” wrong. The banning only applies to growing. Those countries all import G.E. crops for livestock. The partial bans were done in spite of the research. Not because of it. Monsanto didn’t prevent research. they now have the most liberal agreement with research universities. Look up genetically modified seed research. What’s locked and what isn’t. “The only research” Nope, Look up U. of Perugia gmo safety study. Glyphosate is less toxic that the salt you put in your food today. Also, remember that some minor minerals are also used as pesticides. Yet you not only consume them. You have to consume them. Boron is an example. Every one of your points is just flat out wrong. No organic farmers have gone out of business due to unwanted cross pollination. Just try finding a few factual examples.

  • StopGMO

    You claim, “The point is that you are generalizing from the exceptions to make sweeping statements that are true for some things but not for most. Life is rarely an all-or-none affair, as you are painting the Bt toxin picture.”

    No, that is what you are doing by lying and saying

    “Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    You gave less than 20 references. Yet, you claimed “nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    You are such a liar! You claim less than 20 references cover every species on the planet even after I gave you dozens of references with evidence that contradicts your claim.

    Like I said you are a proven liar, and you continue to prove it with every comment. Since you claim to be informed then when you say inaccurate things I must determine that you are lying, and once again the evidence clearly shows you are lying.

    I have a link to share but this site does not allow them. Here it is, if you can figure out how to use it. If not, go to the gmofreeusa’s website, and there you will find a list of studies they’ve compiled, (not made up) with the info. http//wwwgmofreeusaorg/research/bt-bacillus-thuringiensis-studies/

  • hyperzombie

    Anti-GMO doesn’t mean Anti-science”

    Yes it does. It is a simple fact.

  • Pogo333

    I could find hundreds more, but don’t want to list them all here. You can do your own google scholar search for nontarget effects of Bacillus thuringiensis. I’ve been to the GMOFREEUSA site and have seen their lengthy list of studies, at least some of which had little to do with Bt, but instead deal primarily with herbicide tolerance. And many of the Bt papers listed don’t directly address nontarget effects.

    But the element that would be humorous if it weren’t so deceptive is that the nontarget section list actually contains some of my own publications, which contradict the point the listmakers are intending to make. And mine aren’t the only ones on the list that do so. Perhaps the listmakers are hoping that no readers actually pay close attention to the content of the list, but are rather awed by its length and superficial comprehensiveness. Or perhaps whoever put that list together failed to read many or most of the papers listed. I can’t tell which, but in either case it’s a mess that could use some serious re-evaluation. I don’t find it a compelling argument for their – or your – position.

  • Christopher Pare

    No one is “telling” me anything. You’re talking to someone who has done 5 NEUTRAL studies on GMO’s and Monsanto. I came in knowing nothing and actually looked at GMO’sas a possible solution to a lot of the world’s hunger issues. When I was done, I was fully against it. As far as glyphosate being less toxic than “the salt you put on your food,” you’re wrong. Sodium chloride is an essential part of a diet. Some salts also have iodine in it which is also needed in the body. That’s just nutrition 101. It’s easy to look up people saying things to support your theory. The scientific method is to look up both sides and attempt to deduce your own thoughts from an unbiased stand point. Here’s an article stating that 3 different studies show glyphosate is found in the blood, urine, and breast milk and talks of its relative toxicity

    Well I did post a website on here but apparently putting any references is not accepted. Heaven forbid anyone read something from another website. It was “three studies show glyphosate is found in the blood, urine . You probably won’t look it up cause all people try to do these days is support their own argument instead of question it.

    There are also numerous SCHOLARLY articles you can find on Google that have been researched and approved by a panel of individuals. That’s the benefit of scholarly articles, they have been approved by qualified individuals. Now, with that said, I’m certain you could find scholarly articles that will back up your point. My point that I’m attempting to explain is that most “experts” who support GMO’s are politically involved or not even experts at all. I know this because I’ve done a vast amount of research on this matter in college. I even researched the experts in question.

    As for the research you talk of performed by other countries and Universities, the other countries only research certain aspects also, what I stated in my last argument was that there are some that support and some that do not. According to some scientists in Europe and Russia, GMO’s are linked to liver and kidney failure as well. Most of the supporters are self-claimed experts with blogs who hold absolutely no scientific evidence to back their point. Likewise there are those against GMO’s who are educated but
    make false claims. For example, there was a professor from a highly regarded university who claimed that GMO’s are linked to autism. This was an unfounded claim and she was ridiculed due to it. This is my point, there is a lot of false information; however, there is a lot of strong information too. All in all, there is not enough CONCLUSIVE evidence to support GMO’s as being safe. Monsanto attempts to also claim glyphosate is safe but more and more research is finding that they are wrong. AND yes, Monsanto holds numerous patents on GMO’s and only allow scientists under their pay or affiliates perform “studies” to try to assure the public that they are safe. But, they won’t label them, they wont let independent studies be performed, and they refute the other countries scientists claims of GMO’s and their negative impacts on people. Because of this, there is a lot of uncertainty and I wouldn’t chance my life to trust a corporation who’s only interested in making money. For a while in the past Big Tobacco paid doctor’s to reccomend cigarettes as a healthy thing to do. We know now that they were wrong. Monsanto is following in the same path. Follow the money my friend. Your health means nothing to any corporation out there.

  • Christopher Pare

    I know you’re this huge supporter yet, you only focus on references that help your point. What about the numerous references that state Bt is not good for mammals? It’s great that you try to portray yourself as this amazing scientist living in a world in which physics, aerodynamics, and meteorology are all easy basics that we should all be fluent in, but a real scientist looks for both pros and cons then weighs them and states your own thoughts. Too many people are biased and just look up info that backs up their point. A neutral position is hard to come by because people like you get so emotionally involved and let your emotions make your decisions.

