Measles is making a comeback at the same time as the most important agricultural innovation since synthetic fertilizer is being mothballed.
Why?
You can thank well-to-do urban activists who reject modern medicine and science-based farming.
“It’s those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food-eating people,” Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus, said in an interview with Science Magazine.
Vaccines are poison! these activists declare while paying double for certified-organic groceries which they say must be free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The idea of GMO-free organic food was conceived 20 years ago when organic activists realized the science of genetic engineering would someday provide solutions to every objection they had with modern farming.
Rather than embrace this new field of science, they rejected President Clinton’s idea to include genetically modified organisms in America’s organic standards, and have been on a tax-funded anti-GMO warpath ever since.
You can’t separate the organic movement from the anti-GMO movement. They are one and the same, existing in perfect anti-technological symbiosis.
But rather than counter this anti-GMO hysteria the way pro-vaccine scientists and journalists respond to anti-vaccinationist loons, pro-GMO forces are instead surrendering.
GMO tomatoes, wheat, flax, and potatoes (twice) are all on the trash heap, and humanitarian crops like GMO Golden Rice sit in limbo as millions of the world’s poor perish from malnutrition.
Why?
There are two reason organic crops are non-GMO:
- Organic activists say they have to be.
- We believe them.
It makes about as much sense as when segregationists claimed integration with blacks would destroy the fabric of society.
Backing Down
Once renowned for countering organic propaganda, Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) now allows organic farmer Rob Wallbridge a platform from which to lecture GMO farmers on “sustainability.”
Wallbridge claims to be not completely opposed to all GMOs, making him a reasonable activist to some. But he fully supports his staunchly anti-GMO leadership who remain committed to banning GMOs because, like vaccinations, they believe they’re not safe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Meanwhile, organic crops are not even tested to ensure they’re free of synthetic pesticides and fecal coliforms. Wallbridge tried claiming his crops are tested, but won’t share the evidence. What’s that expression about people who live in glass houses?
According to the USDA, 43% of organic food tests positive for prohibited pesticides.
In any case, to my astonishment, I was advised by Entine himself that I had to “Stop attacking Rob. Self-manage,” he warned, “or I’ll need to block you!”
Just as astonishing are the words of Dr. Karl Haro von Mogel, the chairman of the pro-GMO website Biofortified: “Popoff has been temporarily banned for the reason that he repeatedly acted in an uncivil and outrageous manner, and harassed us.”
Oh my goodness. Did I really do that?
What I’ve been trying to tell Haro von Mogel is that “you can’t separate the organic movement from the anti-GMO movement. They are one and the same, existing in perfect anti-technological symbiosis.”
But apparently it’s now “uncivil and outrageous” to tie the organic industry to the anti-GMO movement here in America, the nation where GMOs were invented.
The Organic Glass House
Urban activists who have never worked a day on a farm demand “real information about the impacts and risks” of GMOs. Headlines read, “Thousands Of German Protesters To U.S. GMO Ag: ‘We’re Fed Up!’” and vague reports abound of an “Appetite for labelling genetically modified foods.”
America’s categorical response should be: If you don’t like our GMO crops, grow your own damned food! Or go find another safe and reliable source. I hear Cuba is GMO free.
Instead, people like Entine, Haro von Mogel, alongside executives at the American Farm Bureau, Monsanto, The Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, are falling all over themselves to try to appease the activists, only defending GMOs outright when a city like Los Angeles attempts to ban them. But believe me, there’s no appeasing organic activists. They quite simply have no shame.
43% of organic food tests positive for prohibited pesticides; the result of the aforementioned lack of organic field testing. Toxic pesticides, fecal coliforms from improperly-composted manure, increased fossil-fuel usage and land requirements, erosion of our precious soil, all with no nutritional benefit. Speak of these very real risks from government-sanctioned certified-organic food and you will be a pariah in the eyes of some the world’s top pro-GMO editors, academics and executives.
This is “consensus,” “compromise” and “coexistence,” the three C’s of the green, global soviet that embraces the myth that GMOs contaminate organic crops, even though organic standards – written, edited and finalized by organic activists – say nothing of the sort. A threshold limit on GMOs will soon become law in Washington, marking the first time a federal regulator places a limit on something safe simply to appease a vocal, tax-subsidized minority.
Apparently President Clinton was wrong. The narrative that GMOs pose a threat not only persists, it’s being reinforced by pro-GMOers themselves! There is no more debate, not anywhere, not even on GLP and Biofortified.
Activists live in glass houses but are free to cast stones all they want. Why? Because we let them.
Mischa Popoff worked as a USDA-contract organic inspector for five years and is the author of “Is It Organic?”
Smart article, I agree.
Thanks so much Jackie. Please visit my website and drop me a line sometime:
http://www.isitorganic.ca/home
It would be interesting to know how much of the anti-GMO propaganda would away if the organic groups stopped their funding of it.
They also complain about how much money biotech and food companies spend on defeating GMO labeling laws. I think that would all go away (and COULD be put to better use) if anti-GM activists would just stop proposing poorly thought out, costly, unwarranted, contradictory, and hypocritical labeling initiatives. I suppose it serves as a big tax write-off for Mercola and Dr. Bronner though.
