GMO Salmon just approved by the FDA

 
2846
GMO Salmon just approved by the FDA

 

GMO Salmon just approved by the FDA

In an unfortunate, yet not surprising, turn of events on Thursday, the FDA approved GMO salmon (genetically engineered) for human consumption in the US. This is the first such altered animal allowed for human consumption and critics are concerned that the fish may cause human allergies and decimate the natural population if they escape into the wild and breed.

“There’s no place on our dinner plates for genetically engineered fish,” said Lisa Archer of the environmental advocacy group, Friends of the Earth.

The salmon, called Advantage Salmon, are engineered by a Massachusetts-based company- AquaBounty. They grow twice as fast as normal salmon due to an added growth hormone taken from a breed of salmon called the Pacific Chinook. This addition allows the fish to produce growth hormones all year long; engineers were able to do this by using another gene from an eel-like fish, the Ocean Pout, which acts like an “on” switch for the hormone.

Answering critics fears, the company says that they will not only inspect the facilities (as will the Canadian and Panamanian governments) but that there are, “‘multiple and redundant levels of physical barriers’ in the facilities to prevent the escape of fish.” The fish will be bred to be female and sterile so that if any do escape they would not be able to breed. However, that just makes me think of the quote from the first Jurassic Park film, “Life will not be contained, life breaks free…life finds a way.”

While the salmon faced opposition with both Congress (Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Rep. vehemently opposed the fish due to its potential to harm the states wild salmon industry) and the current FDA administration, amid understandable consumer concern, after 5 years they were ready to declare it “safe” for humans. The Director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine stated that they had “thoroughly analyzed and evaluated the data and information” submitted by AquaBounty. Although we don’t find any of this story comforting, the FDA has at least released guidelines for retailers that want to label the salmon as “engineered”.

But even that is mere formality as the FDA sees the GMO salmon as having no material differences between the natual fish and therefore, labeling isn’t technically necessary. Should retailers decide they do not want to label the fish, once the salmon reach stores, consumers may not even know they are eating the “frankenfish”, as some are calling them. Due to pressure from activists who oppose genetically modified foods, various retailers have pledged not to sell the salmon and it is unclear whether the public will have an appetite for the fish.

At this point is seems your safest route is to avoid salmon altogether. When are we going to wake up and see what we are doing to our planet and to ourselves?

Source








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.

SHARE
  • William

    One of the best GE projects and developments ever – can’t wait to eat them!

  • Stacey H

    This.
    This is what the aliens will point at when they query how our civilization ended.
    No, not the fish. The idiots that read these websites and believe them.
    Here lies the human race, done in by utter ignorance and an unwillingness to think at all.

  • Cindee Lee

    Well then, “William,” you just eat as much of that wonderful GMO salmon or fish as you like. As for the rest of us with some common sense, we’ll leave it ALL for people who have the same foolish perception.

  • Genius. This from associated press. It’s all over mainstream. I’m getting a screen shot of your post though. You win the Darwin award for my site for all of 2015 (and out of hundreds of thousands of comments? That’s saying a lot!) congrats… http://abc7news.com/food/genetically-modified-salmon-okd-for-human-consumption-in-us/1091478/

  • Fiyero109

    hah, this is like the onion but about health news right?

  • Fiyero109

    “common sense”, girl you’re trippin……your common sense is based on what exactly? fear of the unknown, superstition? Come back when you can tell me you have a PhD in molecular biology

  • Michelle

    Why is it that when people are given information regarding there health and how to improve it, they become negative? I believe people do not want change and they are not willing to be educated. 30 years ago doctors told my father in law, that it was ok to smoke, just cut back a little. Well we all k the dangers of tobacco. Health Nut, keep up the good work, many of appreciate it.

  • ummmm…when did chinook salmon become something from an alien movie like in the pictures?

  • Matt Flannery

    Yum, can’t wait to support these on the market. They’ll probably even be cheaper, means more salmon steaks for me!

  • Sea Fog

    you should not eat farmed salmon anyway GMO or not. They use antibiotics, and coloring etc. As far as GMO goes, I think it is the future, for everything…even for healthier humans. But at this point we cannot really assess the damage or “interactions” with nature. I believe we will have programs for the super computers, that can check all the data of environmental interaction in all direction. Hopefully soon…

  • Cindee Lee

    Same sentiment goes for you, Mr. “Fiyero109.” Besides, I don’t do battle with unarmed “persons” that obviously go out of their way to do nothing more than belittle, incite and enrage others with their comments. I have considerable knowledge regarding this very subject. Though, as I stated, you and Willie there just go right on ahead and eat as MUCH of that GMO salmon as you like. When you’re close to death at the age of 40, then let’s talk again, shall we?

  • Cindee Lee

    I find it extremely entertaining that there are at least five corporate paid trolls “commenting” on your website, Erin. Though, it does not surprise me in the least considering the murderous onslaught that’s been taking place against those of us who ardently advocate holistic approaches to health and diet, and our refusal of their toxic “pharmaceutical drugs” and the poisoned foods. Believe me, these “trolls” are exceptionally easy to spot. Looks like those in “control” are feeling rather “stressed” because far too many people are finally waking up, comprehending the dire nature of our world and joining forces to counteract this malevolent “machine.” The time is “now.” *Storm is coming*

  • Scott Fulton

    Not one piece of this fish will touch my or my families lips under any circumstances.

  • Scott Fulton

    Anyone remember that sheep that genetically modified? It grew twice as fast it also died prematurely also, wonder why ? Hhmm

  • Get Fuzzy

    I don’t see an answer to the question posed in the box, so I can only assume it is “d” – none of the above.

  • Mario

    You do know that orange carrots are GMO’s too? Just like the non purple potatoes we all eat.

  • al smith

    don’t eat it you will g blind.. oh that is another kind of eel

  • Michael Fest

    Really? Who are these trolls? If there really are paid trolls here, then provide evidence that counters their arguments.
    Even someone paid to promote misinformation could easily be countered with evidence. The shill accusation is an exercise in futility.

  • Michael Fest

    Who are all of these people that are close to death from eating genetically engineered foods? How does this breeding technique cause any special risk other than that of being misunderstood?

  • hyperzombie

    That was Dolly the sheep and she was a clone, kind of like the premium Organic apples that you eat.

  • Michael Fest

    That would be correct. A gene sequence was used to produce a protein. Not the eel’s dna. Saying the dna was inserted is misleading and demonstrates a lack of understanding of modern breeding techniques.

  • hyperzombie

    That infographic is very dishonest. They used fish genes in this GMO fish, Oh so scary.

  • Michael Fest

    * However, that just makes me think of the quote from the first Jurassic Park film, “Life will not be contained, life breaks free…life finds a way.” *

    How does a quote from a work of fiction negate the fact that these fish are sterile and multiple safeguards will be used to prevent their escape into the wild?

  • hyperzombie

    But this has nothing to do with health. It is just a fish that grows faster, it will not come over to your house and force you to smoke and eat bon bons all day. How is this a health issue.

  • hyperzombie

    Why, are you scared of fish genes in fish….Seems like a strange thing to be worried about.

  • Cindy Roodakker

    orange carrots are not GMO at all.. modern day orange carrot was developed by crossing the mutated yellow and white rooted carrots as well as varieties of wild carrots, which are quite distinct from cultivated varieties. the original carrot is purple.. we Dutch people created the orange carrot in the mid centuries.. and i dont think we had any GMO back then,, do some more research before you open your mouth please.. and for those potatoes goes the same.. just crossing mutations.. uhmmm do even know what GMO means??

  • Chris Brown

    Hello my baby, hello my darling, hello my ragtime doll…

  • Chris Brown

    …..

  • Stephen Bird

    You know i never liked fish and im a vegan but i think ill probably eat these cos i think eating thinks that look like monsters would be epic! Get back at all those childhood monsters from dreams by eating them! 😀

  • Suzie Nunnally Clary

    Those following a biblical diet would not eat fish with no scales. To modify a salmon with an eel and not let the consumer know is just seriously wrong.

  • Stephen Bird

    Btw i am about 100% sure those pics are not of the actual fish they are from a horror movie…

  • Sunday Pavlock

    No need to bother with “those who have a PhD” Seems to me,they are the culprits. Just say NO to buying genetically modifyed ANYTHING

  • Sunday Pavlock

    Have you ever wondered HOW they cause these mutations? Please engage your brain before entering a discussion which begs for intelligence. Chemicals POTENT enough to cause genetic mutations are NOT what could possibly be considered SAFE?

  • hyperzombie

    Ummm, I know exactly how they bred this fish, and it has nothing to do with mutations.

    “Chemicals POTENT enough to cause genetic mutations are NOT what could possibly be considered SAFE?”

    Really?? You eat food everyday that has been mutated with powerful chemicals (this fish was not produced this way) ever eaten a Banana, seedless watermelon, one of those fancy cherry tomatoes, Wheat, Barley, Rice, and thousands of other crops, all created using powerful chemicals or radiation to mutate the genome.

  • Stephen Bird

    If you search the web you can find real pics of the fish, they look like a normal fish lol

  • Ted Govostis

    Yeah, it means it’s genes were modified. In the case of the carrot, the genes were modified via selective breeding, a far more random and error prone method than genetic engineering.

  • Charlie

    Multiple safeguards are also used to prevent oil spills….like Deep Water Horizon.

  • Michael Fest

    Not a valid comparison. Comparing a very complicated and dangerous process like deep water oil drilling to fish farming?

  • Delius

    Any evidence that any of them are actual “corporate paid trolls”? No? OK. Any evidence that contradicts the claims they are making? Oh, dear, still no. Well, don’t fret, snowflake, you just keep saying TROLL until you feel better.

  • Delius

    Wait, wait. Just to be clear: your argument is that inserting eel genes into the salmon makes it no longer a “fish with scales” even though it still has scales? And therefore it is forbidden to anyone following a “biblical diet”? I just had to ask, because, seriously, that has to be the looniest argument I have ever heard.

    You do understand that salmon and eels already share about 90% of their DNA, right?

  • Delius

    Good luck finding anything to eat, then. Because virtually everything you eat has been genetically modified by humans.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    and pink grapefruit.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    They used chinook salmon

  • Erik Anderson

    Full disclosure, the only thing I get paid to research are complications of treatment for leukemia and I’m solely funded by a training grant through the National Institutes of Health.

    I’ve got a PhD in molecular biology, and for my various research projects I’ve genetically engineered (in increasing order of complexity) oligonucleotides, plasmids, viruses, bacteria, mouse cells, human cells, fruit flies, and mice. That represents a tiny fraction of how I’ve spent the last decade, which could be more broadly described as learning about biological processes, functions, and interactions. I’m not bragging, just as a mechanic telling you that he can take your car apart and put it back together isn’t bragging. We would both just be describing our respective skillsets.

    That being said, I totally understand the fear, the twisting feeling you get in your gut when you think of eating something unnatural and artificial. GMOs are certainly that. If someone tells you that they put a fish gene in a tomato, you can’t help but imagine it tastes a little fishy. And if someone puts a gene from a fish that looks like it came from the movie Alien into your salmon, you’ll imagine that tastes strange too. Fortunately for you, me, your kids, and the planet, the fear is the only thing harmful about GMOs. I don’t expect any of you to trust or believe me, but if you choose to do so, I am actually telling you the truth.

    The truth is that every gene and protein in every living thing on the planet is made of the same material, and when you eat it, it turns into the same digested material. The FDA doesn’t label GMOs because there is no difference in the end product, apart from how it was produced. An analogy is prescription medication. You can get the name-brand medication (organic) and pay twice as much for it, or you can get the generic (GMO) and save money. They both are exactly the same, but one has brand power behind it and costs more to produce. Personally, I always go for the generic because I know that they are identical and I think it’s stupid to spend more money to get the same product. If other people want to do that, it doesn’t bother me.

    The whole anti-GMO movement bothers me because, as a molecular biologist, I KNOW that there is nothing harmful about GMOs, but a bunch of people are trying to force companies to put labels on my food, to make it more expensive, and try to force me towards organic purchases. You might find this amusing, but when companies like Panera, Chipotle, McCormick, Ben&Jerry’s come out as anti-GMO, I immediately and permanently avoid any of their products and advise everyone else to do the same. I find the whole thing ridiculous and annoying, but not really surprising. Not everyone wastes 10 years of their life learning entirely too much about stuff (biology/health) that most people only pretend to know or care about.

    Apologies for the rant.

  • David Loewen

    You expect a VALID comparison? You must be new to the internet. 😉

  • David Loewen

    “That infographic is very dishonest.”
    And this is news? 😉

  • lol there are even more now! It’s unbelievable! 2 in 2 minutes….
    Storm IS coming and they better take cover and fast ; )

  • Good. You can eat them for all of us. Amazing how the shills trolls and astroturfers come out for this ones on this story guys. look up astroturfing. because here it is!

  • Seems strange you’d be on my page at all as you’re not a reader of it.

  • No the site is very real. as is the GMO salmon.

  • it’s picture B…. that’s the GMO salmon

  • it’s picture B… clear as day

  • picture B. Wow the non readers of this site are out in full force today. Hey real readers of this site- google astroturfing as these guys are great examples ; )

  • No it’s picture B..

  • and you must be new to my site. Imagine, someone who doesn’t read it just trolling……er strolling in… wow what a coincidence.

    (guess what astroturfers- we’ll keep reporting on GMO salmon no matter how hard you get paid or basement dwellers come here to try and make it sound normal or healthy when scientists admit how bad it is)

  • I guess that’s why costco and other chains are REFUSING to sell this franken food. Ahhh what a coincidence people come trolling er. strolling in to my site who have never read it before (Monsanto, well played… well played)

  • you know so much. Do you work for Monsanto ? Person who does not read my site?

  • If you READ it – it says which photo is it- it’s picture B : )

  • Dr Anderson. So I’m confused.. . You say the only thing you get paid to research are complications of treatment for leukemia and you’re solely funded by a training grant through the National Institutes of Health (hope i got that right) and you have a PhD in molecular biology..

    You are not a regular reader of my alternative, holistic, health nut site and certainly not ANTI GMO (which is one of the main themes of HEALTH NUT news)

    So why, prey tell, would a busy PRO GMO PhD like you be on my page and take an awful lot of your valuable time (no sarcasm there) to post this?

    (in other words- how did you find my site? What (or better yet WHO) sent you here?

    Erin

  • Actually that wouldn’t be accurate. (unless they’re lying to us)

  • Erik Anderson

    Hi Erin,

    Your article came up in my Facebook news feed. I follow a lot of GMO-related pages, and your article came up as a ‘related article’.

    Generally speaking, nobody sends me anywhere to do anything. Very infrequently, I get the urge to talk to people who have an opinion that differs from mine.

    When an individual doesn’t have the research background necessary to thoroughly understand a scientific topic, they need to choose who they believe to be telling the truth. The evil scientist, grinning wickedly and brandishing a syringe, or the friendly organic farmer, beaming in the sunshine and holding up a shiny red tomato. The thing is, I’m really not trying to sell you anything. Precisely zero of the “pro-GMO PhD scientist trolls” are trying to sell anything. We just understand the technology well enough to know that there’s nothing scary about it. And the innocent organic farmer? He wants to you to spend twice as much on food that has identical nutritional value.

    Also, the FDA does its job. Do you know about trans fats? They’re made by chemically altering vegetable oil to make it thicker for use in deep frying, margarine, snack foods, etc. It’s not found in nature, except in extremely small amounts in ruminants. It’s been strongly linked to coronary artery disease, and it’s one of the major reasons why everyone is obese and dying of heart disease today. The FDA required that it be labeled, restricted its use in food, and set guidelines for how much people should eat (as little as possible). Because it’s actually harmful.

    Sometimes I think people are more afraid of the fact that a person put the genes from one fish into another, rather than the fact that they are there. As if the chaotic, unpredictable forces of nature are somehow safe, orderly, and predictable. For example, we still have animals running around that are 50% horse and 50% donkey and nobody bats an eye. That’s tens of THOUSANDS of genes from two different species of animal mixing together, but for some reason nobody’s terrified of mules.

  • My better half, Dr Mercola and I, both have a research background .Thanks. I believe the FDA is a lapdog for most corporations instead of a watch dog. Look how many years they left trans fats in before taking them out. Hopefully it doesn’t take that long for GMO salmon etc. Good day. I’m sure you just stumbled upon my page…
    Erin

  • Erik Anderson

    That’s awesome! My girlfriend is a DO (she’s in my profile picture). I try to keep an open mind, particularly when it comes to topics about which I know little. I hold very few opinions strongly, and those opinions need to have an unshakable foundation in knowledge and morality. My opinion on GMOs fits those criteria. I don’t agree with you or your better half, but I do thank you for treating me with dignity and respect. As a fellow human being living a remarkably privileged life in a messed-up world, I wish you both well!

  • hyperzombie

    It would be, some nuts, fish and berries are the only foods that you will eat that have not been extensively modified by humans. Corn, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, brussel sprouts and many others don’t even exist in the wild and never have. They are human created food crops.

  • hyperzombie

    They said that they have no plans to sell it at this time,,,And considering it wont be avalible for at least 3 years, smart marketing.

  • hyperzombie

    Nope, just a farmer that knows something about agriculture and plant and animal breeding.

  • hyperzombie

    GMO salmon look exactly like atlantic salmon, they just grow all year instead of just in the summer.

  • hyperzombie

    Nope…

  • hyperzombie

    Nope, GMO salmon look like salmon, because they are salmon.

  • hyperzombie

    Yep..All pink grapefruits.

  • Nikkin

    Oh, HZ trolls any article that has the word GMO in it. 24/7.

  • grinninglibber

    This is one of your paid trolls.

  • Nikkin

    You go girl. Thanks for bringing awareness to this important topic.

  • razorjack

    Absolute nonsense.

  • grinninglibber

    They flood every such articles – usually the same names.
    Many of them are sock puppets.

  • Debbie Owen

    Because they know people don’t want crappy GMO fish.

  • razorjack

    His posing history shows he has 17,244 shill comments all trying to protect the corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science cult ideology and agenda that must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

    He and others here are all well know industry shills.

  • razorjack

    It’s not likely to ever be available when they find out nobody wants their frankenfood fake fish.

  • razorjack

    Absolute nonsense!

  • Debbie Owen

    It’s GE fish farming which is even worse.

  • razorjack

    Conventional were modified using natural selection and these food have all their genes from the species being modified. Mother nature has tested these organisms in nature for millenniums.

    GMO foods are created in a lab by cobbling together genes from unrelated organisms and they have been released with no safety testing and hidden from Americans in the food they feed their families.

    This is the big difference that the corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber tries to spin away with PR designed lies created to deceive the public.

  • razorjack

    False equivalency.

    The situation is much more nuanced and complex, but as always zombei boy tries to cloud the issue and decide reader with his nonsense lies.

  • grinninglibber

    Every post a Big-GMO shill post.

  • razorjack

    Please show us ONE study that shows long term consumption of any current GMO foods is safe for humans.

    Show us the science.

  • Rob Bright

    Just calling a spade a spade (or a shill a shill in this case.) Nothing futile in stating the facts…

  • Rob Bright

    Troll…

  • grinninglibber

    TROLL – flagged

  • Rob Bright

    Likely one of the paid shills mentioned above…

  • grinninglibber

    Not just “likely” a head troll.

