GMO OMG the movie - Who controls the future of your food?

Some discussions about horizontal gene transfer suggest that it's not as unlikely as promoters would have us believe:

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-12-myth-horizontal-gene-transfer-from-gm-crops-is-unlikely-or-of-no-consequence

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/5notes

Well! This thread has prompted me to start doing a bit more detailed research, so I've ordered through the library two books: 1) Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith, and 2) Mendel in the Kitchen, by Nina Federoff. One seems pro-GM, the other definitely anti-GM. Anyone have any other recommendations?

In reviewing both books on Amazon, I did come across one quotation supposedly from a Nobel laureate named George Wald: "The results will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled" and "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors."

I guess that remark sums up the best reason, at least to me, to be careful and skeptical about introducing GM crops into the "wild". On the other hand, new technologies always frighten some. I firmly believe that irrational fear destroyed the nuclear industry and now we live with coal plants spewing CO2 into the air (leading to climate change), not to mention making airborne far more radioactive isotopes than any nuclear plant could even begin to introduce. Even for a disaster like Fukushima, the release of radioactivity was small compared to coal plant emissions.

Anyway--this is a great thread. Thanks to you all for your comments.

Sentiments similar to those attributed to George Wald are what concern me, too.

I also wonder whatever happened to Aardvaark, who popped up early on this thread and said "OMG - having worked to develop GMOs in the past, I have always wondered when all the issues would finally get the publics attention. Glad to see folks are discussing and engaged."

We asked for more information but never got any. I'd be interested to know what he had in mind.

This "food for thought" is irritating my brain.

Yes, what about our grandchildren, and those who follow us?

I also think of the dangers of Fukashima Daiichi, and the constant leaking of radiation filled waters into the sea, and what it is doing to our planet, not just our own region, but the whole ecosystem, which to we are connected. They are not talking...afraid of what we would say or think...People are put in jail if they say anything public about it.

What did cause that tsunami in Japan??

What caused the tsunami??????????

You people don't know what caused the tsunami & yet you can argue GMO & other scientific stuff.
Gees!

George Wald
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wald
died in 1997 at age 91- making a quote from him about GMO's perhaps not the best to support an argument. What do all the other Nobel scientists think?

No, Sally, I'm just agreeing with the concerns that George Wald described. I didn't need his endorsement; he just expressed my feelings well.

Thanks for those links, greenhouse_gal! It's going to take me time to get around to them.

I've learned to be wary of journals with "open source" in their names, but good ideas can come from anywhere. Especially ideas about speculative processes.

There is so much passion on both sides that reading almost anything on either side requires a lot of skepticism and effort.

My own purely speculative concern is that the plasmids used to transform crop DNA with transgenes leave part of themselves IN the crop DNA. If those remnants are still enough to promote any amount of the plasmid plus payload popping out of the crop DNA and floating free as a plasmid again, or trnaferring to other crops or crop viruses or other parasites, they might become something analogous to a synthetic "jumping gene" and have a higher rate of transfer to other crops and weeds.

Or me.

And every genetic modification carries some "junk DNA" or rather unintended sequences that just happened to be picked up along with the desired gene complexes. Not literally "junk DNA" in the technical sense of long repeat sequences.

"…..If those remnants are still enough to promote any amount of the plasmid plus payload popping out of the crop DNA and floating free as a plasmid again, or trnaferring to other crops or crop viruses or other parasites…or me..."

If that's possible, that concerns me too. I would like to see that specific question addressed somewhere.

The thing is that this DNA doesn't behave like the DNA we know and love, and with which we evolved. No one really knows what it will do once it gets into the environment. So all bets are off. Those articles indicate that there is some horizontal gene transfer, despite the insistence of the promoters that that can't happen. And they probably sincerely believed it couldn't. So what else is going on that they're not aware of?

Here's a clip from a presentation on Fox News. I haven't watched it but I read the description underneath the video:
http://naturalsociety.com/mainstream-media-fox-news-admits-gmos-real-safety-issue/

I really am sorry this is unusually long even for me!

But that link was really interesting, and I just wish they hadn't put their foot in their mouth so much.

It was the most interesting thing I've read on the subject in years, but I have to file it under "maybe true, maybe science fiction, and maybe a darn lie".

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php

>> Horizontal gene transfer and recombination is the main route for generating new pathogens and spreading antibiotic and drug resistance, and genetic engineering is nothing if not greatly facilitated horizontal gene transfer and recombination.