In trying to sift through all of the BS in this article I realized it
would take a whole lot of time so I decided to focus on one rather
outrageous claim that according to the USDA: “43% of organic produce
tested positive for prohibited pesticides”. I searched high an low to
find the origin of that but all I found was this USDA article titled:
2010-2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce.
Here is a quote from that article:
“Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic
regulations (see Figure ES 1). This means that the produce either had no
detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of
the EPA tolerance (39 percent).”
John, you say you searched “high an low to find the origin” of the statement that “43% of organic produce tested positive for prohibited pesticides.” But I put the hyperlink right there in the article. This proves that you DID NOT BOTHER TO READ THIS ARTICLE before commenting.
Silly.
The article you posted the said this:
“Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations (see Figure ES 1). This means that the produce either had nodetected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance (39 percent).”
Which part of that article said “43% of organic produce tested positive for prohibited pesticides”?
Here is a paragraph from the actual conclusion of the study that you posted:
“In this study of 571 produce samples from 6 commodities, 96 percent of analyzed samples were in compliance with the USDA organic regulations. However, it also identified several areas of the organic production and handling system that require additional scrutiny to prevent contamination.”
I guess I’m not the only one that doesn’t read your articles.
57% had non-detected residues. That means 43% tested positive. It’s called mathematics John.
57% had within the EPA tolerance of less than 5%. I love it when you pesticide cheerleaders try to manufacture bogus conclusions and maximize something like that. In what stretch of your imagination does that mean that 43% tested positive? Did the USDA just decide to leave that little fact out when it came to the conclusion that 96% WERE COMPLIANT WITH USDA REGULATIONS?
You’re not even reading the report correctly John. You know… the report you said you had to search “high and low” for and it turned out I had linked to it right there in the body of my article?
Read it again John.
I did read it again and with the exception of only 4% of those samples, what you are referring to is “allowed residue” (less than 5% of EPA tolerance) which is fine with me. Your article is attempting to blow that little fact out of proportion, just like all of your little army of biotrolls has demonstrated such expertise in. Minimize this, maximize that, a little redirection here a little fallacy of composition there.
I’m glad you pointed this article out because I didn’t realize that 96% of Organic was in compliance with USDA standards. But while we’re on the subject- are you agreeing with the part of the other scientific study you posted from The American Academy of Pediatrics that states:
“In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.”
Or do you disagree with that little finding because it doesn’t suit your agenda?
Organic crops have a 25-foot buffer to protect from spray drift from neighboring conventional fields. This distance was arrived at because spray dissipates logarithmically: 10-times less for every yard, or 3 feet, which means that with only rare exception, spray-drift will reach effective nil (0) long before it contacts an organic crop. (Spray further dissipates as a crop is harvested, delivered, processed, etc.)
The report you said you had to search for but which was right there in my article states that only 57% of samples tested free of prohibited pesticide residue, meaning 43% tested positive, a clear indication of fraud.
Considering a 96% compliance rate, I’d say it’s a clear indication your article is the only fraud here. You still didn’t answer my other question, are you dodging that one?
Are you agreeing with the part of the other scientific study you posted from The American Academy of Pediatrics that states:
“In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.”
Or do you disagree with that little finding because it doesn’t suit your agenda?
I was a USDA-contract organic inspector for 5 years, and had occasion to test the fields of many honest, domestic organic farmers. And in all the tests I did, I never once found ANY pesticide residue. None.
Therefore, with over three-quarters of all USDA-certified-organic food being imported from countries like China, Mexico and Argentina, it’s obvious that fraud is rampant.
I am sorry that this news upsets you John.
You didn’t say anything like that in your “discussions” attacking organic. I’m talking about this one “And in all the tests I did, I never once found ANY pesticide residue. None.” when you were referring to “domestic organic farmers”. If your argument against Organic was legitimate you would have. But your attack against the Organic label is all out, that is, any minute insult you can muster up, you use it. You attack the label itself and the insult the people who eat it and but it. If you came out and just admitted the first two sentences in the Scientific article you cited:
“In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly
demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with
human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less
environmental impact than conventional approaches.”
Then you would have some credibility with me. But you don’t do that you just do a total PR attack on the label, no holds barred.
The leadership of the organic industry claims to be helping domestic, family-scale organic farmers. I know from first-hand experience they are doing nothing of the sort.
Three-quarters of all organic food sold in America is imported from countries like China, and almost HALF tests positive for prohibited pesticides.
What would you do if you were me? Defend this system?
You aren’t fighting that system, you are fighting the Organic label to promote GMOs. Why don’t you write an article that says that: “And in all the tests I did, I never once found ANY pesticide residue. None.” when you referred to domestic like you quoted in your earlier message. You won’t do that because you have an agenda. That would be defending domestic organic produce. You only use negative talking points about organic as a whole. Why are you acting like you are only against imported Organic?
Here’s my agenda John:
I am pro-organic, and I am pro-GMO.
And I have written numerous articles stating precisely that.