  • StopGMO

    LOL! Yep, you can’t support your claims as usual. You’ve been caught lying over and over. I’ve already proved it, but you just keep making it more obvious with every post you make. The only person not making a compelling argument here is you since your argument is based on your inability to understand the studies and your willingness to lie. But that’s nothing new with you or any of the pro-GMO trolls.

  • Christopher Pare

    Read on how well By cotton did in India smart guy or girl.

  • Pogo333

    I told you what to do to find more information. Your website has some significant problems, but if you access a number of the papers listed you’ll see that for yourself. But that will require that you do some digging and thinking on your own. Your call. I’m not going to get into a silly paper-counting contest, especially when the count you rely on fails to consistently support its own point (and completely misinterprets my work to fit their goals), besides omitting a very large number of papers that contradict its claims. Not a very trustworthy source.

  • StopGMO

    I proved you are a liar and I proved you can’t support your claim and then you accuse others of being untrustworthy, LOL!

    You are lying and saying, “Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    You gave less than 20 references yet, you claimed “nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    You claim less than 20 references cover every species on the planet even after I gave you dozens of references with evidence that contradicts your claim.

    You claim to have hundreds, but once again that wouldn’t cover every species on the planet and I already gave you dozens of references with evidence that contradicts your claim.

    You say “I’m not going to get into a silly paper-counting contest”

    This isn’t a paper counting contest. You claimed “”Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars” So to support your claim you need evidence for everything “but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars” You failed miserably to support your claim.

    In comparison, to prove you lied, all I needed to do is provide evidence for any species that is not a “limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars” and I’ve done that by giving you a list with dozens of references that contradict your claim.

    You are in no position to call anyone untrustworthy when you are a notorious liar who has been caught lying multiple times. Could there be a few mistakes on the GMO Free USA list? Of course, there are over 2,000 references so I would expect out of 2,000 there might be a mistake or two. In fact, in the past I’ve already alerted them to one reference on their list that was a duplicate and they deleted the duplicate within a month or so. In comparison, I alerted Biofortified about dozens of duplicates on their list and after years they didn’t delete any of them, and the list with the duplicates is still on the website of their board member David Tribe who I also alerted years ago. I alerted Genetic Literacy Project to duplicates on their list, along with hundreds of references that don’t support their claim and over a year later those are still there as well. Talk about untrustworthy sources run by untrustworthy people. It is easy to spot a duplicate and doesn’t require much effort to delete it. Yet they wouldn’t do it, because like you, they are just interested in lying.

    Like I said you are a proven liar, and you continue to prove it with every comment. Since you claim to be informed then when you say inaccurate things I must determine that you are lying, and once again the evidence clearly shows you are.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    U Smell like a bad troll, move along, real people are working over here.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    There are PR firms who do nothing but protect corporate lies. They are easy to spot since their mode of attack is similar. Mainly due to the fact that those employed are hacks who have no real horse in the game, just people going to the job to get the check. They copy paste attacks on boards. They got multi handles, multi vpn, proxy setup the works, big business for sure.

  • hyperzombie

    LOL, look up the definition of a troll…

    Hint.. it would be you.

  • Warren Lauzon

    “Roundup is ‘connected” to cancer”. More total bullshit. Give me ONE cite where it has ever been identified as the cause of cancer.
    And without that tired and stupid shill gambit.

  • Pogo333

    You gave less than 20 references yet, you claimed “nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    You claim less than 20 references cover every species on the planet even after I gave you dozens of references with evidence that contradicts your claim.

    You claim to have hundreds, but once again that wouldn’t cover every species on the planet and I already gave you dozens of references with evidence that contradicts your claim.

    Okay, you win. Scientists haven’t tested every species on the planet for Btk or Bta toxicity. Or for any other substance known to mankind, either. Of course, to do this is problematic since we have only discovered 20-50% of the species on the planet, based on cumulative species curve estimates. And of the known species only a tiny percentage can be readily produced in sufficient number for testing. In science we routinely use models and population subsets to predict/extrapolate outcomes beyond the dataset. Otherwise it would be impossible to generalize any scientific studies. The intent of my statement was that the Btk and Bta are both nontoxic to everything screened except for a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillar targets. I’m sorry that wasn’t clearer. I forgot my audience. Mea culpa.

    You say “I’m not going to get into a silly paper-counting contest”

    This isn’t a paper counting contest. You claimed “”Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars” So to support your claim you need evidence for everything “but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars” You failed miserably to support your claim.

    In comparison, to prove you lied, all I needed to do is provide evidence for any species that is not a “limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars” and I’ve done that by giving you a list with dozens of references that contradict your claim.

    You are in no position to call anyone untrustworthy when you are a notorious liar who has been caught lying multiple times. Could there be a few mistakes on the GMO Free USA list? Of course, there are over 2,000 references so I would expect out of 2,000 there might be a mistake or two. In fact, in the past I’ve already alerted them to one reference on their list that was a duplicate and they deleted the duplicate within a month or so. In comparison, I alerted Biofortified about dozens of duplicates on their list and after years they didn’t delete any of them, and the list with the duplicates is still on the website of their board member David Tribe who I also alerted years ago. I alerted Genetic Literacy Project to duplicates on their list, along with hundreds of references that don’t support their claim and over a year later those are still there as well. Talk about untrustworthy sources run by untrustworthy people. It is easy to spot a duplicate and doesn’t require much effort to delete it. Yet they wouldn’t do it, because like you, they are just interested in lying.