That killed my sympathy for them and any potential trust dead in its tracks. It's by far the sleaziest thing they said.

They seem willing to play fast and loose with using words one way in one place and a totally different way later as if to drum up confusion and fear:

1.
>> is the main route for generating new pathogens and spreading antibiotic and drug resistance
(Like saying that natural bacteria transfer and recombine DNA "horizontally" all the time - mostly within the species or genus - like conjugation)

2.
>> genetic engineering is nothing if not greatly facilitated horizontal gene transfer
(B.S. plus it confuses "genetic engineering" inside the lab with what crops do in the field after the GE is over)

So they may be right and may even have some evidence, but if so, I'll look at the evidence, not any conclusions they push.

- - -

They said:

>> Furthermore, there are indeed reasons to suspect transgenic DNA is more likely to transfer horizontally and recombine than natural DNA (see Box adapted from [7] Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS publication), and this has been borne out by accumulating evidence, even though dedicated research is still extremely rare.

Fine, good, that Box is what I'm looking for. Do you see it in this article? I can't find it.

Geeze, wait a minute! They have numbers for their references, but they do not LIST the references in the article??!??

And the link takes me to an ad for what looks like a tear-jerking fear-mongering "personal" whine.

BZZT, that takes them AND all ISIS publications off the list that I would willingly spend time reading.
That's McCarthyism, "I have here in my hands a list of 50 Communists in the State Department" ... blank paper.

I have to remind myself not to use "argument ad hominem" and think that the theory is disproved because its advocates will stoop to propaganda.

Funny - they keep beating their own drum like "we've been warning people about this for YEARS" as if that would make people agree with them by itself. No, if they have been pushing their theory for years and no one reputable agrees, that makes it LESS believable. Not wrong, just less likely.

It sounds like ISIS is also very into agreeing with itself, and mostly citing its own people to support each other. I usually call that "huffing their own flatulence", thinking that they don't stink.

In any kind of academic research, whining that the people who already agree with you think you're right is a red flag to look more closely at the choir that's singing in unison. Check twice for things that would persuade people who are NOT already committed enthusiasts.

They spend several pages of text to assert what I already speculated, that the Agrobacter plasmid MIGHT promote cross-species transformation - speculation is cheap, but at least if you read closely, there are the weasel words that actually mean "I'm making this up and most of what I'm saying could have phrased as "it's not IMPOSSIBLE that the following COULD happen", though they do make it sound like lots and lots of this surely IS happeneing!".

And agreeing with me is no big plus! Like Groucho Marx, I worry about any club that would have ME as a member! (Partly kidding.)

>> The borders of the most commonly used vector for transgenic plants, the T-DNA of Agrobacterium, are recombination hotspots (sites that tend to break and join).

>> 6. Transgenic constructs tend to integrate at recombination hotspots in the genome, which again, would tend to increase the chances that they will disintegrate and transfer horizontally [8].

Kind of saying the same thing.

>> 7. Transgenic DNA often has other genetic signals, such as the origin of replication left over from the plasmid vector. These are also recombination hotspots, and in addition, can enable the transgenic DNA to be replicated independently as a plasmid that is readily transferred horizontally among bacteria and other cells.

Kind of the definition of a plasmid ... not quite.

>> CaMV 35S promoter active in all species including human cells

They cite this as a hazard of GM plasmids ... while saying that most normal cells have the same thing. That seems a contradiction. Maybe I misunderstood those paragraphs.

Scanning the rest, it seems very repetitive while changing the words slightly, as if to imply that each paragraph is a new reason to agree with them.

>> There, Agrobacterium could multiply and transfer transgenic DNA to other bacteria, as well as to the next crop to be planted. These possibilities have yet to be investigated empirically.

>> this has been borne out by accumulating evidence, even though dedicated research is still extremely rare.

I can't really say without seeing the sources that they "cite" without naming them. But the text that I read is almost entirely "could" and "might" and mostly from ISIS or SiS. After a few things I read here, I can't take their word for anything even though it supports my own speculation.

I think the strongest thing I could conclude if I accepted most of their arguments for GE plasmids promoting "jumping genes" or "horizontal transfer" is that they keep citing examples from nature where those things happen, and saying that GE plasmids are "like that".