  • Rob Bright

    Absolute gibberish. Typical troll/shill comment designed to conflate genetic engineering with selective breeding. Right out of Monsanto’s/ Ketchum’s playbook.

  • Rob Bright

    You’re really clutching at straws there…

  • razorjack

    He knows that just like all the trolls do.

    He is just trolling.

  • Rob Bright

    Another anti-science promoter trying to confuse genetic engineering with selective breeding…

  • grinninglibber

    The known shill shills. SHAME

  • razorjack

    Says the industry shill boy who’s trolling for peanuts and GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber glory.

  • Michael Fest

    The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that there is nothing uniquely hazardous about the methods used in genetic engineering.
    And the fact that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, getting paid or is doing this for any other reason than to simply set the record straight demonstrates your inability to comprehend what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe.
    You are apparently trying to set yourself up as a champion for the people for food, health and safety when in fact you’re merely a champion of scientific illiteracy and ignorance.

  • grinninglibber

    Another known shill

  • Rob Bright

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • razorjack

    He’s working from the Ketchum scripts too.

  • grinninglibber

    What exactly do you “farm” there in Mommy’s basement.

  • Rob Bright

    They also said their GMO crops would not cross-contaminate with non-GMO crops. They were wrong about that one. They also said glyphosate would not be a problem in terms of creating resistant weeds (aka, Superweeds) and they were wrong about that one, too. So you’re foolish enough to believe them when they say this farming method will be foolproof, eh…?

  • Rob Bright

    Nope. Just the biotech funded ones, and those who’ve been duped by their propaganda and pseudoscience/ corporate science…

  • Rob Bright

    Says the guy who knows absolutely nothing about fish farming…

  • Rob Bright

    I think you’d have to agree that the basic premise of genetic engineering that these biotech corporations rely upon for their claims of safety is that one gene has only one function. Yet with the completion of the Genome Project in the early 2000s we learned that, in fact, genes can have multiple functions (most of which we know absolutely nothing about.)
    This is what the FDAs own scientists told their superiors back in the early 1990s. And yet they were totally ignored. Now how does that happen? Why did the FDA ignore concerns about GMO safety from their own scientists?

  • Rob Bright

    Google “gene gun.” This is how genes are inserted…

  • Two Americas

    Nonsense. You cannot counter someone with evidence then their goal is to disrupt discussions, create confusion and taunt and provoke people. I have often completely demolished the arguments of the biotech defenders. So what? They will be right back the next day, all over the Internet, posting dozens and dozens of times a day with the same discredited arguments.

    Yes, several have been exposed as paid disinformation agents.

  • Erik Anderson

    I’ll be straight with you. There isn’t a single study I can cite that you can’t pop into google and find an argument against. That doesn’t mean that the argument will be bad or good, just that it will exist, you will find it, and nothing will have been accomplished.

    As an anecdote, what do kale, collard greens, kai-lan, cauliflower, cabbage, brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, and broccoli all have in common? They’re all the same species of plant. Every animal and plant that we eat has been selected by farmers for desirable traits, modifying dozens to hundreds of genes every generation, with thousands of genes changing over hundreds or even thousands of years. These choices resulted in trillions or quadrillions of new gene/protein interactions in our diets. The same thing happens every time you try a new food for the first time.

    Let’s say you know someone who, for some reason, has never eaten salmon. So, you take him to a restaurant and he orders salmon. With that first bite, his digestive system is breaking down 20,000+ proteins that it’s never seen before. However, every protein is made of the same 23 amino acids. The stomach is highly acidic and contains trypsin and pepsin, so every single one of those novel proteins is rendered totally inert as soon as digestion starts. Once it enters the small intestine, the pancreas secretes even more digestive enzymes, and everything is absorbed as fats, amino acids, sugars, and other small molecules. At the end of the day, your body doesn’t know or care whether your food was GMO or organic, because it is highly efficient at breaking food down into its constituent parts and absorbing them for growth and energy. Should you be afraid of GMO salmon? Honestly, no. It will be as harmful to your body as any other fish, which is to say not very.

  • Erik Anderson

    The basic premise is actually equivalence, in that any animal or human consuming a genetically engineered organism cannot conceivably suffer any detriment from its consumption, because there is no scientifically plausible or rational explanation for how it could cause harm. To a trained molecular biologist, saying that eating a GMO designed for human or animal consumption caused someone harm is like saying that an ant pushed over an oak tree. It’s physically, mechanistically impossible and delusionally irrational (but only if you have an incredibly detailed and complex understanding of biology).

    To anyone not trained in molecular biology, though, I suppose it seems plausible and rational, and to some it appears to be a certainty or inevitability.

  • razorjack

    You are talking about organisms that have evolved through natural selection and have been tested by nature for thousands of years in the ecosystem.

    GMO organisms are different in the fact they have been cobbled together in a laboratory from genes from unrelated organisms that do not mix in nature. These organisms have all been released and are currently being hidden from the public in the food we feed our families.

    The nations largest health care organization sent a newsletter to their patients. In that newsletter was an article by one of their nutritionists who explained GMOs and then told the patients to avoid them so as to not degrade their health. The health care organization had no “official” policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the concerns of it’s medical staff, it’s patients, and it’s bottom line to send out the warning

    There have been no long term independent studies of the health effects of GMOs on human health. Many health care organizations are recognizing that severe unexplainable symptoms that are being reported by their patients get better when GMOs are removed from their diet.

    You can have all the confidence in the system that you want to, but most smart people want to see some scientific proof that these GMOs are safe for long term human consumption, and right now no studies have been done that tell us that.

  • Ted Govostis

    Nope, I don’t conflate the 2. I outright state, unequivocally that genetic engineering is the scalpel to selective breeding’s chainsaw as far as delicate and predictable genetic manipulation.

  • TZ

    What makes it inedible is it has not been tested to ensure safety! Please feel free to post the chronic toxicity studies that were done to ensure this Salmon is safe to consume long term!

  • TZ

    http(colon)//www(dot)esciencecentral(dot)org/journals/hematotoxicity-of-bacillus-thuringiensis-as-spore-crystal-strains-cry1aa-cry1ab-cry1ac-or-cry2aa-in-swiss-albino-mice-2329-8790.1000104(dot)php?aid=11822
    Abstract

    Formulated and sporulated cultures of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have been widely used against insect pests, but after the advent of genetically modified plants expressing δ-endotoxins, the bioavailability of Cry proteins has been increased. For biosafety reasons their adverse effects should be studied, mainly for non-target organisms. Thus, we evaluated, in Swiss albino mice, the hematotoxicity and genotoxicity of four Bt spore-crystals genetically modified to express individually Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2A, administered alone by gavage with a single dose of 27 mg/Kg, 136 mg/Kg or 270 mg/Kg, 24 h, 72 h or 7 days before euthanasia. Binary combinations of these four spore-crystal proteins were also assayed at 270 mg/Kg with a single administration 24 h before euthanasia. Control mice received filtered water or cyclophosphamide at 27 mg/kg. For hematotoxicity evaluations, blood samples were drawn by cardiac puncture and processed in a multiple automated hematology analyzer; for genotoxicity analyses, micronucleus test was carried out in mice bone marrow cells. Spore-crystal administrations provoked selective hematotoxicity for the 3 exposure times, particularly for erythroid lineage. A significant reduction in bone marrow cell proliferation demonstrated cytotoxic but not genotoxic effects. These effects persisted for all exposure times, becoming more evident at 7 days.Similar results were observed for binary combinations at 24 h, suggesting that further studies are required to clarify the mechanism involved in the hematotoxicity found in mice, and to establish the toxicological risks to non-target organisms, especially mammals, before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals.

  • TZ

    Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10;56(23):11533-9.
    http(colon)//www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlmkdot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/19007233

  • TZ

    Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.#1367 http(colon)//www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/18989835
    etc.”

  • TZ

    NO they are NOT! You people are ridiculous! http(colon)//earthopensource(dot)org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-1-myth-truth/

    Truth: Genetic engineering is different from natural breeding and poses special risks

    Myth at a glance

    GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural plant breeding. But genetic engineering is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and entails different risks. The difference is recognized in national and international laws.

    GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural plant breeding. They say that genetically modified (GM) crops are no different from naturally bred crops, apart from the deliberately inserted foreign GM gene (transgene) and the protein it is intended to make.

    But GM is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and poses different risks. This fact is recognized in national and international laws and agreements on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For example, European law defines a GMO as an organism in which “the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” and requires the risks of each GMO to be assessed.1

    The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,2 an international agreement signed by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology, and the United Nations food safety body, Codex Alimentarius, agree that GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.3,4

    In 1999 the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Monsanto’s advertisements about GM foods and crops were misleading in claiming that genetic modification was an extension of traditional breeding methods.5

    Today, few public comment forums on GM crops and foods are complete without claims from GMO promoters to the effect that “We’ve been genetically modifying crops for millennia”. This conveys essentially the same message as Monsanto’s advertisements and seems to have the same intent: to reassure the public that nothing radical or new is being done to their food. This message is scientifically inaccurate and misleading.

    Indeed, industry tries to play both sides in its presentation of GMOs. It tells patent offices worldwide that the GM process is totally different from natural breeding and so the generation of a GM crop constitutes a non-obvious “inventive step”, thus making the GM crop patentable. On the other hand, it tells the public that the GM process is little different from natural breeding and that therefore GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods.

    Both arguments cannot be correct. And technically speaking, the GM transformation process is radically different from natural breeding.

    Natural breeding can only take place between closely related forms of life (cats with cats, not cats with dogs; wheat with wheat, not wheat with tomatoes or fish). In this way, the genes that carry information for all parts of the organism are passed down the generations in an orderly way.

    GM, in contrast, is an artificial laboratory-based technique that is specifically designed to enable the transfer of genes between unrelated or distantly related organisms. It even enables the introduction of synthetic DNA into the genome of living organisms.

    In an attempt to reassure the public and regulators about GMO safety, GMO developer companies are now focusing on transferring genes from a related organism or the same organism (so-called “cisgenesis”). For example, a gene from one potato may be inserted into another variety of potato. However, even in cisgenesis, a new GM gene unit may contain genetic elements from other organisms, including bacteria or viruses. Cisgenesis also involves the same laboratory methods that are used in genetic engineering and thus carries the potential for unexpected knock-on effects (see Myth 1.4).

    The steps of genetic modification

    The steps by which GM crops are created make it clear that genetic engineering is not an extension of natural breeding. It is not natural, as the particular combinations of genes put together in the GM gene cassette and the manner in which it is inserted into the host organism would never occur in nature.

    1. Isolation of the gene of interest

    Genetic engineering confers a new trait on an organism by introducing the gene for a trait into the genome of that organism. The first step in that process is to identify the gene for the trait of interest and to isolate it. Using existing knowledge about the genome of a given organism, the gene of interest encoding the desired trait is identified and “cloned”. That means the gene is physically isolated and propagated in a GM bacterium as part of a DNA molecule known as a plasmid. The vast majority of currently commercialized GMOs are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with one or more herbicides or to produce one or more insecticides.

    2. Cutting and splicing – generation of the GM gene cassette for introduction into the plant

    Before being used to produce a GM plant, the gene of interest must be joined up with appropriate genetic control elements that will allow it to be switched on within its new plant host, so that it will efficiently produce the protein that it encodes. Other elements are also spliced into or around the gene for various purposes. Most prominent among the genetic control elements that are spliced to the gene of interest are “promoter” and “termination” sequences.

    The promoter marks the beginning of the gene. It attracts and binds multi-protein complexes, called the gene expression machinery. This machinery reads the DNA sequence of the gene and synthesizes a complementary messenger RNA (mRNA) copy of the gene sequence. The termination element, as the name implies, marks the end of the gene and causes the synthesis process to stop.

    Promoter and termination elements must be sourced from organisms that will allow them to work in the GM plant. These can be from either plants or, more frequently, plant viruses such as the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). Promoters from plant viruses are usually preferred because they are more potent than plant gene promoters, allowing the GM gene to be expressed at higher levels and hence allowing higher production of the GM protein.

    If the gene of interest is not from a plant (for example, if it is from a bacterium or animal), it is typically modified in other ways as well, to make it more compatible with the gene expression machinery of the recipient plant cells.

    Genetic engineers use a variety of enzymes to cut DNA into specific sequences and to splice the various pieces of DNA into the plasmid that carries the cloned gene or gene of interest. The result of many cutting and splicing steps is the complete genetically engineered construct, called the gene cassette.

    For example, the gene of interest in first-generation GM Roundup® Ready soy, maize, cotton and canola encodes an enzyme (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to Roundup herbicide. The CP4 EPSPS gene was isolated from a naturally occurring soil bacterium. In order to ensure that the CP4 EPSPS gene is switched on appropriately in plants, it is linked to the CaMV 35S promoter, which is derived from the cauliflower mosaic virus. The CP4 EPSPS gene is also linked at its leading end to a gene fragment called a signal sequence, obtained from the petunia, a flowering plant. This is to ensure that the CP4 EPSPS enzyme localizes to the right place within the plant cells. Finally, a sequence that functions to terminate mRNA synthesis is spliced to the end of the CP4 EPSPS gene. This termination sequence is taken from a second bacterial species, Agrobacterium tumefaciens (A. tumefaciens).

    Therefore the first-generation Roundup Ready GM tolerance GM gene cassette combines gene sequences from four diverse organisms: two species of soil bacteria, a flowering plant, and a plant virus. These all end up in the genetically engineered agricultural crop. This graphically illustrates the extreme combinations of genetic material that can be brought about by the GM process. This is something that would never occur naturally.

    In addition to the gene(s) that confer traits relevant to the final crop, another gene unit is often included in the gene cassette along with the gene of interest. This additional gene unit functions as a selectable marker, meaning that it expresses a function that can be selected for. Typically this is survival in the presence of an antibiotic or herbicide. The GM gene itself can be used as a surrogate marker gene if it encodes resistance to a herbicide. When the marker gene (along with the other gene(s) in the cassette) is successfully engineered into the genome of the recipient plant cells, those cells are protected from the antibiotic or herbicide. The genetic engineer can then separate the cells that have integrated the GM gene cassette from the majority of other cells in the culture by exposing the culture to the antibiotic or herbicide. Only the cells that have been successfully engineered and are therefore resistant to the antibiotic or herbicide survive exposure.

    3. GM gene cassette insertion into cultured plant cells

    To introduce the GM gene cassette into the genome of the recipient plant, millions of cells from that species are subjected to the GM gene insertion (transformation) process. This is done by growing cells from the recipient plant or pieces of tissue from the plant in culture in dishes, tubes, or flasks, a system known as “tissue culture”, and then using methods described below to insert the gene cassette into the recipient plant cells. This results in one or more of the GM gene cassettes being inserted into the DNA of some of the plant cells present in the tissue culture. The inserted DNA is intended to re-programme the cells’ genetic blueprint, conferring completely new properties on the cell.

    The process of inserting the GM gene cassette is carried out in one of two ways. The first way is with a “gene gun”, which randomly shoots microscopic gold or tungsten nanoparticles coated in GM DNA into the plant cells in a process called particle bombardment or biolistics. In a few instances, the nanoparticles end up in the nucleus of the plant cells and in an even smaller number of cases, the DNA on the particles gets incorporated into the DNA of the plant cell. This is a completely random process that genetic engineers have no ability to control. They do not fully know what processes are involved in the DNA insertion process and have no control over when it occurs or where in the DNA of the plant cell it will occur.

    The second mechanism of gene insertion is by infection of the cultured cells with the soil bacterium A. tumefaciens. In its natural form, A. tumefaciens infects plants at wound sites, causing grown gall disease, a type of tumour. The infection process involves the actual insertion of DNA from A. tumefaciens into the DNA of the infected plant. The genetic engineer uses the natural ability of A. tumefaciens to insert DNA into the genome of infected plants to insert the GM gene cassette into the DNA of plant cells in culture. This is done by first linking the GM gene cassette to a piece of A. tumefaciens DNA called the Ti plasmid. This modified DNA is then introduced back into A. tumefaciens. Then the plant cells in culture are infected with the A. tumefaciens that contains the GM gene cassette-Ti plasmid DNA complex. A small fraction of the plant cells exposed to the A. tumefaciens are successfully infected and incorporate the GM gene cassette into their own DNA. As with biolistics, the A. tumefaciens insertion process is random and the genetic engineer has no way of controlling where in the plant cell genome the GM gene cassette will be inserted. It is hit or miss.

    At this point in the process, the genetic engineer has a tissue culture consisting of millions of plant cells. Some will have picked up the GM gene cassette, whilst the vast majority will not have done so. The genetic engineer now needs to select out the cells that have not picked up the GM genes and discard them from the process.

    4. Selection of the modified plant cells

    Depending on the type of marker genes that are part of the GM gene cassette (herbicide-tolerant or antibiotic-resistant), the plant tissue culture that has undergone the GM transformation process is treated with either a herbicide or an antibiotic, to kill all cells except those that have successfully incorporated the GM gene cassette into their own DNA and switched it on. Only the cells that have incorporated the marker gene into their genome and are expressing it will be resistant to the chemical and survive exposure.

    Only a small percentage of GM gene cassette insertion events result in expression of the GM genes in the plant cells.

    5. Hormone treatment

    The few plant cells that have successfully incorporated the GM gene cassette and survived the chemical treatment are then further treated with plant hormones. The hormones stimulate the genetically modified plant cells to proliferate and differentiate into small GM plants that can be transferred to soil and grown to maturity.

    6. Verification of the GM transformation

    Once the GM plants are growing, the genetic engineer examines them and discards any that are deformed or do not seem to be growing well. The remaining plants are tested so as to identify one or more that express the GM genes at the desired high levels and locations within the plant. Out of many hundreds or thousands of GM plants produced, only a few may fit this requirement. These are selected as candidates for commercialization.

    Each of these GM plants carries the same GM gene cassette, but it will be inserted at a different location in the genome of the plant. The GM gene will express at different levels in different GM plants and even in different parts of the same GM plant.

    At this stage the GM plants have not been assessed for health and environmental safety or nutritional value. This part of the process is described in later chapters.

    The GM transformation process is highly inefficient

    The GM transformation process is a complex multistep process in which each step needs to work as intended in order to produce the desired result. The GM gene cassette must be successfully inserted and the gene of interest switched on so that it produces the protein it encodes, while at the same time, all other properties of the plant, including fertility, must be preserved.

    This is a very inefficient process. The process of GM gene insertion into the plant cell DNA occurs only rarely. Most inserted GM genes fail to function, either due to integration into regions of the plant genome that are not permissive for gene activation or to natural plant defence mechanisms that silence or switch off of the “invading” foreign gene.

    GM gene cassettes currently used by genetic engineers do not possess any elements that are able to overcome these limitations of the transformation process. Therefore obtaining GM plants that are good candidates for taking forward for potential commercialization is a long, arduous, labour-intensive, and expensive process6,7 (see Myth 6.4).

    How unnatural is genetic engineering and does it matter?

    Some aspects of plant genetic engineering are unique to the GM process and do not occur in other types of plant breeding. They include the artificial construction of the GM gene cassette, which contains new synthetic genes and combinations of gene control elements that have never existed before in nature.