I seem to have missed the ones that are pro Organic…
Hold on… You seem to be playing both sides of the coin here. On one side, you’re saying that the exposure to prohibited pesticides are ok because they’re below allowable thresholds, yet now you’re trying to insinuate that because they are found more often on conventional produce, that’s a bad thing… Even though they are found at levels well below the allowable thresholds. So which is it? Is it bad or is it no big deal?
I also couldn’t help but notice that your quote stopped right before they went on to say “… However, current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet.”
That seems like an important point to make, doesn’t it?
I want to eat food that is natural, and I am not talking the Naked juice definition of natural, I’m talking about natural the way our bodies have evolved over the last 30 to 100,000 years plant based foods natural. When this article described the “43% tests positive for prohibited pesticides” he then went on to imply it was because of “Toxic pesticides, fecal coliforms from improperly-composted manure, increased fossil-fuel usage and land requirements, erosion of our precious soil” which he made up himself and wasn’t even mentioned in the USDA report. The USDA report stated that 39% of that 43% was in compliance with USDA standards.
And about why I only quoted the first part of that scientific abstract, I’m so glad you asked! Did you notice it said that the Organic has “convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease”?
Well let me put it this way, If you have 2 collard greens and only one of them is covered with a “pesticide associated with human disease” and the other one doesn’t have any “pesticide associated with human disease” or at least only has trace amounts of that pesticide, I’m choosing that one. They both might have the same amount of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, vitamin B-6 and magnesium, but I’m choosing the one without the chemicals!I think a good analogy of that would be if you have the choice to buy a little sports car you absolutely love and they both go 150MPH, but one of them has a little carbon monoxide that leaks through the exhaust into the cabin-but it’s cheaper than the other one! I’m taking the one that doesn’t leak!
You’re being fooled by clever use of language. Yes, organic foods have less of the pesticides that have been associated with human disease. That doesn’t say they have less pesticides. One of the reasons organic pesticides haven’t been associated with problems as often is because they don’t have the same testing requirements that synthetic pesticides do. In other words, nobody knows what they do. Just like many herbal supplements. Money don’t have the same testing requirements drugs don’t but they certainly can do just as much harm.
The article showed you that it’s not a choice between food with or without chemicals. If that’s what you believe you’re being foolish. It’s a choice of food with synthetic chemicals vs food with natural chemicals. They’re both pesticides and they both can be harmful. One was made by a flower & the other by a human. So why is one better than the other? And remember… 43% of the food had residues of chemicals that are prohibited in organic farming. That says nothing about the residues they had from chemicals that ARE allowed by organic farming. The USDA pesticide data program reports find pesticide residues on organic produce just like they do on conventional foods.
And both of those choices only have trace amounts of either chemical. Both have residues many, many times below what could cause you harm. Yet you have built some grand mythology around one of those foods that has lead you to believe its worth many times the price. You’re a marketers wet dream!
We stopped eating food that was “natural” or that our bodies evolved with when we started farming 10,000 years ago. Get used to it.
None of our food is “natural.”
Farming is UN-natural. And thankfully so.
There is no parallel in nature for the farmer or anything he/she farms.
Excellent analysis Jason.
Organic activists want it both ways. They claim their ways are better than science-based agriculture, even when the evidence shows they don’t even live up to their own standards.
I have spend a dozen years trying to get the organic industry that I grew up in to live up to its own standards, but so far no luck.
“In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly
demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease.”
By itself, that statement means nothing. Organic diets give exposure to fewer pesticides because there are FEWER organic pesticides to choose from. That does not necessarily mean that organic diets give exposure to a smaller AMOUNT of pesticides, as Jason points out below. And most studies that claim to compare organic pesticide residues to conventional pesticide residues do not actually test for the presence of organic pesticides.
That statement might mean nothing to you, but I doubt the researchers that wrote that as the first two sentences in the abstract meant it the way you are trying to spin it. I can point to several science articles that do say Organic is lower in exposure to pesticides. One is a study that did a meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that talked about several benefits of Organic over Conventional” You can find the article by googling this:
Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower
incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic
literature review and meta-analyses.
I have no doubt you can point me to the foodinsightorg article that attempts to minimize and nullify that study. But I have learned a little about foodinsightorg and the International Food Information Council that administers it. It’s another PR branch of the Sugar Association and the National Soft Drink Association among other junk food industries. It’s just another PR firm that minimizes any scientific studies that demonstrate the dangers of things like monosodium glutamate, aspartame, food dyes, olestra, Arsenic and Bisphenol A (BPA).
I have no doubt that you will take the word of the industry PR group over a study that doesn’t conform to your agenda, but hey, knock yourself out, you can eat anything you want in Murika!
Funny that the Environmental Working Group makes no mention of conventional produce being within tolerances when they put out their Dirty Dozen list. Why should organics be held to a lower standard? You can be compliant with USDA Organic standards even if your produce tests positive for unapproved pesticides, AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOWED ORGANIC PRODUCTION PRACTICES.
I believe what Mischa is showing is the hypocrisy of the organic industry failing to correct people who claim that organic produce is pesticide free. The data shows that that is not true. The organic industry is happy to let that misconception go uncorrected because it helps sales.