But, if that is their strongest argument, they are saying that inter-species "horizontal transfer" is already occurring everywhere. If true, then the similar risk from GMOs is only a little more of the same thing we've already had since vascular plants, bacteria, and animals all existed.

P.S.
All the claims about preexisting natural mechanisms whipping genes in and out of mammalian DNA from various sources was really interesting, and plays into thoguhts I've had since high school, though more often about bacteria than humans. However, since they hide their sources and clearly have an agenda and are not above playing with words to make white sound blacker, I can't believe that what they say is even honest speculation by people who know a lot more than I do.

They might be right, and well-intentioned and only huffing and puffing accidently.
They might be wrong and darned liars.
Or they might right and weakening their own cause (AND the truth) by advancing it in a dishonest way.

It was the most interesting thing I've read on the subject in years, but I have to file it under "maybe true, maybe science fiction, and maybe a darn lie".

It's a shame that there isn't more peer-reviewed science out there to discuss these issues. Usually when I see a paper like that being promoted I look for the original site which would have the references and all the rest of the material, but I didn't do that here. And maybe there IS no original site. Still, I think there's an increasing concern out there, for whatever reason, and there's some good research to back it up based on everything I've read. I don't mind being cautious. For example, I never bought a piece of cookware with Teflon because I didn't trust it, and it turns out that I was right.

>> It's a shame that there isn't more peer-reviewed science out there to discuss these issues.

YES!

I don't think it's a conspiracy by Monsanto-like companies to suppress research.

1. it's hard to research (or get funding, or get past peer reviews) with speculative things like "maybe eventually ..." or "what if something like"

2. Long-term studies are expensive and hard to do in a really tightly controlled way.

3. Almost any tests of things that are rare (like "genetic pollution" or cross-over into other species or the toxic effects of things that are not VERY toxic) tend to be inconclusive which makes fundign and peer review difficult.

4. Research likely to immediately benefit some group with money is most likely to be funded. Drug firms pay to have their new drugs tested. Monsanto pays for testing that seems likely to show no bad effects.

I suppose in principle the "organic farming lobby" or "healthy food lobby" would pay for testing likely to show hazards of GMOs. But do those lobbies exist and are they well-funded (which is to say, do they have rich backers or turn a big profit themselves?)

I'm cynical about politics and think that government funding tends to go in directions that make well-funded lobbyists donate to political campaigns.

To the extent that the FDA or EPA are non-political, they might fund "anti-industry" testing ... but will still only fund "good science" which means testing for things that are relatively easy to find and prove.

I think my last few posts have been pretty anti-GMO, at least about eating entire GE organisms. I should repeat that even though I support "truth in labeling", I think my reluctance to eat GM corn, apples and salmon is somewhat superstitious and not well-supported by any research.

My perceived, possible, slight risk to the "genetic environment" is also speculative. The idea that you MIGHT get some "horizontal drift" of transgenes still does not suggest that they could go from the body (let's say the gut, or microbes and viruses) specifically into gonads and gametes. If they can't do that, the risk to humans is still negligible: things that happen once in a billion times to body tissue is so much less risky than crossing the street that it's not worth thinking about.

Crop genetic drift, and weed genetic drift (plus selection by RoundUp) is a real likelihood. However, even there, I think the biggest risk to agriculture comes from Monsanto lawyers, not transgenes and GE! Cornering the market on seed sources is, all by itself, a huge and real harm to all mankind. No matter how good those 5-10 crops are, all the risks of monocrop agriculture are multiplied when you talk about mono-cropping the whole planet!

That link you gave was the ONLY thing in print I've ever seen outside of science fiction that wandered down the same speculative paths, and I don't know how much to trust anyone who claims to have sources but won't show them.

When you get right down to it, I want to plant what the good Lord gave me. I love the satisfactory feeling of giving what I produce to my friends and family, with a clear conscience. This is why this discussion is so interesting to me. In fact, I believe it should get the highest rating of any discussion in Dave's Garden, if there IS such a thing. And should there be? Methinks so.

Just saw this today in Huffington Post. It refers to several studies that I think I've mentioned here or in the previous thread on GMOs. Very interesting, especially since GMO-promoters like to label GMO-objectors as anti-science:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/the-antiscience-behavior-_b_4566258.html

I want to second greenhouse_gal's comment. The quotation from George Wald simply expressed my biggest concern re GM. I am most definitely NOT using it to support an argument, especially since I don't even know which side of the argument I support! :«)

As for tsunamis, evelyn_inthegarden seemed to suggest a perhaps nefarious cause for the Fukushima tsunami, so I was looking for an explanation.