    Also, genetic engineering enables genes to be transferred not only between different species but also between different kingdoms – for example, from animals or humans into plants. Therefore genetic engineering evades natural barriers between species and kingdoms that have evolved over millennia. Moreover, genetic engineering can introduce purely synthetic genes, thus, for better or worse, expanding the range of possible genes to the frontiers of the human imagination.

    The fact that the GM transformation process is unnatural and artificial does not automatically make it undesirable or dangerous. It is the consequences of the procedure, combined with the current lack of systematic assessment of potential risks, that give cause for concern, as detailed in subsequent sections. See more at link above…(swap out colon for : and dot for .)

  • TZ

    NO, FALSE!
    http(colon)//gmo-awareness(dot)com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/GMO Risks
    Introduction: the genetic manipulation referred to in this article is *not* about crossing different breeds of sheep, developing various hybrids of corn, or other “within species” enhancement to improve naturally-occuring traits.

    Instead it’s about using a bacteria or virus to artificially insert an entirely foreign DNA into a plant’s genes, such as human genes inserted into rice, or Monsanto’s “Bt” (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn, which was genetically modified to produce a protein that ruptures the stomach when ingested by pests.

    The first risk of genetic engineering is the very theory underlying its science and methods, which was brought to light by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute.

    All along, genetic modification has been based on a theory that one gene will express (or “code for”) one protein, and thus an organism’s genome — its total complement of DNA genes — should fully account for its unique pattern of inherited traits.

    However, when the Human Genome Research Project was completed in 2002, it proved this theory was not true.

    The Human Genome Research Project discovered that genes operate in a complex network in ways that are still not fully understood.

    The human genome has just under 25,000 genes, yet our bodies function with approximately 100,000 proteins. This is not a one-to-one ratio.

    There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits, not to mention the vast inherited differences between plants — including the unrelated genes of the bacteria or viruses with which plants are being genetically manipulated.

    “A genome is a complex ecosystem that is greatly influenced by the environment—each gene of a genome makes many proteins according to environmental cues,” Dr. Thierry Vrain, former research scientist for Agriculture Canada.

    DNA contains a newly-discovered “second level” of code

    In a December 2013 study, scientists at the University of Washington discovered a second code “hiding” inside DNA, which completely changes how scientists read the instructions contained in DNA, and how they interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease.

    According to the lead scientist (Genome scientist Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos at the University of Washington, pictured above), “The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously.” – Dec. 13 issue of Science.

    Gene Modification is Not Specific, Precise, or Predictable

    Because we don’t entirely understand how genes work—as evidenced both by the Human Genome Project’s findings as well as the recent discovery of a second string of code inside DNA—the very process of genetic engineering—the random insertion of a gene into the genome—causes disruptions in many enzymes that perform basic metabolic work.

    Says Dr. Vrain, “Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”

    To put it simply, the Human Genome Research Project completely undermined the “science” behind genetic engineering. The whole paradigm of genetic engineering technology was based on a misunderstanding. The “Big Ag” corporations’ claims about their methods of genetically modifying food crops being “specific, precise, and predictable” are entirely untrue.

    Modifying one segment of DNA does not have a single direct result; instead it can cause a spiraling effect of unintended consequences

    Long before the Human Genome Research Project’s findings, a study published in 1999 in the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that inserting a gene into another organism’s DNA 1) causes thousands of activations, not just the one trait the researcher is looking for, 2) activates non-targeted (and sometimes toxic) genes; 3) affects idle genes, with entirely unknown effects; 4) lowers the plant’s nutrient content (since the plant’s energy is consumed with producing unnecessary proteins activated by the insertion).

    Due in no small part to those findings, a group of scientists wrote a now-landmark letter titled “Beyond Substantial Equivalence” to the prestigious journal Nature. In the letter, Erik Millstone et. al. called the FDA on the carpet in regard to their having branded genetically modified foods as “substantially equivalent.” Mr. Millstone called this term a “pseudo-scientific concept” that is “inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests.”

    Fast forward to this decade, and the results of the Human Genome Research Project are once again being proven: while working to find allergens in their GMO crops, scientists discovered that the genetic regulatory sequence used in more than 60% of GMO crops encodes a significant fragment of a “viral” gene that, in their words, “might result in unintended phenotypic changes.”

    During this same study, they also discovered some GMO crops had “superfluous” and “unsuspected” genes, including incomplete or rearranged sequences. The results of this study could not more clearly underscore what the Human Genome Research Project has been saying all along:

    “Genetic engineering is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on lab-created living organisms”

    As Barry Commoner, American biologist, college professor, author, and former Editor of Science Illustrated, says, “The most dramatic achievement to date of the $3 billion Human Genome Project is the refutation of its own scientific rationale,” as excerpted from an article in Harper’s Magazine.

    If the Human Genome Research Project clearly demonstrated the inherent flaws of genetically engineered agriculture, why has this corollary been swept under the media carpet in the United States?

    Barry Commoner summarizes it like this in that same article: “biotechnology companies are not in the habit of publicizing studies that question the efficacy of their miraculous products.”

    Quite the opposite in fact: these “ag-bio” corporations are in business to make a profit, with their primary allegiance to shareholders. They craft a strategic wall of corporate protection using paid politicians who will write laws in their favor, with paid “research” that is conducted to show the presumed safety of their products, with ex-employees who they’ve assisted in gaining seats in the FDA and USDA, and with food industry front groups and public relations firms that are paid to counter real research.

    So what are the inherent risks of consuming food that contains unexpected genetic behavior? What are the resulting outcomes to the crops and the environment?

    The Risks of Genetic Engineering

    The outward risks of genetically engineered foods fall into three categories:

    1. Environmental Hazards
    2. Human Health Risks
    3. Economic Concerns See more at link above…(substitute colon for : and dot for .)

  • hyperzombie

    Or, they will bide their time till you folks are pissed at something else.

  • Cindee Lee

    Here’s a little “hint” for anyone reading your website posts and comments. The unraveling of the “fascist Corporatists” responsible for this savage campaign of murder will be their monumental level of hubris. However, the very fact that the Corporatist Overlords have committed so many murders in such a short window of time validates that they are now quite worried, and subsequently have resorted to such desperate measures as this “trail of homocides” to silence those who oppose the villainous activities of those in “control” who think that they have us all “corralled” and under complete control. That arrogant level of hubris will lead to the complete failure of their “domination agenda.”

  • kanjizai

    How can you tell if someone is a shill? Simple. If they don’t agree with you, they are a shill. I keep running across shills for the organic industry.

  • TZ

    “In conclusion, the use of ubiquitous promoters such as the CaMV in an effort to override the host plant’s gene regulation systems and force expression of the GM gene at high levels may have undesirable effects on plant biochemistry, crop performance and the surrounding environment.

    In contrast, in natural breeding and even in mutation breeding (mutagenesis), which exposes plants to radiation or chemicals to induce genetic mutations (inheritable changes), the plants’ own gene regulation systems remain active.

    In other words, scientists use genetic engineering to bypass the plants’ natural gene regulation systems and to re-programme their genetic functioning. Natural breeding, on the other hand, uses the inherent genetic potential in plants and does not deliberately disrupt their gene regulation system.”

  • TZ

    Really? I doubt it ! You keep running across Americans that are sick of the Biotech lies an propaganda! We are fighting back!

  • hyperzombie

    LOL, never seen a banana? Seedless watermelon? TZ do you even live on this planet? Are you some kind of alien natural farmer lost in space?

  • patzagame

    lmao

  • patzagame

    and genetically engineered salmon…quite the innocent farmer,lol!!

  • TZ

    You are attempting to equate Genetic engeering with selective breeding/hybridization and that is a FALSE equivalence! So give it up Zombie! Also, even with “mutation breeding (mutagenesis), which exposes plants to radiation or chemicals to induce genetic mutations (inheritable changes), the plants’ own gene regulation systems remain active.

    In other words, scientists use genetic engineering to bypass the plants’ natural gene regulation systems and to re-programme their genetic functioning. Natural breeding, on the other hand, uses the inherent genetic potential in plants and does not deliberately disrupt their gene regulation system.”

  • hyperzombie

    You are right a salmon that can grow to the whoppin weight of 190000 lbs in 3 years. Ooops I meant 5 lbs. It must be crazy dangerous, compared You folks are idi0ts. to the Non GMO fish that grows to 5 lbs in 5 years…

  • hyperzombie

    A Republican will pee in a bush and you will be so distracted that next thing you know GMO fish is in every store.

  • hyperzombie

    “(inheritable changes), the plants’ own gene regulation systems remain active.”
    So you are from another planet, so how does it work on your planet? Was you species selected through natural selection or some other method. How many arms(if I can call them that ) do you have.. How long does your alien species live.. do you have 18 eyeballs… People need to know this stuff.

  • TZ

    You are ridiculous…. I cannot even take your science illiterate rants seriously!

  • kanjizai

    But the websites you got your information from are funded by people who will make money off your fears–like the organic industry.

  • TZ

    Really post your proof of this here!

  • David Loewen

    Actually, I did read your article, but my comment wasn’t in regards to that.

  • debbie3554

    They are not equivalent; eating gmo corn and some of it’s variants such as HFCS, have me doubled over in pain. GMO soy had me dashing to the dr. who diagnosed an allergic response in my blood!. The two are not the same as their conventional counterparts. There is something abnormal in their re-arranged genetic structure that causes these acute reactions in me. The chronic results I will do my best to avoid by refusing to be part of the experiment.

  • Michael Fest

    Let’s see proof of these paid trolls.
    And it only takes one piece of evidence to disprove a false claim. You can ignore disruption and let the evidence stand on it’s own.

  • Michael Fest

    Please post a credible mechanism by which this breeding technique could produce a toxin. Without it there is nothing to test for.

  • Stacey H

    The only thing that’s accurate about you is Nut.

  • StopGMO

    Here we go again! You people think you can deliberately confuse traditional breeding with genetic, transgenic engineering. Not. The. Same.

  • Nikkin

    Exactly.

  • razorjack

    Nonsense, that is just your misguided belief.

  • TZ

    This is an idiotic claim. We test drugs, etc. all the time using chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity guidelines with no known mechanism for toxicity. We test the null hypothesis. You know nothing about science. So please do not make comments as if you do…

  • Michael Fest

    “Instead it’s about using a bacteria or virus to artificially insert an entirely foreign DNA into a plant’s genes, such as human genes inserted into rice, or Monsanto’s “Bt” (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn, which was genetically modified to produce a protein that ruptures the stomach when ingested by pests.”

    No, the vector (bacterium, virus or whatever) inserts a single gene sequence, not the entire dna.

    About that second level of code-

    http(colon)//www(dot)forbes(dot)com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/12/13/dont-be-duped-by-duon-dna-hype/

    Also, your post dramatically understates how much is known about genetics and the genes they are manipulating.

  • Michael Fest

    That study was biased, plagiarized and highly criticized.
    http(colon)//gmopundit(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2011/07/deadly-choices-junk-science-costs-lives(dot)html?m=1

  • Michael Fest

    No, a drug is different from a protein.these proteins are well understood. A new drug is a complex and usually novel molecule without a well known function.
    Big difference.
    Proteins expressed in gm organisms are highly unlikely to cause health issues wether inserted by gm techniques, conventional breeding methods, or nature herself.

  • Michael Fest

    Mother nature doesn’t do any testing. And she certainly hasn’t tested an organic ruby red grapefruit (created in a lab with radiation, by the way) or most of the fruits and vegetables that we eat which haven’t been around for millennium.

  • Michael Fest

    The point they are trying to make is that every breeding methods results in the manipulation of genes wether at the direct level or not. Selective breeding artificially favors a genetic change that probably would not have propagated successfully on it’s own. Cross breeding is the artificial combination of two different genomes with random results.
    In any case, genes were modified.

  • Michael Fest

    Some interesting points about that one.
    http(colon)//gmopundit(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2008/08/rosemary-stanton-wrong-about(dot)html?m=1

  • StopGMO

    They need to drop their irrelevant point because what you are also saying, is not equivalent to genetic, transgenic engineering. (Horizontal gene transfer) which occurs between different species .They keep trying to misinform & confuse the two for those who are uneducated or just learning.

  • Michael Fest

    Horizontal gene transfer has been around longer than humans. It was just recently discovered that the sweet potato we’ve been cultivating for thousands of years is the result of horizontal gene transfer by agrobacterium done naturally.

  • Michael Fest

    And a gene isn’t specific to one organism or species.

  • Michael Fest

    “Most studies” do not come to that conclusion.

  • Michael Fest

    “Truth: Genetic engineering is different from natural breeding and poses special risks”

    You could easily replace “genetic engineering” in that statement with “mutagenesis” , “cross breeding” or “selective breeding” without change of truth or risk.

    Natural is not the standard for safety or risk.

  • Michael Fest

    No, that is not a salmon. There is no difference in the appearance of the salmon.

    That image is simply another pathetic attempt to scare people into believing nonsense which is frequently the method used by those without the ability to offer factual reason.

  • Michael Fest

    Picture b is not the gm salmon. They actually look exactly like a salmon, swim like one and taste like one since they are a salmon.

  • Michael Fest

    The refusal to sell it is a marketing decision, nothing more.

  • Michael Fest

    Because someone has bothered to learn something about biology and genetics means they automatically work for Monsanto?
    Even if they did, prove their statement wrong.
    And btw, this is probably the first time I’ve read your site. And I have no affiliations with biotech or agriculture but I have been following the discussions on such topics for several years.
    Some people are just interested in preventing the spread of misinformation.

  • hyperzombie

    Good luck convincing HealthNut, she is Dr. Mercola’s wife. I really think she needs to all cap the “Nut” part of her discus name.

  • Michael Fest

    I wouldn’t expect to convince her. The reason for participating in such conversations is to encourage those who simply read the conversation to do their own fact checking and not to be hammered with misleading images and misinformation.

  • hyperzombie

    Cool, just giving you the heads up…:)

  • hyperzombie

    And please explain what would make them different?

  • Michael Fest

    Show us proof that nature has some safety mechanism employed in her “gene regulating system” that has been circumvented by genetic modification.

  • JoeFarmer

    You never took science, did you?

  • Michael Fest

    There’s a variety of techniques. Gene guns aren’t as popular anymore because subsequent techniques are more efficient and precise.

  • hyperzombie

    Well you will be disappointed, because they look exactly like salmon, because they are salmon.

  • JoeFarmer

    Heh, if this guy wants to eat something that looks like a monster, he should eat some of those dogfish. They’re in Minnesota, and I assume they’re in Canada too.

  • StopGMO

    Speak for yourself fake farmer.

  • JoeFarmer

    I took a lot of science, champ. I started out as a civil engineer. Still have P.E. registration in 7 states. Then I got an MBA; after that I got a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Agronomy.

    So, yeah, science. I’m pretty familiar with how it works. You, on the other hand, not so much.

  • JoeFarmer

    You just pegged the irony meter, Ken!

    “grinninglibber” = “Ken Gallaher” = “sir_ken_g”. All posts originate from the same home in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.

  • StopGMO

    Biased, biotech spun pseudoscience is not science.

  • TZ

    You are clearly anti-science. In science you cannot makes claims that something is safe(null hypothesis) and expect anyone to take you serious unless you actually test it! You anti-science are pathetic…

  • TZ

    For anything that links to gmopundit : GMOpundit is a well-known for “untruthful” claims. Just 1 link to his page has numerous “untruthful” claims including “untruthful” claims he was told were “untruthful” and he continued to post the lie anyway. On his “untruthful” blog he makes an “untruthful” claim about ADA(now AND) : the American Dietetic Association(which changed their name to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) put out a press release in response to the false claims made by websites such as GMOpundit, stating that is not their position. Ethan A. Bergman, the president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics even said, “In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy.” http(colon)//www(dot)prnewswire(dot)com/news-releases/academy-of-nutrition-and-dietetics-and-proposition-37-the-facts-173146771(dot)html In fact, a more recent AND report says, “Biotechnology in the form of genetic engineering, commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms, has produced some crops that are biofortified, chemically resistant, and/or pest resistant. There is no consensus on the benefit or harm of this approach and more research is needed to determine the impact on human and environmental health.” http(colon)//www(dot)andjrnl(dot)org/article/S2212-2672(13)00128-7/fulltext You just lost all credibility by referencing a website known for their “untruthful” claims.

  • TZ

    Try reading and comprehending…..”artificially insert an entirely foreign DNA into a plant’s genes, such as human genes inserted into rice, or Monsanto’s “Bt” (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn,”

  • Michael Fest

    There isn’t a “human gene” and any gene is foreign if it wasn’t there to begin with.
    Hybrids result in artificially inserting a foreign gene into the plant’s genome.
    Genes are not species specific.

  • JoeFarmer

    You wouldn’t know science if it jumped up, punched you in the nose and took your lunch money, champ.

    I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you owe me a thank you for the fact that each American Farmer feeds 155 clueless people like yourself.

    If it weren’t for me and other farmers like me, you’d starve.

    Don’t believe me? Look up the hilarious failure called, “Lawns to Loaves”. It was, emphasis on, “was”, a group of well-intentioned but clueless urbanites and suburbanites that thought it was a good idea to try to play farmer and grow their own wheat.

    Epic Fail does not even begin to describe this train wreck.

  • JoeFarmer

    Every time you post, it’s a laugh riot, Tiff.

    You don’t even know what a null hypothesis is.

  • Michael Fest

    Dismissing the source? How convenient for you.

  • Michael Fest

    It doesn’t change the fact that it was shown to be plagiarized and clearly biased.

  • StopGMO

    BS! Get off your high horse fake farmer. Everything you are claiming is false and one does not need to be a scientist or have had to take a science course to know any of this so what you are saying is quite laughable!

  • StopGMO

    The misinfo about the sweet potato is getting rather old.

  • hyperzombie

    Nope Lawns to Loaves was a real thing and it was an EPIC failure. You have to check it out.

  • hyperzombie

    I laugh and laugh everytime Lawns to loaves is mentioned, it is so funny. You did check out the pics of their crops, so funny.

  • JoeFarmer

    Prove me wrong, chumpalicious!

  • hyperzombie

    Oh and the snake genes in Cattle is also is some form of horizontal gene transfer.

  • hyperzombie

    It is true.. suck it up.

  • JoeFarmer

    Yes! What a disaster!

    Actually, I was familiar with them before you mentioned it. Last year, there was a guy named, “gefreekamloops” that was posting all kinds of garbage in a fit of, “I’m off my meds” mania. I learned about, “Lawns to Loaves from that dipstick. Who is exactly like that sage-thinker guy (whose name is an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one) that doesn’t know his backside from a hole in the ground..

  • StopGMO

    You’ve been proven to be wrong over and over again, get over yourself! It is like a broken record with you morons!

  • StopGMO

    BS!

  • hyperzombie

    gefreekamloops, he was funny. Totally clueless.

  • JoeFarmer

    Yep. He’s a lot like, “We Gotta”. Thinks he’s smart but wouldn’t last 24 hours in the woods.

    You undoubtedly know this, when my dad was in the Air Force, they did their survival training in Canada.

  • JoeFarmer

    How about you cite some examples of how I’ve, “been proven to be wrong over and over again”?

    I’ll wait.

  • Michael Fest

    Correct. There is no proof that any breeding method is safe, gm included. Proof of harm is what is needed. To get that, a mechanism for harm must be proposed and tested or the existence of harm needs to be examined for a mechanism.