I wonder what percentage of conventional crops would be below the 5% level, Hmmm. I bet it would be close to 90%.
Quite right Benjamin!
Walk into any whole Foods grocery store and you’ll see literally thousands of GMO-free labels on the shelves. But no Pesticide-free labels.
It’s as if the organic movement has become so paranoid about GMOs that they’ve forgotten to keep an eye on pesticides.
So your still being exposed even though your eating organic… that doesn’t sound good. Where are they getting these pesticides from?
Organic cheaters, Organic is mostly based on paperwork, no field testing is required.
Your crop is infested with aphids, a few hours with a boom sprayer and organophosphates, and bam, problem solved, and no one is wiser.
I have heard that field testing is required but depending on the label crops are only tested in certain time periods. USDA I have heard tests maybe a couple times a year?
The USDA does not require it’s for-profit and not-for-profit agents to perform ANY FIELD TESTING on organic crops. A once-annual, pre-announced audit to look over paperwork and to visually inspect a cross-section of fields is all that’s required.
Thats what you get when you let the industry write the rules, imagine if the olympic athletes could write the doping rules.
Quite right hyperzombie. And not only did the organic industry write its own rules, but organic activists are now pretending those rules say GMOs contaminate organic crops, which they most certainly do not.
The organic industry has been bought by the industrial food complex and they have rewritten the standards to meet their needs.. taht is why real people with real interests have been boycotting and protesting event eh organic standards!
Organophosphate are no Bueno…. How would we know as a consumer before we eat it that’s it’s not covered in insecticide and herbicides?
You don’t, but no food crops are covered in it. All may have a small amount but it is harmless. Just dont waste your money on “Organic” why pay extra for just as many chemicals.
Mischa has degree in history. That means high school math, and little exposure to technical thinking.
So he’s hardly an expert on any level. He’s just blowhard wanna be.
Speaking of blowhards Mr. Oilman… do you work for an oil company or the United States Navy. You claimed both. Why?
And why don’t you use your real name? What are you hiding?
I claim both because its the truth and I never lie. Engineers are relatively transportable to other industries, and we don’t need to make up false credentials like you historians do.
As I told you before, I had my name intentionally because the oil industry is vindictive towards people who speak with understanding about global warming.
You never lie? But you’re lying to whoever employs you. It is the oil industry? Or… is it the Navy? Which career forces you to use a fake name or they’ll fire you for all the incredibly revealing things you say on these blogs?
Either way, it’s a lie before you even write the first word of your next comment. You’re caught Mr. Oilman.
You never lie? But you’re lying to whoever employs you. It is the oil industry? Or… is it the Navy? Which career forces you to use a fake name or they’ll fire you for all the incredibly revealing things you say on these blogs?
Either way, it’s a lie before you even write the first word of your next comment. You’re caught Mr. Oilman.
I claim both because its the truth and I never lie. Engineers are relatively transportable to other industries, and we don’t need to make up false credentials like you historians do.
As I told you before, I had my name intentionally because the oil industry is vindictive towards people who speak with understanding about global warming.
Another article wasting my time reading…. No scientific evidence… Plenty of finger pointing… Where’s the information on chemical reactions within pesticide, herbicide, GE, and GMO?
Why are we throwing percentages and graphs at each other? That’s not what the concern is here.
Explain what chemical reactions go on in the engineering and protection system.
Why do we waste our time pointing fingers instead of looking at the direct facts?
Do GE companies not want to release their information in fear of other companies stealing their data and losing their profits?
What is so hard about puting the scientific evidence together and saying here you go anti gmo activities… Boom sit down, shut up, and eat your gmo and ge foods because the proof is in the scientific evidence?
I’m getting tired of readin all the finger pointing and name calling articles. Where is the wisdom and knowledge in any of this debate?
Most GMO crops are non-proprietary and require no pesticides.
In fact, the first commercialized GMO crop was, and is, non-proprietary and require no pesticides. Do you know what crop it is?
No, please inform me.
Why would someone weigh in on a debate about GMO crops if he/she doesn’t even know what the first commercial GMO crop was?
Why not be a dick and answer the question?
Why would I want to be a dick?
How old are you? This is how you want the future to be? Full of a bunch of ignorant pricks because your mad you don’t want to inform those of things you can or can’t explain? I thought you were some sort of scientist or something. Now you just sound like my 14 year old neighbor who just finished freshman year. Why are you so dismissive when you don’t want to explain something?
You are clearly in another world. Again, thanks for your time.
Anytime.
Why wouldn’t someone who supports gmo be passionate enough to explain this so they could prove that ge is 100% safe. Thanks for your time
If you’re here to debate, your job is to try to prove GMOs aren’t safe. But you can’t. Can you?
Guess the same goes for you.
I’m here to debate both sides. so I’m open for your scientific evidence. I have yet to see it. On either side. So my ears are open. If organics test negative for zero pesticide, herbicide, and whatever gmo traits get tested. I’ll stick with that.