Gracye, you are right. This is an excellent exchange. Thanks especially to rickcorey and greenhouse gal for keeping it alive and informative. I hope others with insights and experience in the field will weigh in.

Good link! I thought the

>> Ironically, none of the criticisms called for more research on the effects of Bt crops on the environment, a testament to the unusual response and unscientific perspective of GMO proponents.

That is telling. I think the most frequently expressed scientific opinion of all time is that whatever-it-is would benefit from more study.

That's like a doctor telling to get at least moderate exericse and not over-eat.

Not to defend Monsanto for attacking science, but rather to suggest that peripheral evidence hints that it is the kind of thing they would do, I'll mention that they've gotten legislators to pass a law prtocting them from being sued over soimeting (I forget exactly what).

I recall thinking at the time that it was so blatent and indefensiible that it was like them putting up a billboard saying "we could make Congress vote for killing kittens".

There are also allegations (that i beleieved quickly, perhqps with slight evidence) that Monsanto lawyers would nuisance-sue anyone who "got in their way".

Since this thread is trying for objectivivity, I should be citing links to support those claims but I don't have them.

Anyway, please let me reverse what I said earlier:

>> I don't think it's a conspiracy by Monsanto-like companies to suppress research.

They can't prevent research, but they can make it more difficult to get funding and intimidate some researchers.

Probably they can intimidate any organization whose funding is influenced by legislators who need campaign funds. And that would be all federally funded research.

And making life harder and more expensive for journals might deter them for publishing marginal research. But, my guess is, they are meanwhile making those journals' staffs and researchers in related fields FURIOUS, so that if and when any clearly persuasive research IS reported, it will be fast-tracked into publication and widely quoted.

Grayce and Willie,

I agree this has been a very interesting discussion, but i believe it reveals more about Human nature, fear of the unknown, closed minds, and lack of common sense than it does about the possible dangers of GMO.

Every living organism continually changes and adapts, whether by climate change, evolution, lack of survival of the least fit, or by human manipulation. And as those changes occur, Survivors adapt, so there is no logical reason why one more change should induce all the panic that the GMO has.

It was only a few years ago that feeding Growth Hormone to milk cows was going to wipe us all out, panic ensued, but nothing happened. Some dairies stopped using it to placate the noisy few, but most of the milk still contains traces of it.

So, until something bad does happen, i am going to remain skeptical.

Ernie

Here's another study about effects of GMO corn on rats. This is a poorly translated PhD thesis concerning an experiment conducted by an Egyptian researcher, but it's still suggestive.

http://www.academia.edu/3138607/Morphological_and_Biochemical_Changes_in_Male_Rats_Fed_on_Genetically_Modified_Corn_Ajeeb_YG_

THanks, greenhouse gal that was interesting. I liked reading the detailed description of how they did the study, and of the results.

I thought so too, although the slightly mangled English was distracting!

I agree this has been a very interesting discussion, but i believe it reveals more about Human nature, fear of the unknown, closed minds, and lack of common sense than it does about the possible dangers of GMO.

Read more: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1330943/#ixzz2qi8jWIab


10 rats per group - if he can get actually significant results out of that small a sample, he must be looking at something grossly obvious, which I don't think the Bt change is.

>> MON 810 (Monsanto) borer resistance trait

I wonder if this is something other than the widely used Bt gene? ... no, a quick Internet search suggests that it is only the Bt change.

I wonder how he can get results that sound so different from everyone else's?

It looks like Ajeeb is a big fan of organ weight and serum enzymes for detecting otherwise-undetectable changes. I guess that is different. Good for him! Look in a new way, maybe find a new thing.

If those two tests DO have any real validity, I hope that he, or someone, repeats the test with a non-joke number of rats.

If these changes do mean anything significant, and do turn out to be repeatable, they would hopefully point at some mechanism of organ damage that Ajeeb did not even speculate about. Or point towards anything that could be looked for in more informative ways.

Hmm, it looks like the changes are really slight. I wish Tables 2 & 3 had columns for "% change" and "% variation" expressed either as range or 2-3 SD.

Honk! The "=/-" numbers in the table are only ONE SD! So the likelihood of the 'real" number being outside the listed range are what, something like 13%?