  • Michael Fest

    Exactly. Transferring one gene sequence at a time is far more precise and predictable than the virtually random reshuffling of an entire genomic deck which is what you get in nature, cross breeding and mutagenesis.

  • Michael Fest

    Your “rant” is understandable and greatly appreciated. I’ve made several friends with similar backgrounds on social media when I began following the topic of genetic modification years ago. Frustration at the amount of misinformation and vilification of the science is all too common. It stifles the progress of humanity by instilling mistrust in a field that has the potential to do so much good for us and the planet. Hats off to you for taking the time to express yourself.

  • hyperzombie

    “You undoubtedly know this, when my dad was in the Air Force, they did their survival training in Canada.”

    The brits do some survival training near here sometimes, a while back i was driving north and out of nowhere in the middle of nowhere a soldier stopped the traffic (just me) and then a bunch of brit soldiers on snowshoes and 2 on snowmobiles crossed the road back into nowhere. one of the weirdest sights I have seen.

  • JoeFarmer

    95 out of 100 people today that would cross the Minnesota border into Canada wouldn’t survive the night if the temp was below 30F.

  • JoeFarmer

    Wow, a whole hour you’ve had, and nothing.

    Ya, you’re full of it.

  • hyperzombie

    So true, if the power and gas went out for weeks in the central part of North America in winter, there would be many deaths, Scary. they would have no idea what to do.

  • JoeFarmer

    LAMO!

    How about you explain yourself, champ?

  • First Officer

    Huh, Jurassic Park is a fictional work. The give away are the dinosaurs in the movie, which, ironically and in reality, did not find a way or they’d still be with us.

  • First Officer

    Excuse me, but I’m due back on planet Earth.

  • First Officer

    Both of you seem to be suffering from TAS, Troll Accusation Syndrome. It’s a closely related syndrome to SAS, Shill Accusation Syndrome.

  • StopGMO

    LAMO?!? Does that mean, Laugh Ass My Off?? ROFL! Sounds like you’ve had a few too many.

  • StopGMO

    You’ve proven yourself wrong many times yourself, no need for waste my time at it also.

  • StopGMO

    All I can make of this is that they are all brainwashed and very dumb and they are probably receiving a nice paycheck for spreading misinfo! No conscience at all and this is why they are able to sleep at night, they absolutely do not care for ones health or well being. Are they actually sub-humans? I don’t know but ones got to wonder sometimes.

  • It was so nice of Erin, who voluntarily describes Woomeister Mercola as her better half, to basically dismiss everything you said out of hand while actually trying to compare her “research background” with yours. You sir, are a better and far more patient man than I will ever be.

  • I’d love to run double blind experiments on you with GMO vs organic. I can only imagine the results 😉

  • Umm, huh? And by uneducated and just learning, you are including yourself, I assume?

  • Hell, it’s below 30 at the MN-Canadian border 9 months out of the year 😉 I spent many a spring break in Ely MN watching the snow come down on the Wolves.

  • As an actual scientist, I take offense to this ignorant comment. It is your lack of scientific training that allows you to be so easily fooled into believing whatever stories fit your pre-conceived biases. You are nothing more than a tool for anti-science propagandists. Congrats.

  • Don’t you mean “milliniums?” Lol

  • Lol, no scales? Not part of a biblical diet? Now I’ve heard everything.

  • Wow, an unsolicited paid shill accusation just because someone disagrees with your ill-informed, scientifically unsupported opinion? That type of attitude doesn’t sound very good for your chakra alignment.

    Full disclosure: I am not paid to post, nor do I work directly for any large AgBio companies. I just despise pseudoscience, quacks, woo, and ignorance. So, any accusation of being an astrturfer, basement dweller (your words, not mine), or paid shill are a waste of your time.

  • Yet the scientifically-ignorant zealots she preaches this garbage to just eat it up like seagulls at a dumpster.

  • Nah, we’re most likely just highly trained scientists who take exception to know-nothing self-professed organic health nuts with high school science educations preaching about a field they can not possibly understand, and becoming defensive when addressed with facts.

  • The paid shill gambit: the last gasp of desperation for those with no evidence to support their ignorant positions.

  • You seem pretty confident and arrogant in your baseless statements for someone accusing others of hubris. Ironic much?

  • Lol, yeah, you’ve demolished arguments from people who actually understand biotech! And what color is the sky in your world?

  • Lol, yeah, ok. And where did you get this picture of the scary GMO frankenfish?

  • And by non-readers, you must mean people who don’t just take whatever bs you post without questioning it? Where is picture B from? Was it supplied to you by the manufacturer? Or did you just find a scary looking fish picture to enhance your unfounded, irrational, scientifically ignorant fear momgering?

  • Hahaha, most studies, huh? How amusing.

  • Hahaha, Costco: the final word on scientific advancement. Hilarious. Anything Costco or any other retailer does is strictly marketing, to increase sales. Period. They are trying to predict the public sentiment based on ignorant fear-momgering such as that found on this site, and predict which stance will make them more money. They have no clue what the difference is, so in a way, you have something in common with them.

  • OHMYGOD! CHEMICALS!!! Umm, no. That’s not how this was done. Try again.

  • I’ve never seen the author of a site make so many unfounded paid shill accusations. It’s really quite embarrassing. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a paid shill. You might actually try to confirm or refute some of what they are posting to make sure you’re not falling into a confirmational bias echo chamber. People do not have to read your site in order to stumble upon a particular article either through Disqus, Facebook, or some other form of social media. That’s not how it works. You should know better.

  • Pretty strong words for someone with absolutely no proof to back up your accusation. By the way, just because you don’t understand science does not make it pseudoscience. Here’s a hint: science is hard; leave it to the scientists. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  • StopGMO

    Assuming means absolutely nothing.

  • StopGMO

    Sounds exactly like what you pro GMO, brainwashed, biased, pseudoscience believers follow. If anybody is a troll for anti-science, it is you and your trolling buddies.

  • TZ

    Really? Explain it farmer…

  • debbie3554

    You can always offer yourself up for the experiment. First you will need to spend 6-12 months clearing out your system by eating nothing but organic and conventional foods and avoiding all gmo based ingredients. If you can handle that, then you might be ready to be the lab rat.

  • Michael Fest

    To be fair, the scary pic is suggesting that the image in b is the source of the gene, not the salmon. Butt it is clearly trying to equate the eel with the alien for scare tactics.

  • My point: _____
    Your head: O

  • If by “pro GMO, brainwashed, biased, pseudoscience believer” you mean someone who has spent his life studying/using molecular biology and biochemistry and possessing the ability to understand the research that is done before, during, and after a product like this is approved, then yes, that’s me. Thank you.

  • You weren’t the smartest kid in the class, were you?

  • Sounds to me like he just likes to keep informed on subject matter that he’s dedicated his life to. Strange, huh?

  • You are correct. It was late, and I was responding to her comment above where she stated that pic B was gmo salmon. I edited my response. Thank you.

  • Jason

    How is there any misinformation going on? What is meant to confuse? No one has said they are the same thing. They have said they are comparable processes, both of which have similar risks.

    What evidence do you have that this is not true?

  • If I can paraphrase Neil deGrass Tyson from his discussion on “Stupid Design,” the universe is enormous and the vast majority of “nature” would kill us instantly. This notion that nature/natural is our friend, while true in many cases, is just ridiculous as a foundational belief. You don’t think so? Just google “things in nature that are poisonous.”

  • Jason

    Why do you call people trolls for doing exactly the same thing you’re doing. Is it just because they disagree with you?

  • Jason

    Why do you consider this misinformation? You have evidence that it’s not true?

  • Michael Fest

    I’d like to see this evidence about the sweet potato too.

  • Are you seriously that clueless about something you just “researched” to write this article? PIC B IS NOT A SALMON! Stop the senseless fear mongering and sensationalism.

  • debbie3554

    Hmm…your point is a blank…how fitting.

  • My post is held in moderation, but the paper is from PNAS, and is titled:

    The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop

  • Wow, you’re just not very quick, are you?

  • Michael Fest

    For convenience-

    “Astroturfing is a word in English describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous “grassroots” behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.”

    So what’s the word for someone who assumes that those who disagree with them are automatically part of a concerted effort to rally against them despite any evidence(1) to support that assumption?

    (1)- ev·i·dence
    ˈevədəns/
    noun
    1.
    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    “the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”

    synonyms:proof, confirmation, verification,substantiation, corroboration, affirmation,attestation

    “they found evidence of his plotting”

  • Hahaha 6-12 months “clearing out my system!” I suppose you derived that number through the sophisticated “rectal extraction algorithm?”

    Let me ask you a question. Have you ever taken even an undergrad human physiology course? Even online or at a community college?

  • Michael Fest

    I misread it too. I have developed a knack for disregarding memes since they rarely portray anything but an attempt to use an emotional response to misinform.

  • Hint: just because science confuses you does not mean it confuses me. When you post things you clearly do not understand, that is what confuses people.

  • People should all want to improve their health, but that does not give you a license to just manufacture a controversy just because you don’t understand the subject matter.

    Also, no doc ever told your father in law that it was ok to smoke 30 yrs ago. If a doc told your father to cut back rather than quit, he probably knew it was pointless trying to get him to quit and figured he should at least recommend he cut back. The dangers of smoking were very well known 30 yrs ago.

  • And the followers of this woomistress are nothing if not uninformed and emotional. It’s the easiest way to become a millionaire these days; just prey in the fears of the ignorant. Her hubby mercola learned that a long time ago.

  • Two Americas

    You are jumping to a false conclusion based on limited evidence. I am in the field, and you have no clue as to what my argument might be.

    The Disqus format supports the sort of pissing matches that these threads always become, and does not support intelligent discussion. Every day we start anew, as though none of these topics had ever been discussed.

  • StopGMO

    And I am not the one confused here.

  • StopGMO

    There is much confusion and misinfo about this and it does not mean that paper is correct. Many don’t get it including yourself. wwwgmwatchorg/millions-served-the-gm-sweet-potato

  • Based on the many posts I’ve read from you on here, you are very confused, and making statements about transgenics you don’t understand. You’re much more ideology than science or actual knowledge.

  • StopGMO

    Also, the authors are biased and are trying to change the definition of transgenic to suit their biased agenda. The definition of transgenic makes it quite obvious that the sweet potato is NOT transgenic.

    “Transgenic organism: An organism resulting from the insertion of genetic material from another organism using recombinant DNA techniques.”

    “Recombinant DNA technology: Procedures used to join together DNA segments in a cell-free system (e.g. in a test tube outside living cells or organisms). Under appropriate conditions, a recombinant DNA molecule can be introduced into a cell and copy itself (replicate), either as an independent entity (autonomously) or as an integral part of a cellular chromosome.” You can find this info on the USDA’s web site.

    Notice that the definition of transgenic is that recombinant DNA techniques were used, and recombinant DNA techniques by very definition is that a cell-free system was used. So by very definition the sweet potato is NOT transgenic.

  • Let’s see, if given a choice, who would I trust, Mrs. Mercola or Neil deGrasse Tyson…

    What most people don’t know but they should is that practically every food they buy in the store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food. There are no wild seedless watermelons. There’s no wild cows, there’s no long stem roses growing in the wild – even though we don’t eat roses. You list all the fruit and all the vegetables and ask yourself is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is it’s not as large it’s not as sweet it’s not as juicy and it has way more seeds in it.

    We have systemically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables, and animals that we have eaten ever since we cultivated. It’s called artificial selection. That’s how we genetically modify. Now we can do it in a lab and all of a sudden you’re gonna complain? If you’re the complainer type go back and eat the apples that grow in the wild.” -NdGT

  • I would trust a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences long before I’d believe anything posted by you! lol, are you kidding?

    Plus, you supply a link from gmwatch that has absolutely nothing to do with your reply – or did you not understand the distinction?

  • You’re posting definitions to me? The first time I constructed recombinant DNA was probably before you were born!

    You’re arguing semantics. I’d argue that recombinant DNA technology is orders of magnitude more precise than any other hybridization or artificial selection methods. And that is a simple statement of fact.

  • StopGMO

    Let’s keep our discussion focused on the real issue at hand here.

  • StopGMO

    So what you are saying is you are also biased and trying to distort the definition and make absurd claims to suite your own biased agenda. And that is a simple statement of fact. You biased trolls are ridiculous.

  • You’re a real piece of work, aren’t you? Seriously. No! Being an expert in a field does not make someone “biased” and give them an automatic “agenda.” It makes me knowledgeable enough to objectively judge the merits of technology that you are only able to react to emotionally. It makes FAR more sense that you are the biased one with an agenda. Your posting history makes it obvious.

  • And also, that is not even close to a statement of fact. It is your uninformed, unsupportable opinion. Do you even know what that word means? You’re really making exposing you as a clueless fool way too easy.

  • Jason

    If nobody can find your site without being paid to come here, why would companies bother paying people to come here? You must think very highly of your work if you feel that companies would waste valuable resources to post here.

    But..that kinda sums up the entire elitist anti-gmo crusade. You know better than those who study & work in this field. And the only reason that other don’t agree with you is due to their own ignorance…..right?

  • Jason

    Wow… Talk about misinformation! Why do you feel the need to lie in order to support your cause? If you’re cause requires lies to support it, shouldn’t you be re-evaluating your cause?

  • hyperzombie

    Maybe this is Mother Nature’s plan? Maybe she accidentally killed the Dinos so she made us intelligent enough so we could GMO animals and eventually recreate Dinos, thus returning Dinos as the dominant species on her planet.

  • Freddy

    I’m always amazed that non-scientists have the audacity to explain what is science to scientists. And by using dictionaries. It’s really crazy. Why not sticking to what you know, and ask questions for what you don’t know.

    I don’t know about your favorite dictionary, but I bet that definitions of “technIQUE” and “technOLOGY” are different. So, while the bacteria Agrobacterium has a recombinant DNA technique to deliver genes into host genomes, it doesn’t has a technology. It’s quite simple.

    If you don’t want GM just say you don’t understand or you scared but don’t try to put it on science, logic or dictionary. Please.

  • StopGMO

    Excuse me but that info is not from a dictionary it is posted on the USDA’s actual site idiot! wwwusdagov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=biotech_glossary.html

  • StopGMO

    You are clearly so poor at science that you don’t understand the basic definitions. Pretending you understand science is giving many who are reading this, including myself a good laugh and I would advise that you just stick to online gambling or something else and leave this subject to those who at least understand basic definitions.

  • razorjack

    Total nonsense.

  • razorjack

    Nonsense.

  • razorjack

    Nonsense.

    Try reading and comprehending…..”artificially insert an entirely
    foreign DNA into a plant’s genes, such as human genes inserted into
    rice, or Monsanto’s “Bt” (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn,”

  • razorjack

    Over ten thousand years of being exposed to ecological forces significantly lowers the risk from natural selection.

    GMOs are cobbled together from genes from unrelated organism and the result has not been exposed to ecological forces and they have never had adequate safety testing before being approved for release to the public.

    You would be served to look at some other sources rather than accepting the corrupt GMO pesticide Industry disinformation echo chamber PR designed propaganda and disinformation.

  • razorjack

    The real science is not on the industries side. That is why they need to make stuff up and spread PR designed disinformation and lies.

  • razorjack

    Pure and simple BS

  • razorjack

    He can’t explain because he is just doing his knuckle dragging misogynistic trolling.

    Nobody pays any attention to fake farmer and is drunken bar room sophistication.

  • razorjack

    There is no proof because no science has been done to show that long term consumption of GMO food is safe for humans.

    The existing harm can not be traced back when the cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs have been purposely hidden from the people in the food we feed our families.

    Humans have been eating the conventional food for millenniums.

  • razorjack

    The individual varieties of convention foods may be new, but the gene combinations of the plants involved have been tested by ecological forces for millenniums.

    Maybe it just a coincidence that the only people buying your industry PR designed propaganda are the other industry $hills.

    Smart people see the truth.

  • razorjack

    She has looked at the science just as a whole lot of other people.

    Maybe it just a coincidence that the only people buying your industry PR designed propaganda are the other industry $hills.

    Smart people see the truth.

  • razorjack

    Are you trying to tell us that you are an educated $hill, fake farmer?

    All we see from you is your anti social misogynistic knuckle dragging harassment and industry PR designed disinformation and lies.

    Apparently you are unemployable, and need to $hill for peanuts and GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber goon squad glory.

  • razorjack

    Says the industry knuckle dragging industry $hill.

    You are looking in the mirror again fake farmer, and you have just described yourself.

  • razorjack

    At least they all tell the truth, not like you with your industry PR designed disinformation and lies, fake farmer.

  • razorjack

    The truth is not important to industry $hills posing as “scientists” like Freddy here.

  • razorjack

    Most of us have found out that you and the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goons will not accept any real science or truth that conflicts with the cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science cult religion ideology that must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

    Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet which is
    considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world has said that half of all peer reviewed science literature is false.

    Not only that, but Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and was longtime
    Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal, considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

    Harvey Marcovitch, who has studied and written about the corruption of medical tests and publication in medical journals, writes, “studies
    showing positive outcomes for a drug or device under consideration are more likely to be published than ‘negative’ studies; editors are partly to blame for this but so are commercial sponsors, whose methodologically well-conducted studies with unfavorable results tended not to see the light of day…”

    Corruption is rampant and many of our scientific, academic, and
    government institutions have been corrupted and compromised.

    You are not “debating science” and it is disingenuous to claim that you are. You are using science, selectively, to promote a corrupt GMO pesticide industry political agenda.

  • razorjack

    If stopGMO did explain themselves you would ether no understand it or reject it.

    You’re an industry troll.

  • razorjack

    You are just another industry $hill trying to white knight your GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR goon squad team mate.

  • razorjack

    The accusations are the truth. Only the other industry $hills call them “unfounded”.

  • Andrew Towell

    Clearly you believe you know the most on these subject matters so I’m genuinely hoping you can provide me a few figures and answer a few questions I have.

    My understanding is that a large chunk of grain production goes towards producing ethanol and live stock feed, can you give me the exact percentage from all production that directly feeds people? (not including the meat produced from that grain)

    Is live stock farming sustainable in terms of how much grain and water is needed to support it? Specifically how much of each is required to feed say one person with one burger? Do you know like ratios of land to live stock, for a sustainable model?

    Is it true that you can feed around 40 people on a vegetarian diet, on the same amount of grain it takes to feed just 1 cow? How much water does one cow consume in it’s life time and in turn how much meat was produced in relation to what it consumed?

    Are their systems in place on most farms to off set the emmisions (methane etc) produced by the animal? Any figures of how many trees are needed to be planted per cow in such a system?

    I’m hoping to discover if it is sustainable, what is the model. If it’s not sustainable and we can convert some of that land over to food production how many more people we could feed on a vegetarian based diet.

    P.S. I eat meat twice a week, I’m just looking for more information.

  • razorjack

    The ecological testing that natures organisms receive does not happen to lab created GMOs and no meaningful safety testing has been done to show they are safe for long term human consumption.

  • razorjack

    How many of those “things in nature that are poisonous.”are sold to people in the grocery stores?

  • razorjack

    Many people here have seen that you and other industry disinformation $hills are dispatched to sites like these to disrupt and try and marginalize the smart readers and posters here.

    You corrupt industry doesn it because their corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science cult ideology must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

    Any other questions, $hill?

  • razorjack

    I’d rather the experiments be run on you and the other industry $hills.