    You claim not to want to get into a paper-counting contest, then proceed to tell me how many references “you” provided, which of course you didn’t. You simply provided me with a link to someone else’s work – and work that is not particularly well done. For example, the list contains a section including a number of papers about Bt resistance genes in caterpillars – these were known before GE crops because Bt resistance developed before GE crops were ever used, so has little relevance to GE crops and none to nontarget toxicity – resistance developed in the target pests. It lists a number of arthropod predator/parasitoid papers that were conducted without proper controls (Bt-resistant target prey and hosts), and were subsequently repeated by other researchers with Bt-resistant prey and hosts who conclusively demonstrated that the Bt itself was not a problem, but sick prey and hosts are. These subsequent studies are all lacking from the list. As with the Bt resistance, we have known sickened hosts/prey are less suitable for parasitoids/predators (regardless of cause for illness) for years, and independent of Bt usage. We also know that many arthropod predators and parasitoids are quite adept at choosing healthy prey and hosts. Your listmakers omit many excellent nontarget studies by Romeis, Torres, Sears, Naranjo, and many others that are at odds with their position. And they include other papers, such as some of mine, that also contradict their position. I’m guessing that you have actually read few if any of the papers on that list, and have done little if any personal research on the topic.

    With regard to your concerns about correcting websites, I honestly don’t care. I don’t rely on Biofortified or GLP for my opinions on the subject any more than I rely on GMOFreeUSA. And finding duplications on a page is a far cry from actually comprehending and challenging the content. A middle-school student can find duplications on a page. When website owners cite a goodly number of papers that disagree with their position as though they were in agreement there is a much deeper problem than duplication. And when they obviously omit a large body of literature that contradicts the few examples they actually use that do indeed support their position, it is clear that bias it strongly at work. My suspicion is that they saw titles that suggested the papers might show negative effects of the Bt and included those in their list, whether they showed such effects or not. Because if they had read even the abstracts on my papers and book chapter that they include, they would have known that their premise was not supported by any of them.

    Like I said you are a proven liar, and you continue to prove it with every comment. Since you claim to be informed then when you say inaccurate things I must determine that you are lying, and once again the evidence clearly shows you are.

    Indeed. Increasingly I feel like I’m discussing things with a middle-school student when I chat with you.

  • StopGMO

    LOL! Seriously, you should really stop! You not only admit that you lied, but you also admit that you are a hypocrite.

    You previously claimed, “The point is that you are generalizing from the exceptions to make sweeping statements that are true for some things but not for most. Life is rarely an all-or-none affair, as you are painting the Bt toxin picture.”

    Then you said, “Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    Then you said, “In science we routinely use models and population subsets to predict/extrapolate outcomes beyond the dataset. Otherwise it would be impossible to generalize any scientific studies.”

    No, in science we don’t make generalizations and claim, “everything” when you can barely come up even a small fraction of the species on the planet that have been tested. If this is the way you think science is done it only shows you have no understanding of even elementary school level science.

    You claim, “Your listmakers omit many excellent nontarget studies by Romeis, Torres, Sears, Naranjo, and many others that are at odds with their position.”

    No you lying idiot. Only a lying idiot like you would claim every species is going to be impacted the same. This list does not claim there are no species that won’t be impacted, it says nothing like that. It is a list of references that suggest adverse effects or potential adverse effects. So if a species is tested and there is no effect then obviously they aren’t going to include it, other than perhaps by accident. You are just too stupid to understand & read. Once again your failure to understand elementary school level science and reading is showing, but of course since you claim to be informed in which you clearly are not since you say inaccurate things, I must determine that you are lying, and once again the evidence clearly shows you are.

    You claim, “The intent of my statement was that the Btk and Bta are both nontoxic to everything screened except for a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillar targets.”

    Once again, all I needed to do is provide evidence for any species that is not a “limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars” I’ve done that by giving you a list with dozens of references that contradict your claim.

    This is like arguing with a 2 year-old. I’ve provided dozens of studies and all you have done is lie and pretend that I haven’t. Anyone can read the list and see dozens of studies on NTOs which clearly contradict your claims. Yet you choose to cover your eyes and ignore the evidence like an infant or you just simply can’t read and don’t understand.

  • Pogo333

    Fascinating. Rather than attempting to play your whack-a-mole game, I’ll just address one of your claims:

    [You quoting me] “In science we routinely use models and population subsets to predict/extrapolate outcomes beyond the dataset. Otherwise it would be impossible to generalize any scientific studies.”

    [Your response] No, in science we don’t make generalizations and claim, “everything” when you can barely come up even a small fraction of the species on the planet that have been tested. If this is the way you think science is done it only shows you have no understanding of even elementary school level science.

    In science we very nearly always make generalizations and extrapolations from what we know. If you disbelieve that, then you cannot accept any scientific claims about the known universe beyond the earth, moon, and mars where we have had direct physical contact, and even for those your knowledge is greatly limited to our direct observations (and your reliance on the observations of others).

    All experiments are designed to extrapolate beyond the sampled population, except in those very rare circumstances when the sample is equivalent to a census (i.e., every member of the target population is included in the experimental sample). When drugs are tested, are they tested on every person on the planet, or on a small subset? Have we examined every single species of animal on the planet to determine that they all inspire oxygen and expire carbon dioxide, or do we assume this to be the case because of observations of a much more limited subset of animals? When the environmental impact of the e-waste in your computer was evaluated for disposal decisions, was it screened against every one of the estimated 5-30 million species of animals, the 300-600,000 species of plants, and the who-knows-how-many species of fungi, bacteria, and archaeobacteria? No, it was likely evaluated on 20-30 species of animals, and perhaps 10-15 species of plants and other living things. Do the math.

    You would be unable to name anything that has ever been evaluated on all species, or very, very few that have been tested on more than 40-50 species. GE Bt-plants have been evaluated on over 150 animal species and have shown toxicity in vivo to precious few of those. That, my friend is the science of risk assessment. And science itself is built on subset samples and extrapolation. Otherwise there are no natural patterns, no scientific laws and theories, and so on.