He was very honest to cite this other study, where the author criticized his own results for only being twice as meaningful as Ajeebs! (if I understand the Table comments about +/- SD and P> (Hammond et al., 2004) ... decided that these differences not considered being test article related as they were of small magnitude and fell within ±2SD of the mean of the reference groups.

I agree with Hammond et al.! 2 Standard Deviations are not much. In theory, "95%" is "statistically significant" but it wouldn't give me any conidence that repeating the test would get the same result.

If Ajeeb is using a "ONE SD" criterion on a small-sample test (ten rats per group) to decide that he was seeing an "actual difference" as distinct from a "statistical difference", I would criticize him.

But he is saying "statistical difference", not "meaningful difference". You can use any kind of statistics that you want, as long as you don't claim that they also indicate anything meaningful.

His Tables suggest that he using some kind of "one sigma, small sample statistics". which sound to me like lame bunkum. I might be wrong.

But his conclusions are modest, and I wouldn't argue with them.

>> "These findings indicate potential adverse health/toxic effects of GM corn and further investigations still needed."

"Potential" is true until conclusively and unarguably proven otherwise. There are "potential" adverse effects in the presence or complete absence of this study. And further investigations are always needed.

The valuable thing that i see here are two methodologies: organ weight / body weight ratios, and looking at levels of certain things in serum that might indicate certain specific kinds of damage.

(The introduction sounded like what any research group says to defend its favorite methodology. If it was widely accepted as meaningful, they wouldn't have defended it, they would have just named it. So I think in part they are "advertising" their organ-weight-and-serum-chemicals method by using it on something that will get them publicity: Bt corn. Much like Seneff, the MIT computer scientist who promoted her hobbyhorse "exogenous semiotic entropy" by talking about (not doing any lab work on) Roundup in the "open source journal" Entropy.)

IF someone can repeat those tests and get results that are "actually significant" using normal, plausible statistics and useful numbers of animals, then those tests would be shown to be more sensitive to something that no one else has seen clearly. THEN people could go looking for what that effect really is, what makes it better or worse, and eventually what the mechanism is.

Alternatively, this paper might be just a wish to publish, plus totally expectable numeric fluctuations in a tiny number of lab animals.

I have also enjoyed reading everyones perspectives. As an agricultural scientist I havent found any data yet to support any harmful affects to humans. But I also respect those who oppose the technology for whatever reason. It does seem silly when there are those just hoping they will come along and find that one study that shows some harm somewhere. But thats what happens when we get on the emotional or moral thinking of things instead of looking objectively at what the potential benefits this can really provide to society. Its more of a feeling than facts. How can you argue with someones feelings? You cant.

But here are some facts everyone should be aware of...
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#FACTS

We really need to control this toxic compound...much more dangerous than any GMO is dihydrogen monoxide which is a corosive etc. I'm not sure why the EPA isn't doing more. There are lots of studies to show all of its harmful and negative effects.

Drobarr, now you've got a problem with water? But not with GMOs? That do beat all!

LOL DHMO

NPR discussing the chemical spill in WV, described a bit about passage of environmental laws in the 70s and that there are tens of thousands of chemicals in industrial use for which little or no safety research exists.

What if we had known how many deaths would be caused by automobiles, as cars were first marketed?

Greenhousegal...you are on the side of big water...the water companies with their monopolies? That are pumping dihydrogen monoxide into our homes? And gouging us with those high water bills in summer lol

Actually much of what we read out there can be presented in a way that can be pretty convincing. But water is pretty deadly when you think of all the harm it causes and drowndings etc. It causes things to rust and soil to erode etc. Even though it is necessary to sustain life I am surprised there arent some anti water folks out there.

To me being anti water would have more merit than anti GMO. Its proven water is dangerous and that it kills numerous people each year.

But GMO's havent killed anyone.

Organic crops have killed many folks with fecal laced greens or vomitoxins in grain but nobody seems opposed to it...in fact organic is promoted as being healthier...which again scientific studies have not been able to prove.

I just think that often emotions get in the way of facts. I think some folks want to incite fear. The dihydrogen monoxide link is just one example.

HAppy gardening everyone! I cant wait for spring to arrive.

Cars don't kill people, stupid drivers kill themselves & each other.

drobarr said, "To me being anti water would have more merit than anti GMO. Its proven water is dangerous and that it kills numerous people each year."

