Kimmo

BTW, ads for "No on I522" developed by Omnicom/Publicis Group, world's largest ad agency. I admit to admiring their focused lack of flair in reaching the "common-sense" principles of Washington's smart voters with a "Shock and Awe" assault on their amygdalae.

Here's the official list: 1. Massive unending lawsuits; 2. Massive compliance costs to farmers; 3. Ginormous RED TAPE; 4. Washington becomes PARIAH STATE; 5. MASSIVE FOOD COST INCREASES. Didn't you see the ads?

I heard someone say it's not over yet. Any truth to that???

Did anyone find the excerpt below interesting the first time around? Something to consider: Monsanto does its own "scientific" safety testing. If, from a broad sampling across the biological sciences spectrum we find 1 out of 3 scientists willing to admit to "behaving unethically", and nearly 1 out of 6 changing experiments or results due to "pressure from a funding source", what are we to think of Monsanto's in-house process of safety testing the GMOs we as a society then eat?

not sure why you keep going on about vaccinations, but yes, I saw you post your ideas of how to run a more effective campaign. Curious, if the aspect you wished for had been the campaign's central focus, would it have troubled you enough to vote for a labeling initiative?

Why not?

Nailed it. You could substitute any other name for "Monsanto", and the issue would still be the same. And, unfortunately, your misguided argument would still be the same.

Are you talking about the redundancy of my post, the discussion itself, or....?

Sounds like maybe you're a little too emotionally invested in this thing? What does that mean? Remember, I'm the one asking the questions around here.

That'd be nice, wouldn't it.

But we'll see soon enough who's fear-mongering worked better. I'm hoping for the best, fearing the worst.

I'm afearin' that Monsanto would have saved a pretty penny if that's the route I522 had taken.

Really? ok I'll take your question seriously: I *absolutely* believe that GMOs should be labeled. I should be able to pick up any food item meant for consumption and know immediately if it contains a controversial technology. This I believe without a doubt! I shouldn't have to play a guessing game: "well, I know "organic" is GMO free (wouldn't be if Monsanto would have had its way! They fought this one hard.), and some are labeled "GMO free", but this one doesn't have a label. Should I assume it's GMO?" The consumer has rights, codified rights, and considering the unanswered controversies surrounding GMOs, without doubt they should be labeled. We aren't talking about the down-fall of capitalism here, or even the down-fall of Monsanto. And forced vaccinations? My feelings are "nuanced".

I wish you would have followed that path! I'll answer your question with a question: Where do *you* think I'm coming from? I ask this because it seems my involvement with this topic here provides a rather strong clue, so I'm a little confused by the question. But, certainly concern over a controversial technology being exploited by a large profit-driven corporation is at the top of my list. The technology itself? Man, what a marvel. And I think it holds great promise that we can't even foresee right now. But foisting it upon the entire planet for commercial gain? I'd hold to the Precautionary Principle on this one.

Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements. "I would be so tied up in what I was able to do that basically I would have no value to anybody else," he said. "The only person I would have value to is Monsanto, and I would continue to pay them millions in fees." CBS News

Glyphosate, active ingredient in Monsanto's RoundUp. Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. From an article in Scientific American

Contrary to claims made by the chemical industries, glyphosate use increased 6,504% from 1991 to 2010 according to data from the USDA. Thanks to glyphosate-resistant crops, farmers are free to spray more than ever. Glyphosate is showing up everywhere In a 2011 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, glyphosate was frequently detected in water, rain and air in the Mississippi River basin. Also in 2011, Chang et al. reported concentrations of glyphosate in air and rain as high as 2.5 μg/L in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa. Just another unintended consequence. Thanks Monsanto!

Keenwesh, I'll assume you posted your FDA website info as proof that the "vigorous" safety testing of GMOs Nate calls for already exists, correct? I'm curious, did you read any of the info within the link you posted? I quote: "Based on the safety and nutritional assessment Monsanto has conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that oil derived from MON 87769 soybean for use as an ingredient in human food is not materially different in safety and other parameters from oils of similar chemical composition produced from other sources and used as ingredients in human food." Interesting, huh? The FDA asks Monsanto to do their own safety testing! The company that stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars from GMO sales is asked to do its own safety testing. Quite amazing, isn't it? I ask you and Nate, does this qualify as "vigorous" safety testing?

I guess I don't understand again. Why did you post this?

ok that sounds fine, thanks. Do we currently have "vigorous testing", and what does it consist of?

You are right, I don't understand. So help me out here. 1. Firstly, I was told by Nate that an understanding of genetics is enough to assess the safety of GMOs, and no testing is needed. 2. Then Nate states that there might be some problems that could occur, allergic reactions if I recall, and that's why he supports vigorous testing of GMOs for safety. 3. I asked him about this seeming change, and you chimed in with a "you don't understand." Not sure what that referred to, but... 4. You then stated that during the splicing process, the gene could turn into something "harmful", but this would show up during the genomic sequencing. 5. You then said that even if the above all didn't work out as planned, rats are fed the GMO, and certainly any problem would be caught at this point. Is the above a fair synopsis so far?

Why the change in your opinion? Why do you now support "vigorous real-world testing" for GMOs, when earlier you said "an understanding of genetics" is all that is needed? You don't understand. You are right, and that's why I asked him to clarify.

Hello Nate, thanks for the reply. I am curious though about a couple of things you say: Earlier in this thread, you said that you believe GMOs are completely safe, and an understanding of genetics is all that is needed to assess GMO safety, and that no actual food safety testing is needed. But in the last post of yours, you say the following: Why the change in your opinion? Why do you now support "vigorous real-world testing" for GMOs, when earlier you said "an understanding of genetics" is all that is needed?

So if I understand correctly, you have been taught that the consumption of any GMO is completely safe, as long as the spliced gene does not code for something toxic to humans, is that correct? And that this theory is so beyond doubt that any actual real-world testing of its validity is unnecessary?

Brian Martison (Nature, 2005) found that one-third of 3,000 surveyed scientists, drawn primarily from the biological sciences, admitted to behaving unethically in their research, and 15.5% of them specifically admitted that “they had changed how they conducted an experiment or its results in response to pressure from a funding source”. Considering how difficult such an admission would be, even in a confidential survey, this may be a conservative estimate. Since this was a broad survey across a spectrum of biological sciences, what might the results be with scientists associated specifically with GMO work funded by Monsanto?