    I can see that this discussion has devolved to name-calling on your part, which in discussions is a sure sign of surrender. So I will accept your surrender and take leave of the conversation. You may feel free to have the last word, as I know you must.

  • StopGMO

    You claim, “”Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    My response was “You claim to have hundreds, but once again that wouldn’t cover every species on the planet and I already gave you dozens of references with evidence that contradicts your claim.”

    You insanely try to justify your “everything” claim by saying [Me quoting you] “In science we routinely use models and population subsets to predict/extrapolate outcomes beyond the dataset. Otherwise it would be impossible to generalize any scientific studies.”

    [My response] No, in science we don’t make generalizations and claim, “everything” when you can barely come up even a small fraction of the species on the planet that have been tested. If this is the way you think science is done it only shows you have no understanding of even elementary school level science.

    [Your response] “When drugs are tested, are they tested on every person on the planet, or on a small subset?”

    You clearly have no understanding of how drug testing works. At no point do we say we tested it on a small portion of humans therefore it must be safe for every human (let alone every species). That is absurd, we don’t do that and only an idiot, like you, would claim such a thing.

    So when you claim, “Both of these forms are equally nontoxic to everything but a limited range of lepidopteran caterpillars”

    It only shows how little you understand science.

    I provided you with dozens of studies that contradict your claims and you have failed to address any of them and instead you continue to lie and pretend I didn’t, which in discussions is a sure sign of surrender. So I will accept your surrender.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Thanks for letting me know you are dishonest and simply make up nonsense. There isn’t an undergrad lab assistant working on research and that has as much experience as you dishonestly claim. That isn’t aware that the LD 50s of salt and glyphosate indicate that glyphosate is less toxic. You are a pathetic excuse for a human.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    There are no such references. there may be some lying. Similar to yours.

  • Christopher Pare

    Well well, someone is crying. Haha! It’s funny how you try to act like you’re so intelligent, yet you resort to insults. LD50’s (no space genius) was a system created back in the late 1920’s and does not measure low-level long-term exposure. See, there’s something in the scientific world call “bioaccumulation.” And if you actually did any sort of research, that wasn’t a sad attempt at promoting your argument, you’d see that is how glyphosate is dangerous. Some materials can be essential to humans life until they reach a certain concentration. For example, water, the purest substance in the world for humans. Pretty sad I needed to explain this to you. Your level of intellect is obviously low. The scientific method is based on gathering BOTH pros and cons from a neutral perspective. You are obviously not anything near a scientist. So go cry some more and play video games. That’s where you belong. Once you hurled insults, I won the argument. You’re nothing but a foolish child.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Read the response quickly as I included a link to show your ignorance and dishonesty. the equally dishonest Erin will soon delete it.

  • Christopher Pare

    What link? Are you drinking tonight? You obviously haven’t read my responses. If you did research you would find plenty of links supporting both sides. But the scholarly links are the one’s that have been researched and approved by a panel of qualified individuals. The bioaccimulation of glyphosate is the issue. The facts arethat you don’t see numerous people dying from reaching the LD50 limit of salt but you see a lot of organ failures. You take faith in the word of corporate scientists over numerous others with nothing to gain. No one knows the true implications of all these things we ingest. You ever ask yourself why the scientific community cannot have a majority agreement on these questions? Do you understand that there are false experts out there? Obviously not. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. On that note, I would normally consider this matter agreeing to disagree, however, you proved that your emotions make your decisions and that you’re just too biased about this topic when you continue to throw insults like a petulant child. So good luck in unicorn land where all corporations have your best interest in mind instead of their profits.

  • Christopher Pare

    Wait a second, didn’t you just say there are NO references in which I speak of but then say there may be some? Lol, contradict yourself much? Then you state that they are lying without even looking at them! I don’t have to do anything here. You show how biased and ignorant you truly are.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    The link showed the truth. You are a liar and glyphosate doesn’t bioacumulate. Yes I understand there are false experts ou there. You are attempting to be one. “corporate scientists” A stupid remark showing your leftist bias. I haven’t mentioned nor linked to any corporate scientists. Though, they are way more reliable that folks like Ho, seneff, serralini and benbrook. Google “about those industry funded studies”

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    What I meant that you are dishonestly pretending to misunderstand is that there are no legitimate references that show BT is a problem for mammals. There are likely some dishonest ones.

  • Christopher Pare

    Out of all the moronic things you said, the “glyphosate doesn’t accumulate” has to be the most moronic of them all. You truly are blind. Glyphosate definitely bioaccumulates in mammals and actually RoundUp is more ecotoxic than glyphisate alone. You obviously know absolutely nothing of what you speak on. You just regurgitate what others said on here. Then you state that corporate scientists are more reliable than the others you mention. I’m glad you believe that. If you cannot possibly conceive that a corporate scientist would not release any findings that would hurt his/her company, than its pointless in even attempting to argue my point to you. You are not, nor will you ever be a scientist. The way you make decisions and stick to them because you’re so emotionally involved is what children do. So have fun praising Monsanto and when you’re in the hospital one day with kidney and/or liver failure, think back on this conversation. I no longer wish to argue with a feeble minded child like you who cannot understand what bioaccumulation is. So you go ahead and think you won this argument, okay. You’re truly pathetic and just understand that the world sees your ignorance as you have displayed it on this website.

  • Christopher Pare

    I bet that’s what you meant. Just like “glyphosate doesn’t bioaccumulate,” right? We got a smart one here people!

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    So, I see you didn’t bother to look up and read the article I referred to and choose to remain dishonest. Your loss.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    It doesn’t bioaccumulate. If ingested it is removed by kidneys. See biofortified article by Anastasia Bodnar. Complete with clickable supporting links. You know the ones that old “hide the truth” Erin deletes.