To me, that is a silly statement. And yes, anything can be used to kill oneself or another.


Well, I am glad to have a deep well. Especially since a lot of CA will be on water rationing this year. I don't know if the water has any harmful chemicals, but I filter it for drinking anyway.

Many people on this planet would be glad to have plenty of fresh water.

Don't take offense at my sarcasm...I know water is very valuable. I grew up in California and I know most of the west is currently in a drought condition. Im not really in support of an anti water movement.

My point really wasn't to make water "bad". My point is that it is always interesting to me when certain industries or technologies or chemicals are attacked while others are not. And often how huge movements arise that are often based off of nothing but fear and peoples emotions and in many cases plain fiction.

There are often far more hazardous things around us in our daily lives that should concern us much more.

I have to chime in with support of drobarr (not that he needs it) but i agree; it's funny that many people accept and ignore plenty of proven daily risks, while getting worried about perceived possible, unproven ones.
(Not including greenhousegal or others who want to be cautious and who try very hard to form an educated opinion on these possible risks.)

Raise your hand if you
-ate high fat food today
-ate sugar
-ate less than your five fruits and veggies today
-rode in a car (the dumb driver next to you)
-did not exercise three hours this week...
....etc
(I raised five hands...)

Wow! You have more hands than I have!! ^_^

I don't think that any of us is perfect here. We are just wanting information, so we can make informed choices. I think that is the purpose of this discussion.

sallyg - wanna come over and garden with me? Between the two of us. we have 9 handsies...that's alot of pickin' and shovelin'....oh, one day, it'll be time to get out there and do these things! Right now, we're looking at Wednesday being 16 degrees at the low...

I received a copy of "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith after ordering it thru the library system and I am still waiting for the other book, "Mendel in the Kitchen", to arrive. As for "Deception", what a piece of crap! I started reading and was immediately put off by the general tone. GMO proponents are always "admitting", "forced to admit", etc. They are always conspiring and lying. Even the FDA is nothing but a bunch of crooks determined to inflict harmful foods on an unsuspecting public while feeding greedily from Monsanto's teat. GMO opponents, on the other hand, tend to be rather upright, almost angelic. Monsanto feed GMO crops to rats, many die, and both Monsanto and the FDA just look the other way. The stories Smith tells just don't ring true. People, even "greedy capitalists", just don't behave the way Smith describes. I cannot recommend avoiding this book strongly enough. If you must read it, get a copy thru the library. Don't put another nickel in this man's pocket.

Since I smelled a rat, I Googled Jeffrey Smith. It turns out that he was a big promoter of "Yoga flying" in the mid-1990s. Smith has zero scientific credentials. Here is a great take-down video of Smith by some fellow: http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/2012/10/02/deconstructing-jeffrey-smith-yogic-flyer-dance-teacher-and-gmo-expert/. The video is almost an hour long, it's far from professionally produced, and it includes a touch of "vehement" language, but it really illustrates what a charlatan can do to influence a generally ignorant (I mean that in an objective way, not as a slur. I include myself in the ignorant category.) public. The video maker deconstructs a Smith TV interview almost line by line to give a sense of how deceitful Smith is. Watch it! You'll even get to see Smith "in flight"!!

As I dig deeper into the GMO controversy, and even into the organic vs. chemical debate, I find a lot of folks with strong opinions, but very few actual facts. Much of this stuff is more like politics than science. The other guy doesn't just have a different opinion than you, but, by golly, he's just damned evil.

To repeat--do not buy this book. DO NOT put money in this man's wallet.

From what I have heard about Jeff Smith he doesn't have the background to assess the relevant research on GMOs, pro or con. I'm not surprised that his book turned you off. But it still doesn't mean that GMOs are harmless, just as he can't demonstrate that they can cause harm.

Sally,

I think you have a really good point. There ARE hazards that provably DO cause widespread harm every day. But because we are used to them, and we could have control over them, we accept them calmly and even ignore them to our own harm.

At least diet and exercise are under our control. I don't know about finding a job and an affordable home within walking distance of each other!

I can see two reasons to have strong feelings about foods made from GMOs.

First
We are NOT used to eating plants with bacterial DNA grafted into them, or salmon with (?? cow??) DNA. That is new and different and it feels very intimate to be eating them.
What re-assurance is there? Not every one is a science groupie or trusts scientists as a group.