  • razorjack

    We have seen your “rectal extraction algorithm” on display here in all your posts.

  • razorjack

    The only cause that requires lies to support it is the one that you and the other industry $hills are compensated to lie for.

  • Then either prove them or stfu. It’s really that simple.

  • That post means nothing. Absolutely noting. Just more deflection of the actual issues by someone who has no idea what they are talking about, but won’t admit to their own stupendous ignorance.

  • razorjack

    Tyson is an astrophysicist. Smart people would not go to him for information on medical or biological issues.

    The fact that you trot him out just shows how weak and pathetic your case is.

  • razorjack

    You are looking in the magic mirror again, $hill boy.

  • Blah blah blah, same old debunked, out of context trash, and still no substantive argument from you. Show me the science. I a, not promoting anything, nor will you find any promotion for any product or industry in any of my thousands of posts, I post on the side of science and data, and against pseudoscience, fear mongering, disinformation, quackery, and woofuckery. Show me where I do otherwise, or stfu. See how this works?

  • razorjack

    …and the results are still not safety tested before release.

  • That’s hilarious. I think you’re confusing me with you. I have no doubts about my scientific credentials, and would challenge anyone to refute that. Where are all these scientific experts calling me out with scientific data, peer-reviewed journal articles, and just a basic understanding of GMOs, molecular genetics, or just even basic science??? You certainly fall into none of those categories. You’re way out of your league here, skippy.

  • razorjack

    Another industry $hill and a fake scientist to boot.

    Your industry goon buddies might buy your BS, but the smart people know your just trolling for peanuts and corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon squad glory.

  • Don’t be an idiot. I trot him out because people know him as a guy who makes science accessible to non-scientists, with no agenda, and who has a fairly deep understanding of the biological sciences, even for an astrophysicist. Nice attempt to discredit him, and really pretty funny! Anyone who would listen to the woofuckery ramblings of the agenda-ridden snake oil sales people on this site over NdGT would be a fool.

  • You can’t be serious! Just google this woman’s name and that of her husband. Take a look at how much money they make annually selling you suckers with their baseless fear mongering. You’re joking, right?

  • razorjack

    Sure you do, $hill boy.

    Looks like you got you’re industry $hill skives in a knot. Your little $hill voice keep rising with every corrupt disingenuous post.

  • This is just meaningless babble. Just because you accuse those who disagree with you of having some agenda does not make it true. But I suppose the value of proof is not very meaningful to morons like you, or you wouldn’t be shilling this quackery. Like I said before, supply proof of your accusations, or stfu.

  • razorjack

    You are talking about your posts, $hill boy.

    Better stop looking in your mirror.

  • You’re an embarrassment. I bet even the organic anti-GMOers cringe when they read your insipid posts.

  • razorjack

    I don’t try and prove anything to a corrupt industry $hill boy.

    You are not “debating science” and it is disingenuous to claim that you are. You are using science, selectively, to promote a corrupt GMO pesticide industry political agenda.

  • Yes, this is a lazy copy/paste of your last baseless accusation. It means less than nothing and continues to make you look foolish. Why would anyone believe someone who makes such strong statements without providing even a shred of evidence? that’s how they should be viewing all of your posts. Your lack of character and ethics are on full display.

  • razorjack

    You trot him out because he is a GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR asset, who’s actual field of science has nothing to do with life sciences.

    He is your weak pathetic response when you have nothing else, $hill boy.

  • razorjack

    Apparently neither you or kanjizal have any proof.

    You are trolling, $hill boy.

  • Hahahahahahahahahaha! Now Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a “GMO pesticide industry disinformation” shill to you too? you’re really beyond moronic at this point. But feel free to keep embarrassing yourself. I’m laughing my ass off reading your posts, as is anyone with even a couple of undergrad science courses under their belts. You’re hilarious! I hope you mean these posts to be funny.

  • razorjack

    Proof is valuable, and every time I ask to see studies that show long term consumption of GMO foods by humans to be safe all we get is crickets and industry PR BS from you, $hill boy.

  • razorjack

    You are still looking in your mirror, $hill boy.

  • I don’t know any kanjizal. Should I? I have posted references already. You’re either too lazy to read them, or incapable of comprehending their contents. Either way, you’re in way over your head. I’d bail now and cut my losses if I were you. It’s getting a bit awkward watching you make such an !diot out of yourself.

  • razorjack

    The evidence is in your posts, $hill boy.

    Everyone can see it there.

  • Desperate troll is desperate.

  • You have provided no evidence that the 20 years of developing this product and testing it for safety is not valid. It is not my job to dispute your unsupportable claims. It is your responsibility to back up your extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. This is how it works. It’s like asking someone to prove God doesn’t exist. Lol. You’re not very good at this.

  • razorjack

    Actually smart people can see that I am telling the truth.

    It is getting wearisome responding to you corrupt industry PR designed gibberish.

    Run along to your mommy now, $hill boy.

  • razorjack

    LOL!

    Don’t let the door hit your corrupt disingenuous industry troll a*s on the way out the door, $hill boy.

  • razorjack

    There has been no meaningful safety testing done on any GMO food currently on the market.

    You industry disinformation assets can keep trying to spin away that fact, but smart people just see the disingenuous spin as more industry weakness and paranoia about their cancer causing Roundup laden GMO junk pseudo-science cut ideology and agenda that must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

  • razorjack

    Yes.

    You are still looking in your mirror, $hill boy

  • *yawn* still, nothing substantive, and nothing addressing my points. Just more baseless and false paid shill accusations – the dying gasps of someone who has absolutely nothing to add to the conversation. Just go away.

  • And why would anyone with half a brain in their head get anything from your posts except the visual of a mouth breathing imbecile drooling on their keyboard in a froth of anger as they pound away on the keys trying to convince someone they have even the slightest clue of what they speak?

  • This is your version of the “I know you are, but what am I?” game that children play when they are frustrated that they can’t win an argument. In your case, you’re giving those children a bad name.

  • razorjack

    LOL!

    Nobody believes what you just posted, $hill boy.

    You definitely have your magic mirror turned up to high.

  • Sorry, but I’m not planning on going anywhere. Sorry to spoil your party. Once again, prove that I’m a shill or stfu. It’s really getting boring waiting for you to come up with something of substance. There are arguments to be made. I am by no means in favor of everything that goes on in the food industry, despite your ridiculous and erroneous shill accusations. But I won’t waste any of those topics on such a lightweight. I’ll wait for some actual scientists to come here and point me to legitimate research I should be aware of.

  • razorjack

    You can answer the question you just asked your magic mirror.

    I’m just responding to you at your own level.

  • razorjack

    Wishful thinking $hill boy.

    You are actually projecting your own sh*t here.

  • razorjack

    Will you be remaining silent until them?

    I’m only posting to expose your corrupt industry $hilling.

  • Which you have yet to do. You just continue to blather on about nonsense. Guess why, as$shole? Because I’m not a shill. I have no conflicts of interest or any financial disclosures I need to make. Your accusations are weak and embarrassing. Yeah, kinda takes away all of your material, doesn’t it? Smfh

  • razorjack

    Go give your little speech down at the corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber goon squad headquarters

    Smart people see your industry $hill game.

    Give it up, you have been exposed by your own BS.

  • Michael Fest

    Nature does not test. If natural genetic changes are propagated and selective pressure doesn’t wipe them out, they are passed along to subsequent generations.
    This isn’t testing, it’s happenstance.

  • Freddy

    You’re again missing the point. So try to read slowly and carefully: The word Technique is different from the word Technology.

    You copy/paste yourself this definition isn’t it ? : “Transgenic organism: An organism resulting from the insertion of genetic material from another organism using recombinant DNA techniques”.

    As the bacteria is using a technique, sweet potato becomes transgenic. It’s quite clear. I guess it’s quite inconvenient for you now, so please feel free to blame USDA for a definition that you don’t believe in anymore.

  • razorjack

    The results of that natural happenstance is also tested by the natural world for thousands of years.

    Lab designed cobbled together GMOs have never been tested in the natural world, and they have not been safety tested.

  • Michael Fest

    Nature does not test. She has no conscious evaluation of anything that exists. If an organism survives evolutionary and selective pressure, it carries on. If it doesn’t, it goes extinct.
    I won’t even bother asking you for proof of nature’s testing system since it doesn’t exist.

  • Michael Fest

    Nature doesn’t test. And selective pressure could wipe out an entire species within a few generations, not millennia.
    There’s no such thing as a lab designed cobbled together species unless you are referring to enough genetic changes to create a new species which would be easier to do with hybrids or mutagens.
    The one at a time gene changes that occur with generic engineering would most often not create a new species.

  • That’s the best you got? If all you can do is call people ‘idiots’, attack my followers and say the F word and call names then you have no business on this page. It’s obvious you’re just here to troll, as you are not a fan or a reader of this website. When the debate is lost- slander becomes the tool of the loser and that loser is you. Go away with your fake profile, fake name, fake attitude and come back when you have the balls to show your photo and your name only. Which will be.. never.
    Oh and more giant chains (and i mean giant) are refusing to sell GMO Salmon (the first genetically modified animal for sale) in the US… So sorry, the gig is up.

  • razorjack

    Lets cut the BS and cut to the chase. Smart people want to see some actual studies that show long term consumption of cancer causing Roundup laden GMO foods have been to show they are safe for long term human consumption.

    All the rest is nibbling around the edges.

    Show me ONE study that shows long term consumption of any GMO food is safe for humans.

  • sounds like you and troll buddy need to come back when you have some real names and photos. Go troll somewhere else, or better yet? Get out of mummy and daddy’s basement, get some sunlight.. and try not making other peoples’ lives miserable by bothering my readers who actually READ this page regularly.

  • agree 🙂

  • wow the trolls are all over this page. Who sent you? Fake names, fake or no pictures. You’re so obvious it’s really very sad. I feel sorry for you..

  • Thank you 🙂 (sorry for the trolls) The minions have been sent here en masse. (They aren’t regular readers of this website- shocker! )

  • Michael Fest

    None of our food is roundup laden. It isn’t any more carcinogenic than it was before gm or roundup, and no food has been tested long term.
    There isn’t any reason to do long term tests because there isn’t a plausible hypothesis that suggests how gm would warrant such tests.
    Read what the biologist commented below wrote. He explains it more eloquently than I.

  • Jason

    Of course, Ted. Of course.

  • Jason

    Yes. I do have other questions. Why are you answering questions I’ve asked to,another person and why did you give an answer that doesn’t address the question I posed?

    One last question, Ted….why do you have so many accounts, but give the same dumb-arse responses on each one? It sort of defeats the purpose…doesn’t it?

  • Jason

    You’re going to be waiting a while. This clown hides behind 4-6 different account, parroting the same gibberish on each one. He’s not bright enough to even change the way his many identities sound.

    His M.O. is to jump into your conversations, spout nonsense which you will consistently show to be wrong and then start calling you a troll when you respond back to his 5th grade nonsense.

  • hyperzombie

    Oh the Ted virus, like herpes, pops up when you never expect it and never goes away…And is totally unwelcome.

  • Jason

    Lol…herpes is a good comparison.

  • StopGMO

    The stupid from you trolls is excruciating.

  • razorjack

    There is no ted posting here. I know about 15 or more people who have been called ted. Talk about a wild eyed conspiracy theory, but heh, it works to deflect the conversation away form the subject of non safety tested GMO salmon being approved with no labeling.

    Nice try hot shot, but I am razorjack, get used to it and suck it up.

  • razorjack

    Smart people see it right away.

  • Jason

    Sure, Ted. Sure.

  • TZ

    Are you joking? The pro GMO do this with every source that does not meet their agenda! Pot meet Kettle!

  • razorjack

    Maybe be cause there was no chumpalicious posting here, fake farmer.

  • razorjack

    Can you cite the source for your ignorant proclamations?

  • TZ

    Don’t pop into a conversation unless you have the ability to comprehend what was said and how to appropriately respond…. You comment makes zero sense!

  • Nothing fake at all in my profile.

  • razorjack

    Are you talking to me, troll?

  • Jason

    Funny… That’s exactly what Ted-Cletus would say.

  • Jason

    Do you need a tutorial on how the reply function works?

  • Jason

    Magic mirror? I believe Ted-Cletus uses that same nonsensical phrase too. Hmmmmm….

    What a joke.

  • patzagame

    Do you even understand the concept of allergens?

  • patzagame

    Don’t apologize for the trolls,lol…its obvious you posted a honest article and the drooling trolling goon squad was dispatched on attack mode!

  • razorjack

    The truth doesn’t take many words. Many people speak the same language when the industry BS is exposed.

    You are trolling me, $hill boy.

  • patzagame

    “None of our food is roundup laden. It isn’t any more carcinogenic than
    it was before gm or roundup, and no food has been tested long term.” Now there is a statement if I’ve ever seen one! Micheal,your avatar has a child’s face in it,your daughter perhaps? GM crop ingredients in our food supply,such as corn in corn flakes and tortilla chips contain residues of glyphosate and AMPA.Glyphosate designated as a PROBABLE carcinogen from the IARC.Glyphosate found in honey and soy sauce.No food has been tested long term,and THAT’S okay with you? Why in Gods name aren’t you concerned??Why aren’t you trying to protect the innocent?For shame!

  • razorjack

    Does it bother you that other people see you and the other $hills the same way?

    Tell us what your BS comments have to do with GMO salmon.

  • patzagame

    Micheal,the word is whether…you have used it incorrectly multiple times,btw,please look up the true definition of genetic modification used by the international science community.

  • patzagame

    oh no!, not the sweet potato analogy..taken straight from the handbook,perfect.

  • patzagame

    SO?

  • patzagame

    woofuckery? is that the latest term in the handbook? LMAOROFL! Hilarious!!I sure do see how it works.Hahahaha,omg!

  • patzagame

    He can’t supply one,not one, long term safety study,because???…there are none,period!!!

  • Jason

    Yah… That’s whatnot is. I thought it was just someone calling out a really shitty attempt at disguising multiple accounts, but you’re probably right.

    ( I realize your kind of a dim bulb so I’m gonna let you in on a secret…. That was sarcasm)

  • razorjack

    The only people trying to disguise anything here are you and the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goons who are trying to disguise the truth with your industry spin and lies.

    Your multiple account fantasy is just another attempt to divert attention from your corrupt industry’s death agenda.

    You are a common troll, $hill boy

  • patzagame

    precision?Statement of fact,however…

    Technologies have been developed that are intended to target GM gene
    insertion to a predetermined site within the plant’s DNA in an effort to
    obtain a more predictable outcome and avoid the complications that can
    arise from random insertional mutagenesis.5,6,7,8,9,10

    Some of these technologies use nucleases or “genome scissors” which
    allow the cutting of DNA and the insertion of new DNA in any position in
    the chromosomes. The most popular of these new genome scissors are
    TALENs (transcription activator-like effector nucleases), ZFNs (zinc
    finger nucleases), and most recently CRISPR-Cas9 (Clustered Regularly
    Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats).

    These genome scissors are a combination of a unit to recognize
    specific regions of the DNA and an enzyme to cut both strands of the DNA
    at a sequence determined by the genetic engineer. When the cell senses
    that this double-strand DNA break has occurred, it stimulates the cell’s
    machinery to repair it.

    There are two possible outcomes. First, simply allowing the repair to
    proceed where the cut ends of the DNA are joined back together again (a
    process known as “non-homologous end-joining”) introduces a mutation at
    the site of cutting by the genome scissors. This is because
    non-homologous end-joining repair is not perfect, and in the majority of
    cases, base units of DNA are lost from the ends of the DNA during the
    joining process.

    Second, at the same time that the genome scissor gene is introduced
    into the plant cell, the genetic engineer can also introduce a separate
    DNA molecule that has the same regions in it as the region that he is
    trying to modify in the host genome, but which also contains a gene
    coding for the desired additional trait. The artificial gene that has
    been introduced can align with the corresponding region of the host
    cell’s DNA. In some instances the cell uses this second introduced DNA
    molecule as a guide to repair the double-stand DNA break in a process
    known as “homologous recombination”. The final result is the repair of
    the double-strand DNA break, but with the incorporation of the
    artificial gene at this pre-determined site.

    By using these methods, genes can be knocked-out (silenced) or mutated, or new DNA including whole gene units can be inserted.

    Proponents claim that these technologies offer “targeted genome editing”.11
    However, these GM transformation methods are not failsafe. Two studies
    found that ZFNs caused unintended genomic modifications in off-target
    sites in human cell lines.12,13 The simple word for
    “modifications in off-target sites” is “mutations”. That is, these
    techniques can cause unintended mutations in other locations in the
    genome, causing a range of potentially harmful side-effects. In another
    investigation using human cells, CRISPR was found to cause unintended
    mutations in many regions of the genome.14

    Biotechnologists still know only a fraction of what there is to be
    known about the genome of any species and about the genetic,
    biochemical, and cellular functioning of our crop species. That means
    that even if they select an insertion site that they think will be safe,
    insertion of a gene at that site could cause a range of unintended
    effects, such as disturbances in gene expression or in the function of
    the protein(s) encoded by that gene.

    Even if there is no disturbance at the level of the gene, there may
    be disturbance at the level of the protein for which the gene encodes.
    For example, a plant may have an enzyme that is normally inhibited by a
    herbicide, meaning that the plant will die if that herbicide is applied.
    If the plant is genetically modified to alter the enzyme so that it is
    not inhibited by the herbicide (genetic engineered for herbicide
    tolerance), there may be knock-on effects. Enzymes are not totally
    specific. If the activity of the enzyme is changed, the plant’s
    biochemistry could be altered in the process, causing unknown chemical
    reactions with unknown consequences.

    Moreover, because tissue culture must still be carried out for these
    new targeted insertion methods, the mutagenic effects of the tissue
    culture process remain a major source of unintended damaging
    side-effects.

    Effects could include:

    Unexpected toxins or allergens, or an alteration in nutritional value

    Reduced ability of the GM crop to resist disease, pests, drought, or other stresses

    Reduced productivity or vigour

    Unexpected environmental effects, such as increased weediness.

    According to a German newspaper, plants produced using these
    technologies are already being grown in greenhouses. The independent
    research institute Testbiotech says it is not known whether any of the
    plants have been released into the environment, adding, “There is,
    however, a clear lack of regulation to ensure that these plants, which
    are genetically modified organisms, undergo risk assessment.”15

  • razorjack

    Yes, and that is the reason we have to go through the BS troll drama. It’s their feeble desperate attempt to cover the fact that everything we have been saying is right.

    Typical industry psych-opp tactic.

  • StopGMO

    What you have just done is exposed how poor you are at science since you don’t even understand basic definitions. You pretending you understand science is giving me a good laugh. You should just stick to online gambling or something and leave this subject to those who at least understand basic definitions.

    Let me try to help you. though trying to explain anything to you is obviously a waste of time.

    Monsanto describes recombinant DNA(no extra word here since you are so easily confused) as :

    “Recombinant DNA (rDNA) – Procedures used to join DNA segments in a cell-free system (e.g. in a test tube outside living cells or organisms).” wwwmonsantocom/newsviews/pages/glossary.aspx

    So obviously “techniques” or “technology” or “procedures”, etc. are irrelevant when the very definition of recombinant DNA requires a cell-free system.

    Not only does Monsanto say this…but so did the link I gave you!