  • Christopher Pare

    It’s funny to me how you consistently mention your “articles” yet you never even looked up any that I referenced. I have obviously done a lot more research on this matter than you have. The only research you’ve done is the limited amount just to try to support your argument. I’ve researched both sides. In addition, you cannot even see how emotional you act on this matter which is obvious to anyone who studies even a small amount of science, clouds your judgement. Lastly, you keep refferring me to ridiculous websites that are not scholarly articles. Hence the reason you believe glyphosate doesn’t bioaccumulate. You are not on my level with this topic. Your mind is not open and you have all your emotions bottled up into your thoughts that there’s no discussing this matter. I could continuously refer you to numerous articles as well but it will be nothing but a waste of time. If you want to look at the other side, it’s simple. All you got to do is Google it. Stop wasting my time kid.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Not funny, logical. I have read that junk many moons ago. I see no reason to repeat errors to appease a dishonest person. I used to be as ignorant as thou. If I was close minded. I would still believe your nonsense.

  • Christopher Pare

    Okay, to appease you I looked at yourlink. Now, let me explain the issues here, maybe you will actually read what I have to say and do some more research. I have read a couple of Anastasia Bodnar’s documents and here is what I found.

    First, Anastasia admits that there is not really enough research on glyphosate or GMO’s.

    Second, she also states that most of her info comes from the EPA and FDA. Now, whether or not you agree with this, the fact is that numerous Monsanto employees work (or worked) for the FDA and EPA. This can be found if you Google “the amazing revolving door between Monsanto and the EPA and FDA. Like it or not, getting “research” from the place that makes the products in question is not a viable source. It’s like all the BS the academy of tobacco studies tried to pass off.

    Third, you are looking at one source and your attempt was only to prove your point. You stated glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and pointed to Anastasia as your reference. Well, like I stated earlier, I read a couple of her articles and did not see her say that. However, if you Google “glyphosate accumulation” you will find numerous scholarly articles claiming it does bioacuumulate. Will you look this up though? of course not. Because your entire agenda has been to look at things from your perspective and attempt to prove your point.

    Lastly, since you will not look things up for yoursel, I will walk you through this. The International Agency for Research on Cancer or IARC claims glyphosate is a carcinogen. Now this source is not in the US. It is not bound by corporate interests and studies the product for human benefit. Furthermore, there is a PubMed article (you know, the one your buddy Terry is all about) that states RoundUp is more ecotoxic than glyphosate alone. Most of the GMO’s are “RoundUp Ready.” This means that they can be drenched in RoundUp but it won’t kill the plant. So what does a plant do with liquid? It absorbs it. And yes, glyphosate does bioaccumulate in the body. You’re right to an extent. A majority of it does get processed through the bodyby the kidneys and liver. However, not all of it does. Thus, there are a lot of mixed reviews on this. Now, I understand there’s absolutely no convincing you and in your little mind, anyone who disagrees with your position is “a liar.” But sorry, I’ve done my research, you obviously have not.

    Now, it’s been painful dealing with you, but I’m done. I’ve told you from the beginning, we could send numerous references back and forth for a long time, but, sadly, I don’t have the patience for this any longer. So keep looking at the world from one point of view, you’ll get really far in life.

  • Christopher Pare

    And if you don’t think Monsanto has influence in the FDA then why won’t they label GMO foods? What does the FDA have to gain by not labelling GMO’s? It’s a pretty simple answer.

  • Christopher Pare

    You’re not closed-minded? That’s funny. This is coming from the moron who states that glyphosate doesn’t bioaccumulate You call me dishonest, yet you clearly haven’t read anything against glyphosate. You are just a child. Ignorant as ever and let’s his emotions make his decisions. The sign of a fool. You just repeat what Terry already stated because you are too feeble to come up with your own argument. Go back to living in your parents basement and let the big boys to the debating.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    So, still dishonest. The tobacco companies found a few scientist who would lie. The consensus was that tobacco was not safe. Today, the anti g.e. folks are the ones with only a few wackos hiding the truth. Also your foolish “revolving door” hypothesis has been debunked many times. First off changing jobs in a career is allowed. Second we want people with specialized knowledge to work in the industry. So you will get folks who have worked both in industry and gov’t. You also ignore the possibility that those who quit working for Monsanto just might dislike the company or hold a grudge against some of their execs. You don’t get to claim they are both evil and cause undying loyalty. Also, I have mentioned other sources. Here is one again. “Unfounded claims of glyphosate accumulation in breast milk” I did not look at “one source” I look at many. I listed her because she lists links that your master Erin deletes.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Simple, because there is no reason to label g.e. crops. there are no safety issues. Further for those who desire not to understand. Nongmo and organic labels serve their purpose.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Incorrect yet again. Before I knew better I had subscriptions to both Mother Earth News and Organic gardening. Also, my emotions do not make decisions. The facts guide me as I make them on my farm.

  • Christopher Pare

    You once again contradict yourself. You state that “Monsanto never worked in the FDA or EPA then you state that they want “experience in their workplace.” Only idiots such as yourself think that no one plays favorites and everyone is in it for the well being of people. You obviously didn’t bother to look up the SCHOLARLY articles that I referenced. There is no talking to a moron like you. Your mom should’ve swallowed you. Hopefully you don’t bring any offspring into this world. You’d just stupid up the place. So you can think you won this. I’m done attempting to lower my IQ just to guide you through the facts of the world. And by the way, I know you don’t own a farm. If you do, it’s a farm of stupidity which you hold several land deeds. Only a child would call someone “dishonest” 20 times in the matter of a day. So, you can think that you won this one okay. But anyone that sees it will know how much of a moron you truly are. Get the last word in if you want, I could care less. You’d just be showing the world how childish you truly are. So have fun acting like a farmer. I got a Master’s in Natural and Applied Sciences so I know what I’m doing. I don’t need the approval of a fool like you.

