Yes, it can happen, but there is no evidence it is happening, and furthermore, that is why they are tested. Also, it can happen in breeding too, yet no one gets up in arms about that.

That pretty much sums up every plant. A good amount of secondary metabolites are insecticides. Plenty of proteins are too. That argument is only as strong as one's ignorance of plant physiology.

Considering Gilles-Eric Séralini (the guy who wrote this one) also authored several very poor and widely criticized papers (that he ran to the press with while they were being criticized) while being funded by Greenpeace, are you surprised? When the Andrew Wakefield of GMOs asks for a sample, what would you say?

And once that get dull, you can personally insult every single being in the universe in alphabetical order.

How am I denying information to you when I actually told you exactly how to avoid GE crops? Let me repeat it: there are 8 species in the US that are GE: Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Avoid those, or buy organic/non-GMO labeled items, and you avoid GE crops. It is that simple. If you refuse to educate yourself and act on that information, then that's your own problem. I never said I want to stop labeling, I say those who wish to do so should be allowed and those who do not want to should not. But it's your right to tell everyone else what they must do hm?

You say want it? There's lots of things I want too. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to them. Instead of rationally explaining why GE crops should be labeled, you just say you want it. Laws should not be based on wants alone. It would be like if a Muslim who was too lazy to read the Quran demanded that everyone label food to cater to their beliefs, and it is just as wrong.

So everyone else should have to pay for your beliefs because you don't want to read how to avoid GE crops on your own. It looks like you are trying to legislate your anti-corporate sentiment.

And if you don't like patents, stop eating all patented food. Pretty inconsistent to act as if only GE is patented. Try to make sure they're not being sprayed with extra pesticides. Wouldn't want to replace Monsanto's horrible world terrorizing (not sure what that means) with something even worse.

So you accept that genetically engineered crops are safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GE crops? I'd like to know if my produce was picked by migrant labor who are working in exploitative conditions being paid next to nothing, a barbaric practice. I'm not going to demand some labeling scheme though because it does not affect the end product. Just because I want something does not mean I get what I want.

Ingredients describes what is in an item. The nutrition facts describe the nutritional content of an item. This is labeling a particular variety of certain crops. That's a pretty big difference. GE corn is still corn, just like any other variety of corn.

Why wouldn't you want to know anything? There's lots to learn about any given item, food or not, but there is so much that there should be a baseline that is required and everything non-essential should be left to choice. Things like the nutrition facts, ingredients, and allergens should be part of that baseline. The varieties of crops used should not be because they are of no consequence to the end product.

So does labeling lots of other things. That doesn't mean it should be forced.

Actually, that is access to information, not having that information delivered in a nice package. The information is fairly easy to come by 9I've banged it out bunches of times already on this story), but if you choose not to educate yourself, that doesn't mean it is the responsibility of food producers to tell you.

Under a free market, people who want labels would create demand for them. A supply would come into being. People would buy and sell at market rates. And this is exactly what has already happened. You can buy organic food all over the place, or find items explicitly marked as non-GMO. Forcing a company to do something because some people something but aren't creating strong enough demand, or because they just want to punish companies they don't like, or because they want to spread some fear to increase the sales of organic food (organic companies are funding this bill by the way) however is a violation of free market principles.

You can be deceptive with a fact. For example, if I put a label on GE corn that says 'Contains pesticide genes' that is both true and deceptive. It is true because genetically engineered corn has a gene for an insecticide in it. It is deceptive because so does non-GE corn (naturally occurring proteins like maysin are insecticidal), however, by not mentioning that, it makes it appear that only the GE one produces insecticides, and ultimately it does not educate or promote science, it simply paints a misleading picture. I think the best case study on using fact to be deceptive is the 'evolution is only a theory' thing some people tried to force in textbooks. It is both a scientific fact that evolution is 'only' a theory, and it is anti-science to put that label there because it singles out one thing in a manner that casts doubt on its validity by preying on the ignorance of those who do not know what a theory really is. Same thing here. Maybe if these people were advocating making known more of a crops genetic history and labeling if things were produced by hybridization (and if so how) what genes they were selectively bred to have, if they were produced by mutagenesis, wide cross, embryo rescue, bud sport selection, induced polyploidy, ect. and the details of those modifications, then it would be fine. But they are singling out a single thing irrationally and inconsistently with no basis to do so besides making it appear as if they are providing consumers with something useful and unique because the average person does not know all the ways we alter crops nor do they know the benefits of genetic engineering.

