I wonder how much money the Department of Food Science & Nutrition at the University of Illinois whom Dr. Chassey represents gets from Monsanto every year?

Why don’t you ask them?

I wonder how much money the Department of Food Science & Nutrition at the University of Illinois whom Dr. Chassey represents gets from Monsanto every year? Not to mention all the organizations he references… the FDA, USDA, WHO, etc. These groups are all beholden to Monsanto and are not to be trusted as unbiased authorities. He sounds like a crybaby.

http://academicsreview.org/2012/10/letter-to-dr-oz-show-producers-by-bruce-chassy-phd/

1) we have been consuming genetically modified foods for 1000′s of years, but cross breeding plants come across as ‘safer’ than pinpointing specific genes and modifying them even though cross breeding plants are more variable in their DNA than modifying genes manually.

2) GMO is very complex and when we lump them ALL together as ‘bad’ or ‘good’ it is misunderstanding the changes being made.

3) before hearing her talk, I had been more narrow minded looking at the impact on Americans, but some of the GMO could be very beneficial for other countries and for future generations. Other countries may not be utilizing the technologies because of cost not safety concerns. Also countries that have environments that are not suitable for growing a variety of foods could benefit from GMO foods that can sustain drought or flooding. This could decrease starvation and provide other benefits for the countries. Also with the rate of world wide population increasing, the current land being used for food will not be enough to support future generations. The crops in the future will need to have less waste. Options to do this is to use more pesticides, herbacides, fungicides, antiobiotics, etc, or genetically modify these plants so that they can protect themselves.

In general, I understand the concern of feeling like we are being blindly force fed ‘things’ but labeling would not solve these changes. Where would we draw the line? General labeling of ‘product contains genetically modified ingredients’ may work, but wouldn’t we have to start to label all items containing cross breeding? They should….if your fear is because of the changes in DNA. Cost concern has been thrown around but the true cost would be for the consumers if labeling standards are changed.

With any decision, the pros and cons should be considered. Their are both PROS and CONS with every choice.

It appears that you’re taking an extremist “us or them” position, where anyone who doesn’t mindlessly agree with any random unsupported claim that GMOs are bad must be a Monsanto shill. Extremely offensive – and grossly wrong.

Please quote where Dr. Gorski endorsed Monsanto’s research, or indeed even mentioned it. You’ll find that you will are unable to, and that your flames are thus utterly false.

BTW, Monsanto published their research in Food and Chemical Toxicology. You know, that journal you call ‘pitiful’. Hypocrite.

What, they would grow broke trying to compete with people that are paying higher prices for patented seeds? Then this represents a real improvement in technology, which is exactly the sort of thing the patent laws are designed to promote! If Monsanto created a product that is so good that even with the high prices they charge for it, farmers that buy it are doing better than farmers that don’t, then they deserve the money they charge. Once the patent term is over, they won’t be able to charge higher prices or prevent seed saving, and this huge increase in productivity will come at very nearly the same price that previous seeds cost.

If the product isn’t good enough that people are willing to pay more for it, then there is no value in the patent and nobody cares. If the product is so good that people won’t buy a product that doesn’t have it, then they deserve a relatively short period of exclusivity for bringing such a fantastic product, which never existed before, onto the market.

• The more GE crops introduced, the more testing will be needed to detect genetic contamination of non-GMO crops. This, Marquardt says, will ultimately raise food prices for consumers looking for organic, non-GMO foods.

• The American Academy of Environmental Medicine recommends avoiding genetically engineered food ingredients because animal studies have linked them to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, abnormal insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal tract.

• Food allergy cases have skyrocketed since GMOs were introduced into the food chain in the mid-1990s.

• GMO critics, including university scientists, have said herbicide-resistant GMO crops only benefit the biotech company selling the package—both the seeds and the pesticide that needs to be used on those seeds. “In the 30 years of working with GMOs, they still haven’t come up with one benefit for consumers,” says Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “They only offer risk.”

• Roundup, the weed-killer that most genetically engineered seeds are designed to withstand, actually winds up inside food at levels clinically shown to cause health problems, including human cell death. (Read Roundup Red Alert for more details.)

• We’re already eating GMOs. GMO corn, soy, and canola products have infiltrated up to 90 percent of the products in supermarkets, most of them processed foods. Each new GMO approval adds to a GMO load that gets harder and harder to avoid.

• The next genetically engineered products up for approval are food crops designed to withstand heavy sprayings of the toxic pesticides dicamba and 2,4-D, which can become airborne and travel nearly half a mile, possibly into home gardens and other organic fields. 2,4-D is a component of Agent Orange.

http://www.rodale.com/genetically-engineered-0

I am compelled to explain a few things now..it’s not just a matter of ‘winning an argument’..first, I buy organic as much as I can anyway..hopefully they’re not contaminated in the future too..but in any case..I’m just learning about GMOs myself, having no idea they were on the market, totally unawares by most everyone, since the 90′s..and yet they’ve been banned in other countries still! Yet..no one said a word here..until now! Having animals drop dead after being fed them I’d say is a bit concern…

http://www.natural-health-restored.com/genetically-modified-foods.html

there are other links at the bottom…and my site has many other links and information now that is more and more troublesome…sorry to say…not just a matter of winning an argument..

http://gethealthybehappy.yolasite.com/just-say-no.php

Of course who wants to eat something that has had Round-Up sprayed on it? Well, if that bothers you, then organics are your only true alternative, although I’m not personally happy with many practices going on in that arena either. Some organic practices can arguably cause more environmental damage than their counterparts. Just my opinion, though. I don’t want to start that debate.

This is just a question:
Is it possible to create a GMO that would not be reproducible given enough time and selection? I think that is the perception that many have. My sense is that the answer is “No” even if it’s a glow-in-the-dark puppy.