  • Christopher Pare

    Oooooh, so having subscriptions makes you an expert. I understand now. You’re such a genius. Oh, and you don’t let your emotions make your decisions either right? That’s why once you were confronted with someone who had a different opinionthan you you accused him of being dishonest right. Not to mention you jumped on the insult train mighty quick. You are a prime example of the stupidity in America. And just so you can satisfy your childish, ignorant ways, I’ll help you out. Eric is going to get the last word on this! Anyone who disagrees is a dishonest person! His previous “subscriptions ” make him an expert on GMO’s and his logic refutes international scientists with doctorates.

    That good for you? Now, I’m turning off my notifications so you can have at it kid. Maybe you should just make a post that continuously states that I am a dishonest person. That would set me straight.Hopefully there are no more “insanely intelligent” people such as yourself around. If there are, then this world will be completely dishonest. It’s just not fair how dishonest everyone is. Dishonest dishonest, dishonest. Good luck in your endeavors of stupidity. You’ll need it. Haha

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Nope, as I have suspected. You have reading comprehension problems. Monsanto couldn’t possibly work in the FDA. They don’t hire corporations as employees. Now go read again. Also I never said no one plays favorites. Go look up strawman. As I said I used to read the nonsense you referenced. No need to repeat errors. “I could care less” You didn’t even get that correct. The phrase is “I couldn’t care less”

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Again go look up strawman. I didn’t claim that having subscriptions made me an expert. I mentioned them to refute your foolish claim that I hadn’t read anything against glyphosate. I didn’t accuse you of being dishonest until I realized you were lying. That is why there is no real difference of opinion. You were simply lying. And I am correct.

  • AgrSci1

    Thank you for the “shill” label!! People use that when they have nothing scientific or rational to say.

  • Tyranny Stopper

    or when dumbasses talk shill points as if they are getting paid///
    words are hard?

  • Mav Black

    Hey fuck you jack.
    There’s always some jerkazoid calling people a bigot in the middle of a discussion and not doing much of anything else with their high school education.
    Well that shizz is wore out and you can’t use it anymore because it makes you sound like a fking parrot who can’t even define the word bigot beyond what you can make up on the spot.
    GO BACK to a high school that hasn’t brain washed you into dying slowly and having your own children renounce you dipshit.

  • Ben Jammin

    lol…every time you type your penis gets smaller…

    Your statement: “LONG WITH THE PEOPLE THAT CAME WITH THEM.” is the exact definition of a bigot (had you ever cracked a dictionary…)

    My education is well posted online as are my lawsuits concerning pesticides…. I’m not hiding…

    Just keep making yourself the fool….

  • Mav Black

    All I am hearing is the same universalist slogan over and over again. “bigot!, bigot!, bigot!”
    That’s all you got and it alone makes you exactly what you are complaining about.
    Every thing you say is a put down of others ideas, thoughts and feeling and a demeaning of their lives while grotesquely trying to forward your own juvenile political sloganeering.
    You Are A Niggardly Soul.
    Life for the people around you must be tedious for it can be no other way.

  • Marcus

    Hey there Shill Hill. Current scientific research is so polluted with profit driven garbage that you can cherry pick articles that support any theory you want. So repeatedly throwing a specific PubMed reference in there as “proof” does nothing except show your ignorance. And are you going to respond to any of my comments? Oh and one last question: what’s it like living without a soul?

  • Terry Hill

    So effectively you don’t believe ANY scientific research, Mucus? What you are claiming is that no matter what research I produce for you, it’s all tainted if it doesn’t agree with YOUR preconceived ideas. That’s not how science works.

    I can quite quickly produce a list of several hundred scientific papers that have been conducted around the world, even in countries that are not sympathetic to the US, that have neither corporate support nor any reason to be supportive of US interests.

    I’m in Australia and we have several universities here, including my alma mater, researching and studying GMO technologies. All with 100% taxpayer funding.

    Not understanding how science works is your first problem.

    Oh, one last question: What’s it like living without a brain?

  • Marcus

    haha you’re a piece of work. So let me get this straight- you have 100’s of studies that prove indiscriminately spraying Bt (GM or not) on a human population is safe? I’d REALLY like to see those. And I don’t give a shit if you live in Australia or Antarctica. This reply is just another meaningless tangent meant to deflect from the issue. Spraying this shit has never been proven safe, regardless of how much scientific nonsense you fill these comment threads with. You are a soulless shill. It’s obvious, even to those of us “without a brain”

  • Terry Hill

    Nope, you’re making a habit of being wrong. There are hundreds of studies that talk to the safety humans and animals consuming these soil dwelling bacteria – which you eat naturally and exist, naturally, in your gut. If you’d really like to see them, and actually cared about the truth rather than avoiding the cognitive dissonance, you’d get on to any university website, or PubMed, or whatever – rather than swallow the Kool Aid that people like the Health Nut and other, totally unqualified peddlers of snake oil are selling.
    I mentioned I don’t live in the US, because that’s where you’re paranoid delusions are based. Despite your narrow world view, the whole world doesn’t use the same funding model (corporate) for science that the US does. Remember, you’re the imbecile who brought up the ‘All science is tainted’ BS. It’s pertinent because you reject science, yet sit there as a hypocritical keyboard warrior defending anti-science claiming you’re somehow superior to the sum of human knowledge. Sure, whatever helps you justify your arrogance.
    No, I tried posting links to facts, but as they destroy almost everything Erin and her minions have built to sell to the gullible, her admins remove the links or my posts. See how ‘hiding the truth’ works?
    “Soulless shill”? I’d need to be getting paid, by definition, wouldn’t I?
    You can’t argue with facts because you don’t have any. News flash for you – ‘feels’ aren’t facts.
    Anti-science playbook, 101: When you have no facts, resort to ‘shill’ gamut.