It is anti-science because it is not meant to inform, but to spread fear uncertainty and doubt (and most likely also make a profit for the organic companies funding the initiative, though strangely its only wrong whenever Monsanto ect. fund things but trying to scare people to make more money is just dandy).

Nothing, but that is not what is happening here. Ingredients are already listed. They are demanding that a particular method of crop improvement be labeled, while ignoring all the others, based on political agendas not science.

You could apply that same logic to any other method of crop improvement (and I'm not just talking about breeding). Why single out one thing?

And if people made their decisions based on science alone, that would be true. But this (besides having neither scientific nor moral basis) would be sending the message that GE is something specifically demanding of a label,

I see no reason to force it. If people want to, fine, if they don't fine.

Claimed as food? It is food. And sure, you do have that right. go out and learn about it. No one is stopping you from picking up a book on crop genetics and learning. I think you'd be surprised about just how much we do to food that you don't know about.

No disagreement here. I remain baffled by the people with big open sunny yards who piss money drown the drain every year to maintain that green eyesore then go out and buy fruit s and vegetables that are rather simple to grow at home.

You do have access to it. When I go to a store, I know exactly when I'm buying something with genetically engineered ingredients. But I don't know when I'm buying something produced through many of the other methods of plant improvement.

That's absurd. Censorship is when the government says you can't say something. this is forcing food producers to say something. Do you even know the meaning fo that word?

I want the information out there. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Avoid these, you avoid GE. Unless you are too lazy to read ten words (or you just want to fearmonger about it) it is that simple. I just don't want it to be forced. Most of the anti-GMO are based on ignorance, laziness, and fear of science. The problem is, people know bugger all about crop genetics, so what you've said seems reasonable. It isn't.

Done. You can already buy things labeled as non-GMO or organic. You could even take the time to educate yourself on the topic and learn how to avoid GE crops yourself. Just because that information isn't plastered on every item doesn't mean it is hidden. What, do Muslims have no choice about eating Halal because it isn't labeled by law? Do vegans have to eat things derived from animal products because there is no mandatory vegan law?

I want the freedom to sell some corn without some ignorant scientifically illiterate activist saying I have to label it as having something unrelated to the end product.

Are you confusing terminator seed with hybrid seed, or are you under the false assumption that terminator seed is actually in use? It's hard to tell which way you're wrong.

Worldwide lifespans are also on the up. GE crops must make you live longer! Or does confusing correlation and causation only apply when it is a point being made against GE crops. There is evidence of some insecticides causing CCD. None pointing to GE crops. That was pulled right out of someone's ass.

Now that is interesting. I would really like to see the paper that found that. Must be a new paper, because I haven't heard of anything demonstrating that. I hope it is better than the Séralini paper.

Yeah, but whether or not those things actually happen matters.

What about these hundreds of studies?

Highly unlikely. That has no evidence and was basically pulled out someone's hindquarters. There are only a few proteins inserted into the GE crops you eat (the cry proteins long used in organic agriculture safely, an altered from of the epsps enzyme that all plants have, the PAT enzyme, two viral coat proteins that are going to be present in much higher concentration in the virus infected non-GE versions).. There is no evidence that they increase allergies. Ironically, there may be an increase in allergies due to new varieties though, but due to breeding, not GE. Pathogenesis-related proteins are good for increasing a plants resistance to disease. They are also a very allergenic class of compounds. Guess what good old fashioned 'safe and proven' breeding has been increasing for the last couple of decades in an effort to produce hardier crops? One of the disadvantages to breeding is that, unlike genetic engineering, you don't always know all the genes you're working with, nor does it require the massive amount of testing and regulatory hurdles that GE does. So I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between newer varieties of GE crops and allergies, but it I would be surprised if there was a causation.