I have never been informed about gmos and their safety. NEVER. Only mom and pop he said she said… I’ve been on this earth long enough now to realize. YOU MIGHT BE full of shit. So until I’m proven wrong scientifically through molecular biology, bonds, and medicine and the so called 100% safe. PPPPLLLLLLEEEEEEAAAASSSSSE PROVE ME WRONG!
Until then your graphs and he said she said really means nothing.
IF GMO crops caused harm to humans, livestock or the environment, someone would have sued by now.
People have sued for less, and lawyers would line up to take such a case against a wealthy corporation like Monsanto.
But there has never been such a case anywhere in the world, even in Europe where American GMO feed is routinely imported and politicians are dead-set opposed to GMOs.
By that same token, if GMO crops posed any threat whatsoever to organic crops, an organic farmer would have sued by now. Only one farmer has attempted to do so, and he lost.
There’s your evidence… whoever you are.
Cool
When he says, “Why would someone weigh in on a debate about GMO crops if he/she doesn’t even know what the first commercial GMO crop was?” That means your argument is invalid because you don’t know some trivial history. Or it could just be that he’s attempting to use an ad hominem fallacy to discredit you!
Nice try John. But the first commercial GMO crop was, and remains to this day, NON-PROPRIETARY. It also requires NO PESTICIDE, and can be grown under organic management.
Kind of takes the wind out of your sails, doesn’t it? So much for the argument that evil corporations developed GMOs just so they can sell more chemicals.
Thanks for playing along.
I guess I missed the connection between the comment you were replying to and the conclusion that his argument is invalid because his trivia acumen wasn’t good enough to name the first GMO crop. But FYI using the failure of answering a trivia question say his argument is invalid is an Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
But your welcome for playing along, it’s flattering to be bickering with a propagandist as successful as you used to be!
But John… everyone who opposes GMOs makes the same, tired old argument: that it’s a scam devised by greedy corporate executives to entrap farmers and force them to buy their chemicals.
But when you find out that the first GMO crop was not patented and requires no pesticides, it changes everything. In fact, MOST GMO crops fall into this category.
That’s why I write article: to change everything.
I’ve seen your long term attack on Organic and now I understand what it’s all about. I don’t have any idea what what the original GMO crop was. I am only concerned with the transgenic ones that are designed to grow in or produce their own pesticides. There are enough articles to convince me that there are major concerns about GMOs that are being covered up and dismissed in the shadow of corporate profits. I’ve seen your history, people like you and Steven Milloy are biostitutes for hire, right wing think tank professionals. People like you telling me that GMOs are safe is like The Marlboro man telling me that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. You can’t be “a global warming denier, an ardent critic of hybrid automobiles, and suggest that the American mortgage crisis that precipitated the financial meltdown was caused by “overregulation.” and expect to have credibility with people who understand how the PR industry works. Your argument against organic is to me an argument against produce with minimal pesticides applied and foods with a minimal of chemical food additives. I’m in my mid 50s have gotten stricter in my diet every year and eat a quantity of organic veggies every day. I have more energy now than I did 20 years ago when I would eat any processed food that tasted good. In addition to all of the studies that have mentioned the dangers of GMOs, they are food additives in most processed foods. That is just further adulteration of the food supply. I feel better now and have less health related issues now the stricter I get with my diet.
But I support organic farming John. I grew up on an organic grain farm in Saskatchewan, and worked for five years as a USDA-contract organic inspector.
What I am highly critical of is URBAN organic activists who make up rules that restrict what honest, hard-working organic farmers can and can’t do.
Damn john. You are fucking smart. You have fucking brains. I look up to your ideology. You have an eye for bullshit and sense when you see it. Please keep up the good work. You are making this world a better place. And I’m not saying this because you’ve just supported my case but that you can actually put 2 and 2 together. Sorry for the ranting but I truly appreciate your work. 100 as some people say these days
Thank you, really appreciate that..
I know. My concern is not about the first gmo. It’s about the molecular biology consensus behind gmo and whatever else is involved. I can see his type from a mile away. They are only helping me strengthen my communication basis and realize when I’m wasting my time. This is all only a learning process for me.
I was raised by someone who deals with politicians on a weekly basis. He ain’t making me worry about my credibility because I know where i stand and don’t claim things like he does. He’s a chest pumper and those people lose truth. He is stuck in his own world.
It doesn’t matter if your a shit shoveler or the president of the United states. Your words and facts speak for your credibility. When you have to explain who or what you are or what you’ve done. Your trying to build more credit. Doesn’t work that way for those who understand knowledge. Not who you are or what you’ve done. Obviously what you’ve done does credit you in experience in that field but doesn’t mean you know it all.
Thank you btw. I respect your words
Then I humbly request that you use your name.
that was directed towards john zohn…
My name does not matter…
The facts matter…
Take care
Please see my comment below. If GMO crops caused harm to humans, livestock or the environment, someone would have sued by now. No one has.
And when I say “chemical reactions”. I am also including your gmo crop you speak of. What is the chemical makeup and reaction it causes when ingested. So please inform me if possible.
Clearly, you have no idea what the first commercialized GMO crop was.
lol clearly your avoiding my question. Wish someone could answer my questions. But most of “you people” just like to argue.
Try doing some research. When you find out what the first commercial GMO crop was, you’ll realize how baseless your arguments are.