  • Ben Jammin

    and it gets smaller yet….

  • Gwen

    The dissipation from about 30,000 feet up make whatever “Toxins” you perceive to be in jet exhaust harmless.

  • Linda

    Terry, I have trouble believing that there isn’t a difference between contrails and chemtrails. I get it that there are differences in the wind currents but I’m 72 years old and I NEVER saw a chemtrail till the past oh ten years maybe less. So something is different because the wind is the wind is the wind and it pretty much has always BLOWN one way or another so how do you explain that?

  • Terry Hill

    Linda, simply because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it any less true. Any you’ve NEVER seen a chemtrail. Because they don’t exist.
    Are you aware of thermal layers in the atmosphere? Different temperature layers can have vastly different wind. It can be blowing at 40knots at ground level, yet still as anything at 25,000′.

    Again, the fact you are ignorant of the science, or don’t understand how it works, doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    It’s WHY airliners fly higher – the air is often much stiller (and THINNER) – allowing for less turbulence and better fuel economy.
    The fact that you haven’t seen them may be because:
    a) you haven’t looked.
    b) there have been local changes in air routes, increases in air traffic etc.

    There are MANY factors that affect the persistence of contrails. Wind direction, wind speed, dew point, altitude, air temperature, humidity.

    There is only ONE thing that explains the persistence of ‘chemtrails’.
    Stupidity.

  • Terry Hill

    “I’m far more educated than you are”? Really?
    What are your degrees in?
    Think of this as a hobby – because I don’t get paid. I am a proponent of evidence based science. And my current university is researching GMOs to combat the effects of climate change.
    How is this a ‘terrible idea’? Honestly, I’d like to know.

  • Terry Hill

    Nope, not shilling. Biology major standing up for science against self-righteous ignoramuses.
    I’ve posted WALLS of evidence, links to studies, links to universities…even tried explaining is small words for you… and you ignore them.
    So you’ve proved you have no logical or evidence based argument supporting your ideology by calling everyone who disagrees with you by using science a ‘SHILL’.
    Who are you shilling for, jazzfeed?

  • Terry Hill

    The funny thing is, I’ve READ the counter arguments and studies, Chris. My support is for evidence based science over agenda-driven ideological ignorance.
    There are NOT numerous studies that say Bt is harmful to humans and mammals. And the ones I’ve read (eg Seralini, Carmen) are generally quite poor studies funded (yes, they even openly declare that) by organic food associations.
    I’d even be happy to point out the difference as to why these studies are poor (even downright deceptive) in their construction, if you’d like?

  • Linda

    wow Terry, you don’t know me but you feel compelled to call me stupid? Why? I’m curious but I am not stupid, however you are rude and arrogant I’m finding.

  • jazzfeed

    I’m advocating for Humanity, for every body’s access to the specific nutrients homo sapiens need and have thrived on for eons. I’m also advocating the avoidance of toxins from polluted air, water and commercial food products containing, among other useless crap, genetically modified ingredients that have been marinated in xenobiotic, carcinogenic chemicals. Aside from many “Thank yous”, no one pays me for these efforts, hence “shill” does not apply.

  • jazzfeed

    A believable non-answer that is extremely revealing at the same time. I give you one credit for honesty thinly disguised as a joke.

  • jazzfeed

    They are doing neither, rather monopolizing mutated monocrops, for maximum profit.

  • jazzfeed

    Why are you wasting time on a site where you assert the author and every commenter is dishonest and ignorant?

  • jazzfeed

    tyrannystopper: Thanks for expanding on these despicable mercenaries. The problem, which is their agenda, is the disruption of dialogue about what’s going on in, and what’s coming from, toxic global industries, how it’s affecting us and what to do about it. No matter how low-life their remarks, or because of it, they unfortunately succeed well in sidetracking and deflecting.

  • Terry Hill

    Please define ‘Fake food’?
    I’m advocating for a better world through education, awareness and science, and not supporting a delusional belief or the naturalistic fallacy OR defending corporations.
    I support biological, medical and food sciences at universities and higher learning institutions world-wide. I support my university, researching GMO grain crops to combat the effects of droughts and rising salt tables due to climate change. I support the scientific community that is researching GM approaches to speed up the natural processes that would otherwise take 50 years to achieve (if even possible) via crossbreeding, to incorporate vitamin A into rice to save millions of lives every year in Africa, a technology that was GIVEN AWAY, un-patented.
    You apparently have conflated your anti-corporate feelings with science, which is demonstrably wrong. Your jibe about someone “relentlessly defending” corporations makes this apparent, but where, exactly, did I do this?
    Learn a bit about some science – biology would be a good start. Without scientific advances, humans lived to about 30 years old and died of infected toe-nails and strep throat. 99% of the food we eat didn’t exist as it does today even 250 years ago – and that includes the grains, fruit, vegetables etc.
    I’ve read vitriol spewed by scientifically-illiterate, chemo-phobic, self-righteous conspiracy-theorists who believe that only ‘natural’ is real food because they rely on confirmation bias and ‘feels’ to make their judgments, that I can also recognize you for what you are.