    “Recombinant DNA (rDNA): A molecule of DNA formed by joining different DNA segments using recombinant DNA technology.

    Recombinant DNA technology: Procedures used to join together DNA segments in a cell-free system (e.g. in a test tube outside living cells or organisms). Under appropriate conditions, a recombinant DNA molecule can be introduced into a cell and copy itself (replicate), either as an independent entity (autonomously) or as an integral part of a cellular chromosome.” wwwusdagov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=biotech_glossary.html

    So obviously “techniques” or “technology” are irrelevant when the very definition of recombinant DNA requires a cell-free system. Did you get that or do you need me to repeat it for you again since you are not only science illiterate you are illiterate as well!?

  • No handbook, sorry to disappoint you. I can’t take credit for the word woofuckery, though I wish I could. It perfectly describes the majority of pseudoscientific crap I read on alt med sites.

  • First Officer

    They haven’t heard of the book, “Broca’s Brain”, either.

  • Jason

    Uh-huh… Sure, cletus

  • TZ

    You are clearly anti-science. In science you cannot makes claims that something is safe(null hypothesis) and expect anyone to take you serious unless you actually test it! You anti-science are pathetic. It is not surprising though since you get your claims from sources like GMOpundit that are well-known for “untruthful” claims.

    You have already lost all credibility by referencing a website known for their “untruthful” claims!

  • That’s just sad. Everybody should have the privilege. One of my favorite quotes:

    “Prejudice means literally pre-judgment, the rejection of a contention out of hand, before examining the evidence. Prejudice is the result of powerful emotions, not of sound reasoning.” ― Carl Sagan, Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science

  • Wait, I thought I was the $hillboy! So jealous I have to share the spotlight!

    Have you still not come up with any substantive info? It’s been a full day since I started tearing you to shreds in front of your, ummm, colleagues.

  • Yeah, you see, my mouse has this really cool feature called a scroll wheel. If I spin it, the older comments in a thread magically appear allowing me the luxury of pretty much going back in time! It’s incredible, but I can see into the past and then insert myself wherever I feel it to be appropriate. So, whenever you feel like addressing my post, feel free. Otherwise, I’m not interested in what you have to say.

  • Cletus, right? Or is it Ted? I recognize the angry clueless writing style, but forget the troll’s other names. Sometimes, it even sounds like eggman.

  • She’s not qualified to look at the science any more than you’re qualified to perform a percutaneous aortic valve replacement. See how that works?

  • StopGMO referred to the reference to sweet potato as a GMO as being misinformation. I was simply providing the link to the peer-reviewed article published in PNAS. Make of it what you will. Frankly, I would be shocked if most of the posters on here could even read a primary research paper, but I can always have faith, right?

  • First Officer

    SAS, Shill Accusation Syndrome, strikes again!

  • Ok, so before I try to reply to this wall of text copy/paste from a site not exactly revered for its accuracy, I’d like to know if you understood everything you just posted.

    It’s a strange gish gallop of condescending explanations of very basic molecular techniques, but also includes extremely complex fields, such as genome editing through zinc fingers and CRISPR-based insertion. I just want to know what your point was in posting this very odd rambling comment?

  • It’s absolutely all this troll has.

  • First Officer

    Did they even pass those High School science classes?

  • First Officer

    You do realize that a and c are Hollywood fakes?

  • The fact that anyone reads this page regularly is all the more reason for me to post here. As an actual scientist, I might be able to shed light on some of the absolute garbage I’ve seen posted. As for your implication that I’m some kind of basement-dwelling troll, very classy. I can assure you that if we met face-to-face at a medical conference (not that you’d ever be attending one as anything but a guest), you wouldn’t speak to me like that. My real name is, quite frankly, none of your business.

  • Michael Fest

    Even a source with a history of erroneous info may occasionally get something right. If you don’t like the reference from GMo pundit, then address it.
    “http(colon)//www(dot)prnewswire(dot)com/news-releases/academy-of-nutrition-and-dietetics-and-proposition-37-the-facts-173146771(dot)html In fact, a more recent AND report says, “Biotechnology in the form of genetic engineering, commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms, has produced some crops that are biofortified, chemically resistant, and/or pest resistant. There is no consensus on the benefit or harm of this approach and more research is needed to determine the impact on human and environmental health.”
    Every major scientific body on the face of the planet has come to the consensus that the modern techniques of genetic modification do not produce any unique risk of harm or health as compared to traditional breeding methods.
    here is a link that explains what a consensus is and links to how it applies to genetic engineering.
    http(colon)//www(dot)skepticalraptor(dot)com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-solid-gmo-scientific-consensus/

  • And B is an ocean pout, an eel-like species, NOT a GMO salmon as Mrs. Mercola would have you believe. lol

  • I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but after spending a day reading these posts, I may have to edit that post. It’s disgusting the type of hubris they bring to these discussions, while accusing those who actually understand it of being arrogant.

  • Awww, run along to my mommy? That’s precious. I wish I could. I love my mother and don’t get to see her nearly enough. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Maybe I’ll get down to visit her for the holidays!

  • Also, here are some criticisms of your myths and truths gish gallop, though I doubt you will read them:
    googl/Fm1ey8

  • Michael Fest

    Wrong paper. Here’s the link.
    http(colon)//www.pnas(dot)org/content/112/18/5844(dot)abstract

  • Michael Fest

    Web links are held in perpetual limbo. I think this is what you meant.

    http(colon)//www.pnas(dot)org/content/112/18/5844(dot)abstract

    You have to remove the dots and colons and replace them with text like the link above.

  • thanks! I’ve been resorting to using shortened links through goo(dot)gl. Then there’s less to play with 🙂

  • Michael Fest

    Unfortunately, not everyone would realize the reason why they can’t copy paste the link though.

  • I’m not too sure how much longer I can stand posting on this site. It’s like the world ended, and stupid people emerged from the only fallout shelters.

  • StopGMO

    Nope! I will repeat myself. The authors are biased and are trying to change the definition of transgenic to suit their biased agenda. The definition of transgenic makes it quite obvious that the sweet potato is NOT transgenic.

    “Transgenic organism: An organism resulting from the insertion of genetic material from another organism using recombinant DNA techniques.”

    “Recombinant DNA technology: Procedures used to join together DNA segments in a cell-free system (e.g. in a test tube outside living cells or organisms). Under appropriate conditions, a recombinant DNA molecule can be introduced into a cell and copy itself (replicate), either as an independent entity (autonomously) or as an integral part of a cellular chromosome.” http(colol)//www(dot)usda(dot)gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

    Notice that the definition of transgenic is that recombinant DNA techniques were used, and recombinant DNA techniques by very definition is that a cell-free system was used. So by very definition the sweet potato is NOT transgenic.

  • Ted Govostis

    Paycheck? I wish. No, I’m just sick of anti-gmotards killing kids. The consensus for GMO safety is stronger than the consensus on Global Warming.

  • Michael Fest

    No. Your assertion is that if nature does it, it’s ok. If humans do it, it is artificial and an abomination. Same vector, same result. Just not “natural”. So what.

  • And then we have these quacks, woo salesmen, and hacks like Jeremy Hammond spreading irrational fear and disinformation. And all of that causes attention to be diverted from research areas where it belongs. In addition, I’d imagine any researcher would think twice before trying to submit a grant to study any connection between vaccines and autism.

  • StopGMO

    BS! GMOs are what’s killing kids! There are no consensus on the safety of GMOs. http(colon)//www(dot)gmofreeusa(dot)org/research/gmo-safety/

  • Michael Fest

    also, your link is just to the usda main page

  • StopGMO

    Duh!

  • TZ

    Wow! Really? Let’s address your FALSE claim of consensus! As the experts have said, there is no scientific consensus on safety and in fact the overwhelming majority of the medical and public health community support the mandatory labeling of GE foods.

    The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

    Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.
    http(colon)//articles(dot)chicagotribune(dot)com/2012-06-19/features/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619_1_bioengineered-foods-ama-drug-cosmetic-act

    The WHO: World Health Organization: Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety” “There is little consensus among the findings from the assessments of economic and environmental impacts of GMOs.” – Global Report http(colon)//www(dot)unep(dot)org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default(dot)aspx/ “In regions or countries that choose to produce GMOs, regulation should be based on the precautionary principle and the right of consumers to have an informed choice, for example through labeling” –

    British Medical Association (151,000 members): “Many unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and on the environment. There is a lack of evidence-based research with regard to medium and long-term effects on health and the environment…Labelling of GM-containing foods should be continued in order to facilitate further health research”
    http(colon)//www(dot)argenbio(dot)org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma(dot)pdf

    Australia Public Health Association (1,900 members) : “GM foods should not be assessed as safe to eat unless they have undergone long-term animal safety assessments utilizing endpoints relevant to human health and conducted by independent researchers.”, “The labelling system should be improved to reflect the greater sensitivity of modern GM DNA detection methods and the standards desired by consumers, so that consumers can easily identify foods containing all ingredients originating from GM organisms, and from animals fed GM feed.”, “There are no surveillance systems set-up to determine the effects of GM foods on health, and no-one is paid to look in existing surveillance systems for problems.” and, “The precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM food as it is not certain whether there are serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing or consuming GM foods or their products.” https(colon)//www(dot)phaa(dot)net(dot)au/documents/item/235

    Bundesärztekammer(German Medical Association) (470,422 physicians): “through the application of genetic engineering in the food sector, health risks both during the manufacturing process and also in the consumption of these products cannot be ruled out” “the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, as well as for food (ingredients), produced with the genetic engineering techniques is stressed for precautionary health protection.” In German : “daß durch die Anwendung der Gentechnik im Ernährungsbereich gesundheitliche Gefahren sowohl während des Herstellungsprozesses wie auch beim Verzehr dieser Produkte nicht auszuschließen” http(colon)//www(dot)bundesaerztekammer(dot)de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/Beschlussprotokoll_100_DAeT_Eisenach_1997(dot)pdf

    American College of Physicians (141,000 members) : “Lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food” “the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP-ASIM) strongly encourage the study of the long-term impact of genetic engineering on the food supply and human health.”
    http(colon)//www(dot)acponline(dot)org/about_acp/chapters/bog_action_spring11(dot)pdf

    Australian Medical Association (AMA) (27,000 members) : “Genetically modified foods have been developed and introduced without regard for full and independent safety evaluation, or full and adequate public consultation or rigorous assessment of health impacts.”
    http(colon)//www(dot)aph(dot)gov(dot)au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000RP08

    “There should also be full labelling of genetically modified foods and the current system of labeling for genetically modified foods should include reference to the method of production…The AMA has also called for an alert system whereby medical practitioners can notify authorities if they believe a reaction may have occurred to the consumption of a genetically modified or other novel food.”
    http(colon)//www(dot)foodlabellingreview(dot)gov(dot)au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing(dot)nsf/Content/foodlabelsubpublic?OpenDocument&referenceno=1ATAN-85M3G620100520111349FJNI

    Royal Society of Medicine : the quote biotech uses in their fake consensus list originates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and not from the Royal Society of Medicine. The article can bee seen here http(colon)//jrs(dot)sagepub(dot)com/content/101/6/290(dot)full

    In the same journal there is a response from medical researcher David Schubert, which points out numerous errors in this article and states, “‘GM crops consumed… with no reported ill effects’ – therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are no labelling requirements.” http(colon)//jrs(dot)sagepub(dot)com/content/101/9/435.2.full
    Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH):
    “there are no robust techniques available to monitor the impact of genetic engineering in the food industry or on health or on the environment. Genetic engineering should not be used in the production of human food or animal feeding stuffs or released into the environment until such techniques are in place.”
    http(colon)//www(dot)cieh(dot)org/uploadedFiles/Core/Policy/CIEH_consultation_responses/Response_GM_final(dot)pdf

    Viennese Doctors’ Chamber (Ärztekammer für Wien) :
    “Long-term analyses (over a period of at least 30 years) must be made in regard to nutritive, anti-nutritive, toxic and allergenic contents to establish unintended changes caused by the genetic modification.” “The release of transgenic species in nature must still be strictly opposed as the results can neither be estimated nor reversed.”
    http(colon)//www(dot)wallstreet-online(dot)de/nachricht/6412156-genetically-modified-maize-doctors-chamber-warns-of-unpredictable-results-to-humans http(colon)//www2(dot)aekwien(dot)at/conf_p(dot)py?Page=1&amp%3Bid_press=1293&amp%3Bid_press_type=1

    And so on… Here are just some of the groups representing over 850,000 health professionals. Where is the pro GMOers list of groups representing over 850,000 health professionals?

  • TZ

    http(colon)//online(dot)sfsu(dot)edu/rone/GEessays/biotechthebasics(dot)htm
    BIOTECH: THE BASICS, PART 1
    by Rachel Massey*
    Genetic engineering is the process by which genes are altered and
    transferred artificially from one organism to another. Genes,
    which are made of DNA, contain the instructions according to
    which cells produce proteins; proteins in turn form the basis for
    most of a cell’s functions. Genetic engineering makes it possible
    to mix genetic material between organisms that could never breed
    with each other. It allows people to take genes from one species,
    such as a flounder, and insert them into another species, such as
    a tomato — thus, for example, creating a tomato that has some of
    the characteristics of a fish.

    Starting in the 1980s and accelerating rapidly in the past
    decade, companies have begun using genetic engineering to insert
    foreign genes into many crops, including important foods such as
    corn and soybeans.[1] Just in the past few years, genetically
    engineered ingredients have begun appearing in many foods in U.S.
    supermarkets; they have been detected in processed foods such as
    infant formulas, drink mixes, and taco shells, to name a few
    examples.[2] These foods are not labeled, so consumers have no
    way to know when they are eating genetically engineered food.

    Genetic engineering is an extremely powerful technology whose
    mechanisms are not fully understood even by those who do the
    basic scientific work. In this series, we will review the main
    problems that have been identified with genetically engineered
    crops.[3]

    Most genetically engineered crops planted worldwide are designed
    either to survive exposure to certain herbicides or to kill
    certain insects. Herbicide tolerant crops accounted for 71% of
    the acreage planted with genetically engineered crops in 1998 and
    1999, and crops designed to kill insects (or designed both to
    kill insects AND to withstand herbicides) accounted for most of
    the remaining acreage. A small proportion (under 1%) of
    genetically engineered crops planted in 1998 and 1999 were
    designed to resist infection by certain viruses.[4]

    Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops are able to
    survive applications of herbicides that would ordinarily kill
    them. The U.S. food supply currently includes products made from
    genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops including
    “Roundup Ready” canola, corn, and soybeans which are engineered
    to withstand applications of Monsanto’s Roundup (active
    ingredient, glyphosate), as well as crops engineered to survive
    exposure to other herbicides.[1]

    Genetically engineered pest-resistant (or pesticidal) crops are
    toxic to insects that eat them. For example, corn can be
    engineered to kill the European corn borer, an insect in the
    order lepidoptera (the category that includes butterflies and
    moths). This is accomplished by adding genetic material derived
    from a soil bacterium, BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS (Bt), to the
    genetic code of the corn. BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS naturally
    produces a protein toxic to some insects, and organic farmers
    sometimes spray Bt on their crops as a natural pesticide. In
    genetically engineered “Bt corn,” every cell of the corn plant
    produces the toxin ordinarily found only in the bacterium.

    Unfortunately, genetically engineered crops can have adverse
    effects on human health and on ecosystems. And by failing to test
    or regulate genetically engineered crops adequately, the U.S.
    government has allowed corporations to introduce unfamiliar
    substances into our food supply without any systematic safety
    checks.

    Here are some of the reasons why we might not want to eat
    genetically engineered crops:

    ** Ordinary, familiar foods can become allergenic through the
    addition of foreign genes.

    Genetic engineering can introduce a known or unknown allergen
    into a food that previously did not contain it. For example, a
    soybean engineered to contain genes from a brazil nut was found
    to produce allergic reactions in blood serum of individuals with
    nut allergies. (See REHN #638.) Allergic reactions to nuts can be
    serious and even fatal. Researchers were able to identify the
    danger in this particular case because nut allergies are common
    and it was possible to conduct proper tests on blood serum from
    allergic individuals. In other cases, testing for allergenic
    potential can be much more difficult. When genetic engineering
    causes a familiar food to start producing a substance previously
    not present in the human food supply, it is impossible to know
    who may have an allergic reaction.

    ** Genetic engineering has the potential to make ordinary,
    familiar foods become toxic.

    In some cases, new characteristics introduced intentionally may
    create toxicity. The Bt toxin as it appears in the bacteria that
    produce it naturally is considered relatively safe for humans. In
    these bacteria, the toxin exists in a “protoxin” form, which
    becomes dangerous to insects only after it has been shortened, or
    “activated,” in the insect’s digestive system. In contrast, some
    genetically engineered Bt crops produce the toxin in its
    activated form, which previously only appeared inside the
    digestive systems of certain insects.[5] Humans have little
    experience with exposure to this form of the toxin. Furthermore,
    in the past humans have had no opportunity or reason to ingest
    any form of the Bt toxin in large quantities. When the Bt toxin
    is incorporated into our common foods, we are exposed each time
    we eat those foods.[6, pgs. 64-65.] And of course, a pesticide
    engineered into every cell of a food source cannot simply be
    washed off before a meal.

    Toxicity can also result from characteristics introduced
    unintentionally. For example, a plant that ordinarily produces
    high amounts of a toxin in its leaves and low amounts in its
    fruit could unexpectedly begin to concentrate the toxin in its
    fruit after addition of a new gene. (See REHN #696.)

    Unpleasant surprises of this sort can result from our ignorance
    about exactly how a foreign gene has been incorporated into the
    engineered cell. Foreign genes can be added to cells by various
    methods; among other options, they can be blasted into cells
    using a “gene gun,” or a virus or bacterium can be used to carry
    them into the target cells.[7] The “genetic engineer” who sets
    this process in motion does not actually control where the new
    genes end up in the genetic code of the target organism. The
    “engineer” essentially inserts the genes at a random, unknown
    location in the cell’s existing DNA. These newly-inserted genes
    may sometimes end up in the middle of existing genetic
    instructions, and may disrupt those instructions.

    A foreign gene could, for example, be inserted in the middle of
    an existing gene that instructs a plant to shut off production of
    a toxin in its fruit. The foreign gene could disrupt the
    functioning of this existing gene, causing the plant to produce
    abnormal levels of the toxin in its fruit. This phenomenon is
    known as “insertional mutagenesis” — unpredictable changes
    resulting from the position in which a new gene is inserted.[8]
    Genetic engineering can also introduce unexpected new toxicity in
    food through a well-known phenomenon known as pleiotropy, in
    which one gene affects multiple characteristics of an organism.
    (See REHN #685.)

    ** Genetically engineered crops can indirectly promote the
    development of antibiotic resistance, making it difficult or
    impossible to treat common human diseases.

    Whatever method is used to introduce foreign genes into a target
    cell, it only works some of the time, so the “genetic engineer”
    needs a way to identify those cells that have successfully taken
    up the foreign genes. One way to identify these cells is to
    attach a gene for antibiotic resistance to the gene intended for
    insertion. After attempting to introduce the foreign genes, the
    “engineer” can treat the mass of cells with an antibiotic. Only
    those cells that have incorporated the new genes survive, because
    they are now resistant to antibiotics.