Go on now. Try a Google search.
Good one.
This whole, “I know, but you don’t!” schtick is getting tiring and detracting from whatever message you were trying to deliver.
Was it Homer Simpsons “Tomacco” perhaps?
Oh, that’s a classic! Good call!
Great… someone else who doesn’t even know what the first commercial GMO crop was but who still wants to weigh in.
Talk about not listening!
Frankly, I’m surprised that any legitimate information outlet would let you keep yammering on like you’re doing. But before today, I never heard of this site, so that probably explains it.
Are you planning on having some media event where you reveal, “what the first commercial GMO crop” was?
If so, let me know. I hope it’s not the day where I’m changing my furnace
filter or checking the air in my tires, otherwise I might miss it.
As explained in the article you’re commenting on Joe, it’s all narrative for organic activists. Facts never matter, and you’re proving that right now.
You know as well as I do that the narrative spewed by organic activists is that GMO crops are a scheme by Big-Ag corporations to force farmers to use their seed. But, alas, the first commercial GMO crop was NON-PROPRIETARY, and requires NO PESTICIDE.
In fact, most GMO crops fall into this category. So, there goes your cherished narrative.
The chemical reactions taking place are not relevant unless you can show that there is any significant difference in the chemical reactions between corn produced via GE plants and corn produced via non-GE plants. If those reactions are not significantly different (as the evidence has been indicating) the I don’t see how discussing what they are is relevant.
Good way to avoid a question. Thank you
Interesting tactic. Ask an irrelevant question that’s virtually impossible to answer and then criticize those that choose not to answer it.
Nice try, but, as my dad used to say, if you ask silly questions you get a silly answer.
you just contradicted yourself. Thanks for your time.
I suppose you’re free to believe what ever you want to believe.
Good day.
You’re not the only one that’s been trolled by “Excuse my Ignorance”…
Coming from someone saying I stomp my feet when I don’t like what I’m hearing. Your a hypocrit. Go shovel your snow or something cry baby.
I’ve simply given up on the pro gmo activists who can’t explain molecular biology. I’m moving forward for information from people who can actually provide true scientific evidence.
Once again thanks for the basics of the farming industries. I am now interested in the science of molecular biology within the soil, plants, atmosphere, and ingestion.
Like I said before move along young buck. You are behind my focus of attention. Now I’m just looking back wasting my time.
Someone who has intelligence wouldn’t give a silly answer… They would prove their point.
Can you provide the scientific consensus that their is no significant difference or do you want to continue wasting my time?
I would love to see these results with my own eyes.
What evidence? Where? Show me please!
Everyone already knows this by now. This is the first statement ever gmo activist says. Probably a dozen times now…
Where is your citation Popoff? 43% of organic food tests positive for prohibited pesticides; the result of the aforementioned lack of organic field testing.
You have to read the article, and not just the bullet points the editor put in.
There’s a hyperlink to a USDA report in the body of my article.
Read the article next time… whoever you are.
Who said anything about “non-compliance”? I said 43% of all certified-organic food sold in America tests positive for prohibited pesticides.
Sorry to have upset you Rob, but it’s right there in black-and-white in the USDA report I cited.
Mischa says “Activists live in glass houses but are free to cast stones all they want. Why? Because we let them.”
Who is “we”?
Monsanto? GMA? Scientist? You?
“We” the majority want a label. And many, now want a complete ban.
Sorry, but the majority do not want labelling. Only activists want it so they can use it to ban GMOs.
Not true. 93% of Americans want labeling.
Hmmm. If that’s the case how come zero out of four state labeling initiatives passed?
Residents of CA, WA, CO and OR all said “no” to labeling. I don’t see any, “93% of Americans want labeling” in those election results.
And before you say the votes were bought, take a look at how much President Obama raised vs. Romney. Who raised more? Is President Obama in the White House today because he raised more money?
How silly of you Carson.
Organic activists claim 92% of consumers want genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) labeled. But it turns out the overwhelming majority of consumers support the status quo when you don’t ask a misleading question like, “Do want toxic pesticides genetically spliced into your food?”
Ummm, a poll also indicated about 80% of Americans wanted labels on food containing DNA. Think about that for a minute.
80% of Americans wanted labels on food containing DNA
Oh, come one, who wants DNA in the food, it is full of non human genes, could be fish genes in it and even maybe tobacco. this must be banned or at least labeled. Think of the children!!!!!
But when measures to make it a requirement come up on the ballot, they don’t pass. Odd how supposedly 93% want labelling, yet come time to vote, the other thing happens.
Mishsa Popoff is ridiculous. Why should organic standards include GMOs? So far science- based farming is just chemical-based farming which has given us modern diseases.
Given us what modern diseases? Based on what evidence? Are you saying that organic farming is unscientific?
Did you read Popoff’s article? I’m using “science-based farming” the way he defines it. Sheeeesh.