  • Terry Hill

    So you chose to take that moniker personally? That was the only part of the entire explanation you chose to focus on?
    Was it because what I said contradicts your strongly held ‘beliefs’ and the cognitive dissonance was too much for you?
    Seriously, Linda, if you choose to believe that ‘contrails’ are real, despite the literal mountain of science and evidence that clearly and unequivocally prove that there is no government global population control conspiracy and all you are seeing is contrails, yet you DELIBERATELY choose to ignore it, then yes, I guess you have transgressed being simply ignorant.
    Deliberate, chosen ignorance is a sign of stupidity.
    Please, prove me wrong.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    not every commenter. Just those that are ignorant enough to oppose GE and the excellent safety record of the use of the technology. Besides that I have a policy of opposing any junk like this that appears on my feed. Plus I enjoy opposing such ignorance.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Mutated monocrops??? So, you like to make up stuff without regard for truth. Kinda like erin and chris.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    You are a truly hopeless case.

  • Linda

    Yes I did take your insult personally and no I don’t have a “strongly held belief” one way or another. I was asking questions regarding chemtrails vs contrails. It is not my “strongly held belief” that either is put in place as population control as you put it. I was curious and your explanation does not ring true to me. I really don’t care how smart you think you are, it doesn’t give you permission to be ugly. But now I’m thinking “he doth protest too much”, and since you don’t get paid to do what you are doing you must have a “firmly held belief” that using GMO’s to combat global warming is a good thing. If I’m skeptical it’s because I know our government plays these dirty little games with peoples lives without regard for what kind of havoc they may lead to. It sounds as if you also fall into that category since you prefer to be rude to others in this discussion as well. It must be lonely being so freaking smart and so freaking arrogantly stupid too. Talk about cognitive dissonance

  • Terry Hill

    Actually, Linda, I get angry at people who choose to be stupid. People who ‘believe’ rather than learn. I’ve tried playing nice for a long time with people in these threads. I’ve politely presented evidence, including scientific studies, links to universities, links to education pages. I’ve been called all sorts of names and read their passive-aggressive insults and ‘shill’ claims – called a liar, called a government stooge – and held my tongue. I’ve been called ignorant by people who don’t know the difference between a gene and an allele, yet are CERTAIN GMOs are harmful. I’ve been called uneducated about contrails by people who can’t even explain how an aircraft flies. People who claim open mindedness (“I was just asking a question”) yet let their words tell a different story.
    It pains me so much when people regurgitate conspiracy theories out of ignorance, then defend them out of stubbornness and stupidity.
    Yes, I get to the point of insulting people who claim to be open minded yet reject any and all actual evidence that proves them wrong.
    Yes, being told that things exist when they don’t, then being called a ‘shill’ because someone feels like I’ve somehow hurt their feelings by calling them out on their ignorance DOES infuriate me.
    Sorry, but believing the conspiracy that “The government” (which is made up of hundreds of thousands of people, may with kids, who also live in the suburbs) are somehow trying to kill the population who pays their wages, in every country in the world… can only be a sign of delusional paranoia. There is a difference between being skeptical (which means HONESTLY questioning a hypothesis and evaluating the answers for validity) and being a conspiracy theorist.
    By all means, question the government agencies approach on certain issues, but that doesn’t mean everything the government does is somehow automatically tainted.
    No, I don’t have a ‘firmly held belief’ except in the scientific method. I have facts and evidence that I concur with based on reading the scientific studies and seeing the results for myself, my education, and actually having learned something in my science classes.

  • JoeFarmer

    Please describe the event causing the traumatic brain injury that left you unable to function.

  • JoeFarmer

    LMAO! I bet you think tanning beds protect you from cancer, too!

  • JoeFarmer

    You trying for some kind of necroposting prize, Jazzy?

  • Linda

    well Terry, I come from a little different experience. I know first hand what the government can do and does. They don’t give a rip about the people they use in their little experiments, then the put all that evidence in a place and call it top secret or what ever. When the time is up on their hiddy hole and the people left alive call attention to it or not, they do an investigation or run a study so that we are lulled into believing it’s our government and they wouldn’t intentionally kill us? So do I believe in conspiracy theories, not really. Do I believe our own government does experiments on us, hides that from view, you bet I do because it happened to me. Your explanation about contrails makes perfect sense to me, I did take science in school. You have NOT made clear why the “contrails” are different today than they were twenty years ago, because whether you admit it or even know it, they ARE different. I do not know why but what I do know is the wind currents have always been wind currents and they vary etc. So go ahead on and talk talk talk, I’m sure you know plenty of “stuff” but calling someone stupid because they sincerely want to know why the contrails ARE different is just mean and ugly.

  • Damo

    “Aside from many “Thank yous”, no one pays me for these efforts, hence “shill” does not apply.”

    Really, what exactly have you done to accomplish this, other than leaving hack comments on a hack webpage?

    “It should be immediately understandable that my motives are qualitatively and radically different ”

    You admitted yourself that your motives are to be appreciated. Not to actually do any good or fix anything. Not to feed people, get paid for an honest day’s work, conserve one resource, or to protect one species or habitat. Nope, you just live off the glory of being thanked. Martyrs like yourself often use the wrong actions because they “feel” they are doing something good–but neglect to find out if that is true or not.

  • Damo

    Unfortnately, I have been in this fight long enough to know that you won’t be changing his mind. But hopefully some lurker will see your comments and be able to recognize those of us that are sensible and those of us who rely on good intentions, but not facts.

  • jazzfeed

    Very twisted, every sentence – not worth responding to.

  • Damo

    Really? Than why did you? Not only did you respond, you refused to provide any reasoning why it wasn’t true. How do you live with yourself?

  • jazzfeed

    You’ve crossed over to comedy land. Thanks for the LOL!

  • Damo

    Good one, but you are wrong about everything.

  • jazzfeed

    Right. So what other sites are you currently assigned to patrol? I would like to follow you on them to take advantage of all your informed insights and authoritative assertions, so as to begin the long slog back to being right about something. I’ll bet you are a master of several major fields.

  • Damo

    My opinions are formed by being educated on the topic. If you chose to become educated about a particular topic, you also could be right about something.