    >From these surviving cells, a new plant is generated. Each cell
    of this plant contains the newly introduced genes, including the
    gene for antibiotic resistance. Once in the food chain, in some
    cases these genes could be taken up by and incorporated into the
    genetic material of bacteria living in human or animal digestive
    systems. A 1999 study published in APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL
    MICROBIOLOGY found evidence supporting the view that bacteria in
    the human mouth could potentially take up antibiotic resistance
    genes released from food.[9] Antibiotic resistance among
    disease-causing bacteria is already a major threat to public
    health; due to the excessive use of antibiotics in medical
    treatment and in agriculture, we are losing the ability to treat
    life-threatening diseases such as pneumonia, tuberculosis, and
    salmonella.[10] (See REHN #402.) By putting antibiotic resistance
    genes into our food, we may be increasing the public health
    problem even further.

    The British Medical Association, the leading association of
    doctors in Britain, urged an end to the use of antibiotic
    resistance genes in genetically engineered crops in a 1999
    report. “There should be a ban on the use of antibiotic
    resistance marker genes in GM [genetically modified] food, as the
    risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing in
    micro-organisms is one of the major public health threats that
    will be faced in the 21st Century. The risk that antibiotic
    resistance may be passed on to bacteria affecting human beings,
    through marker genes in the food chain, is one that cannot at
    present be ruled out,” the Association said.[11]

  • TZ

    It is you that failed to add anything to the conversation besides static….

  • I made my point, and it was crystal clear. You failed to give a relevant response. I’m not at all concerned with your opinion.

  • Suzie Nunnally Clary

    Considering how we know that bottom feeders are generally toxic, such as exoskeletons like crab, shrimp, lobster, and scale-free catfish; and scale-free eels which do not detox, then it makes sense that they would be forbidden on that level, just like swine which do not sweat, hence too are forbidden. Leviticus 11:9-12, also Deut (I think) 14:10. There are many layers as to why things are as they are in scripture. Above is just one aspect, one layer, of why. This was a diet for a people under a certain government. In the New Testament, believers have the Holy Spirit, individually with them, so if they first bless their food and drink, it will not hurt them. There are only four things of the Old Testament recommended to abstain from in the New: anything sacrificed to idols (more for the sake of new or non-believers), blood (since life is in the blood), anything strangled, and sexual immorality – followed with a promise that one would do well by keeping from them. ps… Old Testament also says not to mix the gene pool.

  • Freddy

    Is Agrobacterium recombining its DNA with the host genome?

    I guess you don’t understand the question but still this is the same subject you’re trying to talk about. How funny. I learnt genetics at university and in the lab on a daily basis not from Monsanto, USDA or Wikipedia webpages. I guess these are good source of knowledge but they can’t make you an expert (as I can see).

    Just a hint: recombining DNA doesn’t requires a cell-free system, that’s why sweet potato is a natural GM.

  • Jason

    Cletus Debunkerman, Duncan Debunkerman, a third Debunkerman I can’t remember and the main account Ted Miner…. and of course razorjack. Those are just the ones I’m aware of.

  • Just another great reason to not care about what the bible says. I’m not giving up crab, lobster, or shrimp anytime soon! I’m also not interested in what people who didn’t know where the sun went at night think is immoral sexual behavior. Anyway, whatever works for you. As long as it has no role in my government or schools, I don’t care.

  • Ahh, Teddie! I didn’t think he ever strayed from natural noise (?) or whatever page that was.

  • Jason

    He’s been banned from enough sites that I guess he needs a half dozen aliases to be able to post his nonsense.

  • It would be funny if he wasn’t so dangerously ignorant.

  • StopGMO

    That is BS and you either have no clue what you are talking about or you are deliberately trying to twist what I am saying here.

  • StopGMO

    Like I have said twice now, the authors are biased and are trying to change the definition of transgenic to suit their biased agenda.

    For example, there are several authors from the International Potato Center. This is the group that after the GMO ban in Cusco they still wanted to sell their GE potato. So now they are trying to change the definition of transgenic so they can find a loophole in the Peru ban so they can sell their GE potato. An obvious biased agenda.

    The definition of transgenic makes it quite obvious that the sweet potato is NOT transgenic, so now the biased authors want to try to change the definition to suite their biased agenda..

  • StopGMO

    It is quite tiresome trying to explain basic science to someone like you with no science background. Transgenic, by very definition requires that a cell-free system is used. I realize you do not have the basic understanding of science, or reading for that matter, to understand so continuing to reply to someone like you. who has a clear lack of science and reading comprehension, is just an exercise in futility.

  • Freddy

    So please you want to help me with science. I guess it’s my lucky evening.

    (sorry for the other readers of the forum:)
    So I’m now at home reading this article from 2009 about the rice resistant gene Xa3 (doi 10.1007/s00122-009-1032-3). While the avirulent protein
    AvrXa3 is cytosolic, I’m not sure how the receptor-like protein Xa3 could
    confer resistance (since the ectodomains won’t be able to perceive a cytosolic
    effector). So would you support the concept that Xa3 is an executor-type of
    R-gene and its expression is sufficient to induce resistance? Transformants with
    a strong promoter have been produced in a susceptible line, but these lines are
    not auto-immune. Do you think that only the insertions leading to weak
    expression are viable ?

    Thanks for your valuable help so I can move asap to read other articles.

  • Rob Bright

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re a funny guy… if you had a clue about fish farming you’d know that any open-pen fish farming is ecologically unsound and unsustainable. Adding GMOs into the equation is like throwing gasoline on the fire. (“Scientist” my a**!)

  • Rob Bright

    Hey First Officer, fancy meeting you here. You’re all over these GMO articles like stink on fish, so the troll accusation is pretty valid, I’d say…

  • Rob Bright

    Calling a spade a spade is hardly a gambit… you look, smell and walk like a shill, so if the shoe fits…

  • Rob Bright

    Please! You’re not from planet earth… that’s quite apparent…

  • Rob Bright

    Said the well known pro-GMO troll…

  • Rob Bright

    I’d say YOU’RE proof enough…

  • Rob Bright

    Hmm. Crickets. Figures, eh?

  • If by shill, you mean someone who is actually a subject matter expert in molecular biology, then yes. So unless you can show otherwise (hint: you can’t), just stfu. Maybe if you’d shut your mouth and listen for a change, you might learn something.

  • Rob Bright

    Utter nonsense. You clearly have no idea how genetic engineering is done…

  • Sounds like unrelated discussions, but I’m willing to learn. Please explain to me why open pen fish farming is unsound and unsustainable, and then please provide me with a reference where I can see how that applies to these salmon. I am not a fish farmer, etc, and always open to learning new stuff! Thanks!

  • And you do??? Lol! Please, Dr. Nottoobright, do tell where Ted is mistaken. Please be specific.

  • Well known? Awesome! I’m famous. Thanks!

    But actually, I’d say a minority of my posts are on GMO-related articles. But don’t take my word for it; my posting history is public. Have at it. You might learn something. I doubt it, but ya never know, Rob Not-Too-Bright.

  • hyperzombie

    Well these fish will not be raised in open pens, it will be a closed loop land based system.

  • StopGMO

    So you got caught being an idiot and now you want to change the subject. ROFL!

  • razorjack

    You are living in fantasy land, $hill boy.

  • razorjack

    You must be replying to the wrong thread again, $hill boy.

  • razorjack

    You are not qualified to say if she is qualified or not, $hill boy.

    You are trolling.

  • razorjack

    Smart people see you and the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR scripted $hill trolls here.

  • razorjack

    You are looking in your mirror again, dipwad $hill boy

  • Oh, believe me, I’m qualified to say she’s not qualified. You’re nothing but an angry, bitter, ignorant troll. Best you try trolling someone more down at your level, Ted. Continuing to try to play with me will not end well for you.

  • razorjack

    Be sure and let her know you are $hilling for an genocidal industries effort to keep unsafety tested cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs hidden from families in the food they feed their kids.

    She’ll be so proud of you, $hill boy.

  • Jason

    I know you think everyone is as stupid as you are, but here’s the real bummer…. They’re not.

  • *yawn* damn, you’re so boring.

  • Freddy

    You got me, you sure too bright. Enjoy Cuckooland.

  • JoeFarmer

    LMAO! “…genocidal industries…”. Can’t even get good drama-queening from rajorjack/Cletus/Ted today.

  • JoeFarmer

    I remember you. You’re the same dimbulb that was yammering on about soil mycorrhizae last year and making yourself look like a fool in the process.

    Not going to waste any more time on you.

  • I’m so bored with him. He has nothing to offer except boring, empty shill accusations. I feel like I’m toying with a small child throwing a tantrum after wetting his diaper.

  • razorjack

    You are a laugh a minute, $hill boy.

    You are not even qualified to be a good $hill troll.

    You have been a failure here, and you could start trying to fix your deficiencies by knowing who you are talking to.

    Go troll someone else, dipsh*t.

  • razorjack

    You can’t even get that right, $hill boy.

    You are trolling me.

  • razorjack

    Smart people would talk to someone more interesting, but not you, $hill boy.

    You are trolling me.

  • Jason

    So you DO think everyone is as stupid as you are?

  • razorjack

    You certainly are stupid and that fake farmer you hang with is too.

    You are trolling me.

  • Oh really? And just who am I talking to? So far, all I’ve gotten out of you is juvenile shill accusations – the lowest form of desperation. Meanwhile, you have supplied nothing to refute any of the many claims I have made on this scientific cesspool of a page. You are a nobody, and not even the woomeisters on this page will support anything you say.

    Know who I’m talking to? *snort*

  • I’m not trolling you at all. I just won’t put up with your nonsensical ramblings. That is not trolling; it’s b*tch slapping. Deal with it.

  • Jason

    But am I as stupid as YOU are…that’s really the big question. See, I think no. But then you argued that everyone IS as stupid as you. To me, that seems awful presumptuous and very condescending to the rest of humanity because wow…are you stupid!! But, if you have evidence, I’m keeping an open mind.

  • razorjack

    You can call it what ever you want to, moron.

    Most people see you are trolling.

    Go troll someone else.

  • razorjack

    You’re not going to get anything out of me, $hill boy.

    I don’t want to have anything to do with your troll fetish.

    Go troll someone else.

  • You don’t want anything to do with me, Ted? Then stop riding my jock, you creepy old troll. Go spew your nonsense to someone dumb enough to listen to you.

  • Do you have a creepy old man crush on me Ted? Sure seems that way. Stop replying to my posts. I’m not going to listen to any of the swill you continue to vomit on these pages. You’re worthless and your unfounded opinions mean nothing to me or anyone with half a clue.

  • razorjack

    Look, moron.

    You started trolling me by injecting your BS into a conversation I was having with someone else.

    You are a troll and you are trolling me.

    Go troll someone else.

  • razorjack

    Apparently you don’t have the social skills to pick up on the fact that I have been asking you to stop trolling me.

    Typical anti social brain dead mind controlled zombie troll without any sense or feeling.

    Sucks to be you.

  • I’m not married, genius. Never have been. Do you want to continue libeling me? I sell nothing by the way. Never have either. You better quit while you’re ahead.

  • MCR

    If the gentleman were using this as a metaphor, it would be valid. Most of our food has been selected or bred for desirable traits. Saying “selective cultivation or selective breeding might almost be called another kind of genetic modification” might not be wrong as an analogy. But if he is not speaking metaphorically, but is saying that they are the same thing, or even variations of the same thing, he is incorrect. They are clearly not the same thing, any more than pulling weeds is the same thing as spraying Roundup.

  • Your analogy is not accurate. Dr. Tyson is referring to the end result being gene transfer. In the case of molecular breeding approaches, it is far more precise since only the gene of interest is altered. This is in contrast to construction of hybrids, or even artificial selection after exposure to radiation or mutagens – something which has been done for decades. I’m sorry if you feel that the molecular approach is somehow inherently dangerous, while “guessing” about the effects of exchanging 10s or hundreds of genes randomly is ok.

  • You are correct. I should have been more clear in my tongue-in-cheek use of the term “husband” and “Mrs. Mercola” since you seem to regularly invoke the name of the master of woo and quackery whenever you feel it will promote your cause. Sorry, I’ll be more clear in the future.

    As for libel, how about that lovely tweet you sent out after the Oregon Community College shootings? You remember, the one where you actually tried to push your pathetic agenda by asking if GMOs and “Big pharma” was responsible for the shooting? Really???

    The last part of your post sounds like a threat, and also an admission that I am, in fact, ahead.

    In my opinion, you people cause much more harm than good.

  • Apparently, my use of the phrase “stop replying to my posts” was not clear enough for you, so you reply yet again. You really do have a creepy old-man crush on me, don’t you, ted?

  • You seem angry, Ted. Perhaps you’re getting the flu. You got your flu shot, didn’t you? Or maybe you’ve got an E. coli infection from some bad organics. Please try to calm yourself or you’ll have a heart attack.

  • razorjack

    Apparently you don’t understand me.

    BUZZ OFF TROLL!!!

  • razorjack

    Go troll somebody else.

  • Wow, now you’re really angry! I don’t understand; I was trying to be so nice to you. I don’t want to be the one to finally push you over the edge on which you’ve been teetering for some time now.

  • As I said before, you’re like dealing with a small child in the middle of a tantrum.

  • TZ

    The feeling is mutual but the point was you posted NO proof!

  • TZ

    You are the one who is a narcissistic, obnoxious, delusional troll here to try and disrupt and confuse…you remind me of Kevin Folta?

  • TZ

    Highly trained biotech monkey is what you meant to say… 😉

  • TZ

    Lol…ummm, what is his motive? He was a geneticist! I think he is qualified! Also you dare to post the Genetic ILLITERACY Project? Funded by Biotech and run by paid mouthpiece Jon Entine, alleged wife beater and child abuser among other things!! http (colon) //www (dot)libertynewsonline(dot)com/article_301_36567(dot)php

    This is a continuation from Part Four of a comprehensive investigative report revealing the untold story behind Jon Entine, biotech shill, character assassination operative, Forbes. writer, American Enterprise Institute fellow and George Mason University research fellow. He’s also a visiting fellow at the University of California Davis (UC Davis). In addition, Jon Entine has financial ties to Monsanto and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Part One of this Jon Entine investigative series revealed the verified court documents where Jon Entine’s wife pleaded with the Ohio courts to issue a restraining order against Entine to protect herself and her daughter from physical injury. She also recorded, under oath, that Jon Entine violently attacked her, gouged her eye, choked her and shoved her. In additional court documents, Entine’s wife described him as “irrational and unpredictable” … “exceedingly hostile and belligerent” … and explained that Jon Entine’s “mental health has deteriorated…” Part Two of this Jon Entine investigative series revealed how Jon Entine “purchased listening devices” to surveil his own wife, pursued romantic relationships in their home while she was still living there, interfered with his wife’s professional business activities, and became “irrational and unpredictable” according to public court documents. It also covers how Jon Entine was fired from ABC News and reportedly manufactured false evidence to destroy a thriving company with a published hit piece. Part Three of this Jon Entine investigative series reveals how Entine secretly vandalized the wikipedia page on Seralini and then got caught, how he demanded his wife turn over her personal diaries and journals, how he illegally entered her home — causing her to demand his psychological evaluation — and how he then threatened his traumatized daughter’s own therapist with a lawsuit in order to halt therapy sessions. Part Four of this Jon Entine investigative series reveals how Entine knowingly publishes defamatory hit pieces in the media, how his false statements may have compromised the credibility of George Mason University, how he sued a colleague for defamation, claiming he was injured by the very same disparaging tactics he uses against others, how he serves as a biotech apologist to dismiss the harmful health effects of atrazine, and how he is tied to a network of organizations and operatives who bully the media with their false “science” to disparage GMO skeptics and defame skeptical scientists. To protect the identity of Jon Entine’s daughter, her name has been changed in this report to “Jenny.” (Natural News asks members of the media to refrain from publishing the daughter’s real name in plain text, as she is an innocent victim in these events.) Why Jon Entine is a poster boy for violence against women and chemical violence against us all The underlying thread that ties together the pattern of behavior from Jon Entine is VIOLENCE. Entine commits violence against women (his own wife) and traumatizes his own daughter, according to court documents revealed in Part One of this investigation. He promotes and excuses toxic chemicals like atrazine which contribute to the destruction of the biosphere with “chemical violence” that impacts us all. His own wife called for his psychological evaluation and “anger management” therapy. She went on to describe him under oath as “irrational and unpredictable” … “exceedingly hostile and belligerent” as detailed in Part Two of this Jon Entine investigation. Jon Entine threatens and sues those who dares question his own credentials, accusing them of defamation even though defamation is the primary tactic Entine uses himself against his intended targets. Jon Entine fabricates false evidence, wages malicious online character assassination campaigns, deliberately inserts false rumors into his articles and clearly seeks to emotionally traumatize his intended victims. He does this deliberately and maliciously, and operates with the endorsement of George Mason University and the American Enterprise Institute. It begs the question: Why is Forbes. giving this man a platform? Why does the American Enterprise Institute vouch for his credibility? Why does George Mason University back this man with its own reputation and credibility? These are questions the entire blogosphere will be asking in the days ahead. Which publications are giving Jon Entine a platform to spread more defamatory lies? • Forbes. is where Jon Entine gets the most traction. It is noteworthy that Forbes Media recently sold the majority of its ownership to Hong Kong-based Integrated Asset Management, founded by Tak Cheung Yam, as reported by Breitbart. [5] Forbes, in other words, really is owned by the Chinese. • John Stossel has given Jon Entine airtime on Fox News to spread corporate biotech junk science on cable television. • Real Clear Politics, which is owned in part by Forbes., allowed Entine to publish two articles in 2011 but hasn’t had him back since. • The Huffington Post has allowed Entine to post articles on its site, even though HuffPost is primarily a site for progressives who strenuously oppose atrazine, GMOs and corporate dominance of “science.” • The American Enterprise Institute gives Entine run of the site, allowing him to post false, defamatory information on the AEI website with no requirement whatsoever for any fact checking. “Entine’s lucrative empire includes a media consultancy (clients: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and formerly Monsanto), a pro-chemical book deal with the Monsanto-funded American Council On Science And Health (Paul Offit is on the Board), a GMO media lobbying outfit called The Genetic Literacy Project, a relationship with STATS (George Mason University ‘advocate scientific and statistical methods as the best way of analyzing and solving society’s problems’), Senior Research Fellow with the Center for Health and Risk Communication (George Mason University) and he is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (with a focus on anti-environmental issues).” reports TheRefusers. [4] The site goes on to point out why Entine has no real credentials to even talk about genetic science: With all these seemingly professional and academic positions you might assume Entine has ironclad scientific credentials. You would be wrong. Science degree? No. Statistics degree? No. Medical degree? No. Media communications degree? No. Paid activist flack? Yes. His degree? BA in philosophy. So what is Entine doing advising the public on medical, statistical and health issues? What is Entine’s meal ticket? Why would Bill Gates and Monsanto finance his empire? Answer: Mainstream media access. Entine was a producer for Tom Brokaw (NBC News) and ABC News. Entine’s empire is based on tapping his media background to counter consumer resistance to genetically modified products. In response to that piece, reader Judy Frankel posted a comment that resonates with many people of Jewish faith: —– “I’m so ashamed that Jon is also Jewish. He can be booked for speaking engagements through the Jewish National Fund. I am also Jewish, and I cannot believe that someone as intelligent and obviously hard-working as Jon would want to be a shill for the pro-GMO and pro-glyphosate businesses. All I can say is, I hope he is reincarnated into the world that he’s helping to create while those of us who don’t want bioengineered life get reincarnated into a world without them. This is a travesty! Shame on you Jon Entine. You give Jewish people a bad reputation, only caring about money and not caring about future generations.” —– Why Jon Entine is the perfect poster boy for the biotech industry All the court documents cited in this investigative series are genuine and can be confirmed by any reporter who does their homework. Links to the Hamilton County Courthouse online document site are detailed in Part One of this investigation. These documents unambiguously describe Entine as an unstable, violent and abusive person who attacks his own wife and traumatizes his own daughter. Not coincidentally, Jon Entine is “Exhibit One” for the
    kind of extreme anger, intimidation, false journalism, recklessness and villainous abandonment of ethics we see throughout the biotech industry itself. In effect, Jon Entine is the perfect poster boy for the biotech industry. He reflects their ethics. He promotes their poisons. He threatens their enemies. He is an extension of their wholesale lack of respect for life and ethics that the industry itself espouses. Fascinatingly, Jon Entine has taught us all a very valuable lesson in just how easily a violent, anger-driven creature filled with hatred can influence public opinion with the help of biotech apologist publishers such as Forbes.. Sadly, these revelations about Entine now smear the good work of other writers at Forbes. who are ethical journalists. (——————————– – See more at: link above…

  • TZ

    Glad the truth makes you happy… 😉

  • TZ

    Examining the True Risks of GMO Salmon

    by Jocelyn C. Zuckerman, via OnEarth(dot)org

    April 26, 2013 marked the deadline for public comments on a genetically modified salmon currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration. If approved, the fish will be the first transgenic animal ever to enter the human food supply. Some say it’s about time. In an op-ed that appeared last month in the New York Times under the title “Don’t Be Afraid of Genetic Modification,” science writer Emily Anthes explained that the company behind the fish, Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies, has been waiting more than 17 years for approval of its product.