You want evidence? Then open your eyes. In the past decade or so we have seen a dramatic rise in obesity, diabetes, allergies, asthma, ADHD, autism. autoimmune diseases, gut issues……… especially in children. Half of all adults has a chronic illness. I’m in my 60s and everyone was pretty slim and healthy back when I was growing up. Public school didn’t spend 20% of their budget on special needs. Now I see half the people riding the public bus with huge bellies and triple chins. Oh, and these are people in their 20s and 30s. Something is seriously wrong. We are the Walking Sick. A better question is why isn’t anyone connecting the dots.
Nice try. You’re trying to pass of loose, personal “observations” as some kind of evidence. It doesn’t fly.
Everything in my article (you know… the article you should have read BEFORE commenting) is backed up with references.
My comment was directed at Carson.
I stand corrected Jason. My apologies.
“In the past decade or so we have seen a dramatic rise in obesity,
diabetes, allergies, asthma, ADHD, autism. autoimmune diseases, gut
issues……… especially in children.”
We’ve also seen a dramatic rise in organic food consumption! There is a strong corre
“Half of all adults has a chronic illness.”
Citation?
“A better question is why isn’t anyone connecting the dots.”
Oh, I think plenty of people are. Maybe your dots aren’t in the same place.
The rise of many of these ailments (ADHD, autism. autoimmune diseases) results from changes in the definitions of these ailments.
But with that said, even if they’re on the rise, they also parallel the rise in organic food consumption.
In fact, the exponential expansion of the organic industry in America occurred at the exact same time as the expansion of GMO crops. So much for the myth that GMO threaten organic farms.
WOW just WOW… I don’t even know where to begin other than… I healed myself and my child of 5+ autoimmune diseases by switching to non GMO organic foods made from scratch. I have a right to NOT be involved in the medical system that could not CURE me, but only treat me for 15 years (which is the cause of most of the healthcare crisis we face today) I have the right to eat nutritional foods that cured me instead of taking expensive medications that only masked symptoms! I live surrounded by GMO farms in every direction… I can’t even go out on days they spray! I have super weeds and super bugs now that nothing will kill and my land id dead and void of anything beneficial!
So instead of bad mouthing people with your personal opinion (which is propaganda 10 btw).. why don’t you visit a farm and study ecology to see how this form of industrial farming is not sustainable to the land, the water, the air of life itself on this planet! Get some education, some real education instead of a FOX news like propaganda driven attitude!
You’re evidently unaware of the fact that I am a proponent of organic farming Angi. But I do not understand why being organic means one must also be anti-GMO.
Most GMOs are non-proprietary, and require no pesticides. That’s why President Clinton wanted them to be allowed into organic production on a case-by-case basis.
If you had read my article before commenting you might have caught that.
You say you were able to switch to non-GMO organic foods. Yet there are people saying we need GMOs to be labeled so people know what they are buying. Why are so many anti-GMO activists unable to see the incongruity of those statements?
If anyone is interested in understanding how right wing think tanks, PR firms and marketing agencies manipulate your opinions there are very good books that describe how they do it. Philip Zimbardo, who is best known for the Stanford Prison Experiment wrote two very good books, “The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence” (ISBN-10: 0070728771) and “Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior”. You can see the techniques these different think tanks, agencies and guys like Misha Popoff to win you over consumer opinion. a couple more really good books are “Toxic Sludge is Good for You” and “Trust Us We’re the Experts” by Sheldon Rampton and john Stauber. It is a highly researched material that disects Public Relations Firm techniques and the way they decieve the public usually to make that corporation or industry appear like they aren’t violating consumer protections or the environment. Another really good book that exposes the corporate influence in the regulatory process is “Food Politics” by Marion Nestle. She has no relationship to the Nestle corporation, she is a diet and nutrition professor at New York University. These are all older books but they are a foundation for modern behavior management techniques and can be picked up dirt cheap through used book outlets like bigwords.
What exactly are you talking about John?
Thanks for making me laugh!
You should read “Trust Us We’re Experts” or “Toxic Sludge is Good for You”, they would be outstanding self discovery reads for you! 🙂
You should read the article you’re commenting on.
Actually, I read enough that I got to the point it made me cringe. Your false equivalences are so obviously designed to deceive your readers, I really couldn’t continue to read it. Your first ridiculous claim that Organic is essentially synonymous with anti GMO. I do agree that organic is anti GMO, but organic is much more than just non GMO. Most people never thought twice of GMOs prior to prop 37. If your wacky overlords learned anything from their attempt to prevent labelling on milk that is produced by rBGH injected cows, they might have just allowed the labelling of GMOs, considering the vast majority of people don’t even read labels. Most the ones that do wouldn’t care if they had read a tiny entry that said “may contain GMOs” in between Butylated hydroxyanisole and trans fats. But they had to go ahead and fight against the labelling effort and throw GMOs in everybody’s face. That’s what made the Organic and anti GMO movement exponentially larger every year, and it will continue growing, I promise. You then attempt to say that GMO’s should be within the Organic Label. That’s kinda ridiculous, how is Glyphosate and 2,4-D going to pass for Organic?
Then you state:
“It makes about as much sense as when segregationists claimed integration with blacks would destroy the fabric of society.”
That’s a blatant insult of anyone’s intelligence! That’s another fallacy of false equivalence.