Many people have little or no trust for politicians, marketing people or (it sounds like) scientists whose funding comes either from the industry or from government agencies. i think the point is well taken that, based on the popular press and popular impressions, "they" told us not to worry about DDT, thalidomide, radioactive fallout or cigarettes.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. " Some time around Vietnam, scientists became Bad Guys to a lot of people. Perhaps it was a recoil from Pangloss and Boosterism, perhaps '70s era anti-establishment-ism.

Second, unless you can afford the cost and time to eat organic, and in the absence of GMO food labeling laws, it is or seems to be outside our control to find food that is not from GMO ingredients. That's infuriating.

If you have to take someone else's word for something uncomfortable, that's bad enough.
If you didn't trust them to begin with, it's terrible.
if you then have no choice in the matter, strong feelings are understandable.

As with several other posts: How people feel doesn't prove or disprove food safety at all. Emotions being understandable doesn't make a fear reasonable or complacency reasonable. The existence of some many pathetic propagandists on both sides doesn't disprove either side.

I think the success of normal food testing ("many animals and people ate it and didn't get visibly sick or fall down dead any time soon") and the implausibility of the suggested mechanisms for hidden, subtle harm throw the balance of belief onto the side of "GMO foods we've seen so far either aren't very bad or are pretty safe".

I can't argue with the idea that "we don't KNOW the long-term human health effects", especially with GE crops not yet released, where humans will eat the whole thing (mangiatutto GMOs).

I seriously wonder what the long-term ecological consequences will be of accelerating the tendency towards a global mono-crop style of agriculture (loss of genetic diversity in available crops).

My own emotional threshold of new-thing-discomfort is crossed when I expect to see unlabelled GE apples, sweet corn and salmon in supermarkets. The fact that we can't get labeling laws past a money-controlled political system infuriates me.

Addendum to my earlier post: I did not read the entire book. It was tedious and boring and obviously full of $%#@!&(*^. Perhaps if I believed Smith's claims, I would have been enthralled and riveted by it. Second point: the book is copyrighted in 2003, at which time Smith claims rats are dropping like flies and many humans are becoming sickened, some severely. Here we are, more than ten years later and there are no valid claims that GM crops cause disease. No human has died from eating GM crops, at least that I'm aware of. Virtually everyone in the country eats GM crops and no issues yet?

greenhouse_gal, I think you and I share a common suspicion that the introduction of GM crops might have unintended consequences--what I have referred to as the "rabbits in Australia" problem. For me, there is not a way to evaluate this potential problem. No amount of testing can assure us that if--I should say when--these genes end up in "the wild" that there will be no negative consequences. On the other hand, I doubt that, whatever the "escaped" genes do, it will not mean the end of the world. It will just mean more problems to deal with and, hey, that's really what life is anyway, eh?

Anyway, back to Smith. He is a very influential anti-GM author and speaker, perhaps the most influential. Many people buy his crap--and it is crap--at face value. His book is rated at well over four stars on Amazon. I know one person who regularly reads his web site and passes his crap to everyone she knows. Here's my bottom line, whether or not Smith is a good scientist, he is a bright man. If there was substantial evidence of harm from GMOs, he would have used it. Instead, there was no valid evidence at the time he wrote the book, and probably still is none, so he resorted to using poor studies, exaggeration, and anecdotal evidence so he could sell some books and go on paid speaking tours. Please everyone, watch the video I referenced. It's quite an education in how we can all be hoodwinked.

Whew--no ill intent meant here, but I really got wound up. I am very disappointed that a book I expected to give me some sensible, accurate information came from a fool who once tried to convince the public that he, and the public, could fly. If anyone knows of a good book that examines the downside of GM crops, I'd appreciate you passing the title on.

If I'm to be totally honest, personally-
I feel that it is plausible that unintended transfers will occur, I don't trust those GMO plasmids to stay in place forever but that there's no way GMOs are going to stop now,
and that
"whatever the "escaped" genes do, it will not mean the end of the world. It will just mean more problems to deal with and, hey, that's really what life is anyway, eh?"

I don't know if labeling would make me choose or not choose a food item.

This is such a great discussion; I really appreciate the respect and open-mindedness being displayed on this thread. Just came across another article to throw out here for review. It seems fairly well researched but I'm not a scientist. Rick, what do you think?

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/09/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-can-be-transfered-to-humans-who-eat-them-2/