You can do that already. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, papaya. Avoid them, or buy non-GMO/organic items, and you avoid genetic engineering. It isn't hard to learn if those who wish to avoid GE crops take the time to educate themselves. A little knowledge completely negates the need for mandatory labels (which should raise the question of why this movement is not spreading education but is instead trying to make a new law...I'm guessing it has something to do with the funding from organic companies).

Not really, that's just one guy who wrote a self published book full of misrepresentations and distortions. Read what actual scientists have to say about it here. The went through and did a comprehensive take down of that guy's nonsense. Alternatively, this is a fun well cited video. My favorite bit: he claims that transgenes are taken up by gut flora and continue to function, meaning that they could be producing the Bt protein that kills insects (which is totally harmless to humans anyway, but whatever). He cites Netherwood 2004 as proof. That paper's abstract ends with "we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment." So they guy who wrote that site either does not bother to even look at the papers he cites, or he flat out lies. He is also one of the leaders in the anti-GE movement, and is very highly respected and often cited among those who espouse anti-GE sentiment. So what should that tell you?

If there's nothing wrong why should the be labeled? There's tons of things we do to plants that are not dangerous that most people have never heard of, like mutagenesis and doubled haploid hybridization and selection of bud sport mutants. I don't think GE should be singled out. That is just using people's ignorance to scare them about genetic engineering by making it stand out as something different and unique.

That is easy to do already and I'll tell you how. Corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. Eight species have been genetically engineered in the US. Due to the way they are processed, anything containing them that is not labeled as organic or non-GMO contains genetically engineered crops. Now you know how to avoid them if you want, and you can do it without a label. However, they have been in the food supply for a long time, and tested even longer, and there is no reason whatsoever to think they pose any more of a health risk than any other crop.

That interview was horribly edited by the way. And somehow, those of us who support genetic engineering are the deceitful ones.

Like this? Besides, why should it be a bad thing if I do not directly benefit? I don't directly benefit from disease resistant hybrids, or tractors, or silos. Why is it bad that GE crops only help the farmer?

You do realize that you can get a generic glyphosate from companies that aren't Monsanto, yes? Also, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. Those herbicide resistant crops are actually a good idea. It used to be to control weeds farmers had to till the soil (which is terrible for your soil quality and causes fertilizer runoff, which causes all sorts of damage in aquatic ecosystems) or spray harsher herbicides. The transgenic systems are a step up from that, contrary to the ill will directed at them. Sure, it is always best to minimize agrochemical usage, but it isn't a choice between one herbicide and no herbicide, it is a choice between herbicide A and herbicide B/ tillage. This is one of those finer points that is often glossed over.

The first shot was fired at the Flavr Savr tomato, which was not produced by Monsanto. How, if it is Monsanto's evil deed to blame from the public perception of GE crops, is that the case? GE crops are not demonized because of Monsanto, it is the other way around. Monsanto just put a face on GE. It's a lot easier to demonize a big bad company that by claiming they are suing farmers and making Indians kill themselves than it is to demonize science.

There's a difference between access to information and forcing that it be displayed. It is an easy feat to discover what is and is not GE: Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya. They have been modified to have various cry genes (insect resistance), C4 EPSPS gene (glyphosate tolerance), bar gene (glufosinate tolerance), PRSV CP (resistance to papaya ringspot virus), CMV CP (resistance to cucumber mosaic virus, Cspb (drought tolerance), and NptII (antibiotic resistance marker gene used in the transformation process). That one does not educate themselves does not mean that this information is not out there. A free market only means that the information is available, not that it is delivered in a nice easy convenient package. Furthermore, a free market means freedom to do what you want, including label or not label. under a free market, if there is demand, supply will arise to mean demand, and what do you know we have the organic label and things labeled as non-GE already. The free market already has this covered.