    Anthes, author of the just-published Frankenstein’s Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech’s Brave New Beasts, called the FDA’s extension of the comment period on its environmental assessment (the original deadline was back in February) “just one more delay in a process that’s dragged on far too long.” The tests were in, she suggested, and the diagnosis an obvious one. Couldn’t we please put this poor company out of its misery and give its salmon the green light already?

    Not so fast. The FDA says the fish is just as safe to eat as conventional salmon—though you can count me among those who don’t look to that troubled agency (see “The FDA is Out to Lunch,” Winter 2013) for the last word on food safety. But the potential threats to the oceans are significant, and the FDA doesn’t acknowledge them. More troublingly, the agency seems content to leapfrog over the entire process for determining whether those threats exist in the first place. Given the far-reaching impact this salmon could have on our natural ecosystems and global seafood supply, fish scientists and food advocates make a strong case for closer scrutiny.

    AquaBounty has created its AquAdvantage fish by modifying farmed Atlantic salmon with a growth-hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a piece of DNA from the ocean pout. The two work together to allow the fish to grow year-round, cutting down on feed costs and on the time it takes to reach marketable size. AquaBounty says the fish pose “no threat to wild salmon populations.” After producing the eggs on Prince Edward Island, in Canada, the company grows the fish to size at an inland facility in Panama, where AquaBounty has a “confinement system” in place involving multiple physical barriers. In addition, the company says that it is breeding these salmon to be sterile, so that even if they were to escape, they would presumably be unable to take hold in any ecosystem or reproduce with any native salmon populations.

    It’s possible that AquaBounty’s various safeguards could succeed in sequestering its GM fish in the highly specific, highly limited scenario it’s describing—but that’s ultimately beside the point. Ronald Stotish, the company’s CEO, has said that the AquAdvantage salmon are designed for “facilities that can be built closer to consumers” and that the fish “can help us to feed an overpopulated planet.” In other words, the company’s plan is to scale up. (How would AquaBounty—which has already danced on the brink of bankruptcy—get a return on its multi-million-dollar investment otherwise?)

    But if fish farmers everywhere will be able to purchase the company’s eggs, they’ll be growing the salmon in very different environments, and it’s hard to imagine that many will have the capacity to put in place the rigorous and costly control system that AquaBounty has installed in Panama. (The FDA can extend an original approval to cover new manufacturing facilities with little public input or environmental review.) Nor is it a leap to imagine that continued expansion will eventually lead to conventional open net-pens, the standard system for the global salmon aquaculture industry, and, significantly, a form of confinement from which millions of farmed salmon have escaped in the past

    AquaBounty acknowledges that its sterilizing procedure isn’t 100 percent effective. Even if its failure rate is as low as 0.1 percent, when you’re talking about massive farms—and it’s not uncommon for today’s operations to entail a million fish—huge numbers of fertile fish could escape and interbreed with the already endangered Atlantic salmon, compromising its fitness and threatening its ultimate survival.

    Standard risk assessment generally involves three steps. The first step is to identify the hazard; the second, to determine the environmental consequences should the hazard be realized; and the third, to figure out how best to manage the risk and prevent those consequences from emerging. But the environmental assessment released by the FDA back in December essentially neglected the first two of these steps. It included no in-depth analysis of hazardous weaknesses in AquaBounty’s salmon-confinement system and no examination of the consequences should the company’s GM salmon escape. Also absent was a formal “uncertainty analysis,” which —given the inevitable unknowns involved with the natural world (remember when we thought it was a good idea to import Asian carp?)—is particularly critical in assessments related to the environment. Anne R. Kapuscinski, an environmental studies professor at Dartmouth College and the lead writer of a book about risk-assessment science as applied to genetically modified fish, has called the FDA’s environmental assessment “not even close to approaching the standards of state-of-the-art risk assessment.

    Part of the problem may be the regulatory framework itself. Currently, applications for transgenic animals are being considered by the FDA under the category of “new animal drugs” (go figure). And while the application process does take into account the potential effects of such “drugs” on human and animal health, it doesn’t allow for any thorough consideration of environmental hazards. Nor does it require substantive input from other agencies—like, for example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Environmental Protection Agency—that have actual expertise in areas such as fisheries and ecological risk.

    Even more outrageous, because of concerns over trade secrets, the process mostly takes place in the dark. The public-comments period under the National Environmental Policy Act, for example, takes effect only after a New Animal Drug Application has been approved by the FDA, turning it into something that feels very much like a formality. (AquaBounty, as the first GM-animal applicant, gave the FDA permission to make public some information about its salmon; future applications would carry no such requirements.)

    It is precisely because this environmental assessment (by virtue of being the first) will set the precedent for all transgenic animals moving forward—both in this country and internationally—that it’s important to get it right. Rather than relying on the shoddy version released in December, the agency could complete a new, and comprehensive, environmental impact statement that fully assesses the potential risks associated with broad adoption of these GM fish and others like them. Agencies with deep knowledge of fisheries and the environment could play a much larger role in determining the threats. Until the best available science can affirmatively demonstrate that GM fish pose little or no risk to our wild fish populations, it would be careless not to slam the brakes on their cultivation.

    In her Times op-ed, Anthes wrote that the rejection of AquaBounty’s salmon application would be “just fine” with groups that “traffic in scare tactics rather than science.” In fact, among those calling for a rejection, sound science is all they want.

    Originally published at On Earth Magazine and reposted with permission.

  • TZ

    Factory Fish Farming

    Factory fish farms crowd fish (and their waste) together, and compensate for these stressful conditions by relying on antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals.

    What’s wrong with factory fish farming?

    Factory fish farming — also known as aquaculture — is generally big, dirty, and dangerous, just like factory farming on land. Around half of the seafood eaten in the entire world comes from these types of facilities as producers attempt to produce fish as cheaply as possible. Massive amounts of antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides are required to keep disease at bay just to keep fish and shrimp alive in overcrowded conditions (typically in nets, cages, or ponds). The risk of contamination is high, both to the surrounding water and within the enclosures themselves. Multinational corporations have forever changed the way food is grown on land to the detriment of public health, the environment, local communities and food quality itself, and they are poised to do the same in the water.

    Unfortunately, even though people have become increasingly conscious about the environmental, cultural and economic repercussions of their seafood choices, the U.S. government continues to push for the development of open ocean aquaculture. The federal government has already spent millions to promote this troubled industry, despite poor results.

    Bad for the environment

    Uneaten fish feed, fish waste, and any antibiotics or chemicals used in fish farm operations flow through the cages directly into the ocean. This can significantly harm the ocean environment. Caged fish can escape and compete for resources or interbreed with wild fish and weaken important genetic traits. Farmed fish can spread disease to wild fish.

    Further, factory fish farms tend to grow top-of-the-food-chain carnivorous fish that eat small, wild fish — it can take several pounds of wild fish to grow one pound of farmed fish. This undermines the wild marine food chain.

    Bad for communities

    Factory fish farms may interfere with the livelihoods of commercial and recreational fishermen by displacing them from traditional fishing grounds or harming wild fish populations. Flooding the market with cheap farmed fish can drive down prices for wild fish, putting fishermen out of business and fishing communities in peril.

    Bad for our health

    Fish produced at factory fish farms can have higher levels of contaminants than wild fish, which may lead to health risks for consumers. And the use of antibiotics on fish farms can cause drug-resistant bacteria to develop, which may then be passed on to humans.

    Reasons to stop ocean fish farming in the U.S.

    Allowing ocean fish farming in our waters — held in trust by government officials for the American public — would grant private companies the right to exploit our public resource for their financial benefit.

    Ocean fish farming facilities can lead to conflict in areas including fishing grounds and routes to those fishing grounds, vessel traffic lanes, military sites, marine reserves and sanctuaries, protected and fragile areas and areas of significant multiple use.

    Economic concerns include loss of jobs for commercial fishermen, plummeting fish prices as cheap fish flood the market and decreased opportunities for recreational fishing as water and fish become polluted from nearby factory fish farms.

    Escapes are a given due to complications like severe weather, sharks and other predators, equipment failure, and human error. Fish escapes can jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species and lead to the spread of diseases, breeding with wild populations and the disruption of natural ecosystems.

    Habitats can be severely impacted by dredging, drilling, dropping large anchors, the introduction of new predators and sediment disturbances.

    Water pollution from offshore fish farms can include fish waste, excess food, fish escapes, antibiotics and various chemicals from fish farms, resulting in water pollution and poisoning of surrounding habitats.

    While there is much discussion of the U.S. “seafood deficit,” ocean fish farming is unlikely to solve our seafood import problem. The U.S. exports about 70 percent of the fish we catch and import cheaper (often lower quality) seafood products for U.S. consumption. Just because we could produce more fish here with offshore aquaculture facilities, doesn’t meant those products would be eaten here or that we would import less fish.

    Recirculating Aquaculture Systems as a Solution

    Many people in the U.S. are working to develop better alternatives to large scale open ocean aquaculture, including Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). RAS, closed-looped and biosecure aquaculture operations avoid many of the contamination potential inherent in factory fish farming and fulfill the need for clean, sustainable and healthy seafood supplements to our wild fisheries. http(colon)//www.fFactory Fish Farming

    Factory fish farms crowd fish (and their waste) together, and compensate for these stressful conditions by relying on antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals.

    What’s wrong with factory fish farming?

    Factory fish farming — also known as aquaculture — is generally big, dirty, and dangerous, just like factory farming on land. Around half of the seafood eaten in the entire world comes from these types of facilities as producers attempt to produce fish as cheaply as possible. Massive amounts of antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides are required to keep disease at bay just to keep fish and shrimp alive in overcrowded conditions (typically in nets, cages, or ponds). The risk of contamination is high, both to the surrounding water and within the enclosures themselves. Multinational corporations have forever changed the way food is grown on land to the detriment of public health, the environment, local communities and food quality itself, and they are poised to do the same in the water.

    Unfortunately, even though people have become increasingly conscious about the environmental, cultural and economic repercussions of their seafood choices, the U.S. government continues to push for the development of open ocean aquaculture. The federal government has already spent millions to promote this troubled industry, despite poor results.

    Bad for the environment

    Uneaten fish feed, fish waste, and any antibiotics or chemicals used in fish farm operations flow through the cages directly into the ocean. This can significantly harm the ocean environment. Caged fish can escape and compete for resources or interbreed with wild fish and weaken important genetic traits. Farmed fish can spread disease to wild fish.

    Further, factory fish farms tend to grow top-of-the-food-chain carnivorous fish that eat small, wild fish — it can take several pounds of wild fish to grow one pound of farmed fish. This undermines the wild marine food chain.

    Bad for communities

    Factory fish farms may interfere with the livelihoods of commercial and recreational fishermen by displacing them from traditional fishing grounds or harming wild fish populations. Flooding the market with cheap farmed fish can drive down prices for wild fish, putting fishermen out of business and fishing communities in peril.

    Bad for our health

    Fish produced at factory fish farms can have higher levels of contaminants than wild fish, which may lead to health risks for consumers. And the use of antibiotics on fish farms can cause drug-resistant bacteria to develop, which may then be passed on to humans.

    Reasons to stop ocean fish farming in the U.S.

    Allowing ocean fish farming in our waters — held in trust by government officials for the American public — would grant private companies the right to exploit our public resource for their financial benefit.

    Ocean fish farming facilities can lead to conflict in areas including fishing grounds and routes to those fishing grounds, vessel traffic lanes, military sites, marine reserves and sanctuaries, protected and fragile areas and areas of significant multiple use.

    Economic concerns include loss of jobs for commercial fishermen, plummeting fish prices as cheap fish flood the market and decreased opportunities for recreational fishing as water and fish become polluted from nearby factory fish farms.

    Escapes are a given due to complications like severe weather, sharks and other predators, equipment failure, and human error. Fish escapes can jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species and lead to the spread of diseases, breeding with wild populations and the disruption of natural ecosystems.

    Habitats can be severely impacted by dredging, drilling, dropping large anchors, the introduction of new predators and sediment disturbances.

    Water pollution from offshore fish farms can include fish waste, excess food, fish escapes, antibiotics and various chemicals from fish farms, resulting in water pollution and poisoning of surrounding habitats.

    While there is much discussion of the U.S. “seafood deficit,” ocean fish farming is unlikely to solve our seafood import problem. The U.S. exports about 70 percent of the fish we catch and import cheaper (often lower quality) seafood products for U.S. consumption. Just because we could produce more fish here with offshore aquaculture facilities, doesn’t meant those products would be eaten here or that we would import less fish.

    Recirculating Aquaculture Systems as a Solution

    Many people in the U.S. are working to develop better alternatives to large scale open ocean aquaculture, including Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). RAS, closed-looped and biosecure aquaculture operations avoid many of the contamination potential inherent in factory fish farming and fulfill the need for clean, sustainable and healthy seafood supplements to our wild fisheries. http:htt(colon)//www.foodandwaterwatch(dot)org/insight/factory-fish-farming

  • Very misleading 🙂 if you want to prove to people that something is being done behind their backs then you dont want to include thinks like pictures from something that completely irrelevant to the story. It waters down your argument

  • Michael Fest

    From Merriam Webster-
    “1trans·gen·ic
    tran(t)s-ˈje-nikadjective

    :being or used to produce an organism or cell of one species into which one or more genes of another species have been incorporated  ; also:produced by or consisting of transgenic plants or animals

    First Use: 1982”

    Depending on the source, some define the process as artificial and some don’t. We’re splitting hairs here but the point is that nature does this too and humans have learned how to nudge her along towards a desired result in the lab.

  • Freddy

    I’m glad you feel knowledgeable and educated.

  • razorjack

    The Genetic Literacy Project is a wholly controlled GMO pesticide industry
    disinformation astro-turf site. The GLP has a reputation for bad writing, GMO
    pesticide industry enemy hit pieces, and controlled tightly managed and censored public participation.. All you will find there is GMO pesticide industry PR based
    talking points and cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk
    pseudo-science. Any real science that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry
    agenda will be attacked or ignored. The GLP can not be considered in the same
    universe with any credible scientific publication.

  • razorjack

    You are the moderator here. I don’t understand why you don’t just delete all this troll nonsense and ban these industry thugs.

    You must have the patience of Job.

  • 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.

  • Ben N

    This is pure FDA disinformation. The FDA has a long history of ignoring and suppressing the real dangers of GMO foods.

    One of the earliest cases that has demonstrated that fact is the infamous tryptophan disaster of 1989 where the FDA ignored the warnings of their own scientists about the real risks of GMOs, simply to protect the business interests of the GMO industry, which they’ve been colluding with for decades – google “L-Tryptophan: The Truth About The FDA Tryptophan Recall Of 1989” (at supplements-and-health dot com site)

    The FDA-industry cartel has the average person believing that they’re protecting their health. Yet, lying about real facts, denying real facts, or minimizing or ignoring real facts is not protecting or helping the public, it’s deceiving the public.

  • William

    LOL Is that all you’ve got – the old shill accusation? Are you really so stupid not to think that real live independent people can have an opinion that’s equally valid to your (biased) opinion? I have never worked in the GMO area in my life but I am an animal scientist and have a good knowledge of aquaculture. What are your qualifications on this subject matter?

  • Suzie Nunnally Clary

    That’s what private schools are for. When one doesn’t want what the govt run schools are teaching. And it’s why govt is not supposed to interfere with your private beliefs. Shoe fits both ways.

  • Michael Hogan

    Never buying fish ever again

  • DWMontgomery

    Can the GMO salmon be weaponized? Asking for a friend.

  • Kaylee Angel Teagan

    Why the images from the Alien franchise movies? Seems kinda misleading don’t you think.

  • the sickos get paid well to do it.. they must have 500 sock puppets accounts each along with their minions who upvote their posts. it’s pretty pathetic. Just look at the upvoters. several are well known trolls who have been on our page for years. No clue how they read a site they hate for years daily. They need psychological help and we a restraining order against these types who are likely to shoot up public places. Monsanto is desperate 🙂 ..HNN Staff

  • Wow we see your fake stalking harassing profile (we see your info you know as this is our site) comments on THOUSANDS Of pages from Dawn’s brain to vaccination programs sites harassing people. How do you get away with this? And how much do you get paid?

    Not only does Erin attend medical conferences, she is lecturing at one right now and has lectured to well over 20,000 doctors and scientists around the US in nearly every major city since you wrote this 2 years ago. (Yes MDs and PhDs) She’s even lectures at top universities (real accredited medical schools in the US!) and just won an award for her truth in journalism which we’ll be posting the video of (with hundreds of MDs DOs and PhDs who gave her a standing ovation) at the Doctors Who Rock Conference. She just appeared on the Discovery Channel for her work as well as CBS and ABC. So now that she’s in the top 10 health sites world wide, with millions of visitors a month we imagine you’ll continue to lie and harass/stalk her even more, but the sad thing is your insults are actually the complete opposite of what is happening. Shall we post a picture of her lecturing to 3,500 doctors at once? (not graduated but alumni of the university at their annual conference for continuing education credits) or just post her award she won 2 nights ago? https://www.instagram.com/p/BbDhAq_BBOk/?taken-by=healthnutnews

  • Our million unique regular readers a month thus far (in 2 whole years this has been posted) have all figured it that this viral meme we shared obviously shows the similarity of the Alien series monster to the GMO fish on the left. It’s a joke (though scary at the same time). I hope that explains it clearly. Thanks.