Question: was the last banana you at produced by tissue culture? What about the last apple you ate? What variety was it Are you sure? It could have been a bud sport mutation. How much of the wheat in the last piece of bread you at was produced by wheat that, at some point in its family history, was altered with radiation (hint: about 80% of the world's wheat was altered this way). The last tomato you ate, were all its genes from Solanum lycopersicum, or were some of them from related Solanum species like S. pimpinellifolium that were used in a back cross program to bring in disease resistance genes? Was the last carrot you ate produced by taking two pollen grains from different plants, doubling their chromosomes to produce plants with identical chromosomes, then crossed to form the hybrid you ate? I could go on, but you get the point. You could fill a book with the stuff most people don't know about their food. Heck, you don't even get to see what variety of crop you are eating half the time (are those blueberries Patriot or Bluecrop or Spartan or what?). If you want to know about what you are eating, genetic engineering is the easy part. Why are you applying your want to know towards it but not everything else? furthermore, why does a mere want determine law and regulation? I'm sure plenty of Muslims want Halal/Haram labels, and plenty of Jews want kosher/non-Kosher labels, and plenty of vegans want vegan/non-vegan labels, but it not be right to force those labels, agree? And they manage to get by just fine

Comments like that demonstrate the most irritating part of this bill. If you know very little about crop genetics, it is a no brainer. Think of it a bit deeper, while considering the full breadth of the topic, and it quickly becomes very murky.

The truth also includes the benefits of genetic engineering. Maybe we should label non-GE having more mycotoxins? Maybe we should label GE soybeans as resulting in reduced carbon emissions? Furthermore, the truth includes many other thing about the crop. Was it blasted with radiation and useful mutation selected, as commonly happens in wheat? Was it treated with a chemical to double its chromosomes, as is used in many hybrid lines? Was it selected from a mutated bud, a common practice in apples? Was it crossed with a wild relative then back crossed to get desirable genes, a hot topic in tomatoes (whose wild relatives can be toxic). That's the truth too. Why isn't that labeled? And don't you think it is deceptive to single out on of those while ignoring everything else? It makes the thing singled out to appear exceptionally unique because many do not know the genetics of the crops they eat. It is especially so if the thing singled out has a history of fearmongering campaigns being directed at it.

That makes all the difference. Laws should be determined by reason, not whoever can shout the loudest (where do you stand on cannabis legalization and gay marriage?).

How about the right to speak when and if you want to? No one is opposing labeling. The issue is mandatory labeling. Two different things. If someone is selling GE corn, or a product containing GE soy, why should they be forced to label their product as such? The choice should be up to them.

Do you honestly think that would work? There are tons of papers published by independent scientists from around the world demonstrating the benefits an safety of GE, and this is very often dismissed by those who oppose GE (and make no mistake, these pro-labeling campaigns are anti-GE) as being part of the corporate conspiracy. There really isn't much the corporations can do at this point with respect to making a their case (not that you should really be listening to what they say anyway). Realistically, if GE food is not labeled, people will say 'Ooh, they don't label it, what are they hiding, it must be bad for you!' and if it is labeled people will say 'Ooh, they have to label it, that must mean it is different somehow, it must be bad for you!' just like when people point to labeling or bans in other countries as evidence that GE crops are dangerous.

No, they're just scaring people about them, thus making them less useful for farmers (whose end goal it to run a business and make a living), which will consequently prevent future advances from genetic engineering, especially for horticultural, minor, and biodiverse crops and small biotech businesses (as well as ones that simply benefit the environment, like Enviropig, which failed because it benefited no one bu the environment and that wasn't worth putting up with the fear mongering), while big companies that sell seed for agronomic crops like Monsanto continue to hold large market shares and likely only lose some sales (after all, did proof that trans fats stop the majority of people from eating them...then again, despite the fact that they are a known danger and GE crops are as close to safe as science can demonstrate, no one has launched any big scare campaigns against the known danger, so I could be wrong about that). I swear, I would not be surprised if one of these days we found out Monsanto was behind this pro-labeling anti-GE nonsense.