I’m well aware of the problems with Organic, that’s why I buy my produce locally where they use fish emulsion and kelp as pesticides.
Considering the fact that almost every Organic labelled food is owned by subsidiaries of multinational corporations associated with the GMA, I am concerned about the integrity of the Organic label. They are working hard with your crony Tom Vilsack to put industry reps into the NOSB to add increasingly more toxic ingredients to the organic label.
That’s the reason I don’t really care if these labelling initiates lose because they are victories the day the make it to the ballot!
You didn’t read my article before commenting.
You said that you searched “high and low” for the reference to the fact that 43% of all organic food sold in America tests positive for prohibited pesticides. This proves that you only read the bullet points put in by the editor, because I included a hyperlink to the USDA report which admits almost HALF of all organic food is contaminatedd with synthetic pesticide residue, and you missed it because you didn’t bother to read before commenting.
Now you’re just trying to obfuscate. You have zero credibility John.
Yep, I get it, I don’t know crap cause I didn’t read your propaganda piece. Roger that over!
Then why are you commenting on my piece?
Actually, I wasn’t commenting on your piece as much as I was commenting on your credibility. Anyone associated with Right Wing think tanks that’s
“a conservative ideologue, a global warming denier, an ardent critic of
hybrid automobiles, has suggested that the American mortgage crisis
that precipitated the financial meltdown was caused by
“overregulation”
gives you very little credibility with people who are familiar with how the PR Industry and Right Wing think tanks are designed for.
Incidentally are any of those ideology’s that I quoted from Cornucopia not accurate about you?
So you admit that to NOT reading this article before commenting.
We already knew that John, because you missed the reference I included.
You only read the bullet points before weighing in. That’s a first-year college fail I’m afraid.
Was that your sad attempt to dodge my question about your credibility?
I’ll ask it again- are any of those ideology’s that I quoted from Cornucopia not accurate about you?
Just in case you missed my what I’m talking about, here they are again:
“a global warming denier, an ardent critic of
hybrid automobiles, has suggested that the American mortgage crisis that precipitated the financial meltdown was caused by “overregulation”
Human activity does not cause global warming, hybrid automobiles get worse mileage than diesel-powered automobiles, and if government ever again tries to force race-quotas on banks, another mortgage crisis will indeed ensue.
Now, back to you, you’ve been caught John Zohn. You never read this article before commenting. You have no idea what this article is even about. Here you are a week later and you STILL haven’t taken the time to read it.
Nice try dodging the article.
You should really get your facts straight and be helpful to this world rather than put people down. You make my stomach turn and my teeth grind together when I read your ignorant comments. I believe your ideology needs to gtfo of here. Seriously. Ugh I’m angry so now I’m losing. Goodbye and may god help you
I am helpful. I wrote an article.
You should try it sometime.
I’m sorry.. i wrote that out of anger…. I apologize for my remarks. I let my anger overcome me.
Thank you for saying so. As I say, I take a lot of flak, and I’m not always sure why. Are you surprised to hear that the multibillion dollar, anti-GMO organic industry is deeply flawed?
When you say “the multibillion dollar, anti-GMO organic industry” are you referring to local Organic farms or are you referring to the 90% or more of Organic brand names that are subsidiaries of multinational corporations that are all GMA members?
Misha Popoff is at it again with his half truth lies.
He has made these bogus claims before on other forums.
He talks about 43% of organic food showing pesticide residues, but what he conveniently forgets to tell us is that 96% of organic foods meet USDA organic standards of being pesticide free or having less than 5% EPA tolerated level for organic foods.
As anyone can see Popoff used a half truth to create his lie.
This is exactly what we have all come to expect from this lose cannon. It’s gotten to the point that his former GMO pesticide disinformation echo chamber friends won’t tolerate his activities and claims as it reflects badly on the GMO pesticide industry.
Anyone who is on the fence about this guy should put his name into Google and pay attention to the information.
If 57% of samples were pesticide free, that leaves a whopping 43% of samples that tested POSITIVE for prohibited pesticides Cletus. This is what’s referred to as mathematics my friend.
As explained, I have tested many organic crops and have never found ANY pesticide residue. None. So the USDA is clearly trying to gloss over its abysmal results. And yet, they couldn’t gloss over it enough to hide the fact that ALMOST HALF of all organic food sold in America is contaminated with prohibited pesticide residue.
Yum!
What you fail to realize is that organic standards do not prevent a crop testing positive for unapproved pesticides from being considered in compliance and allowed to have the organic certified label. So much for the “organic food doesn’t contain pesticides” argument.
Disgusting and bogus rhetoric throughout. Not an anti-vaxxer here, but do agree with current organic standards, GMO labeling, and Prius driving. Why make broad sweeping generalizations and alienate your audience from the opening? Whoever’s payroll you’re on should surely reconsider.
Also did not appreciate the spam mail, with no option to unsubscribe nor the inference that his silly corporate-backed-interests crusade is tantamount to black integration and rights in the US civil rights era. Shameful.
but do agree with current organic standards
Why that seems a bit strange, you did read the article?
If 43% of Prius’s were just gasoline cars with Prius stickers on them, would you still support these cars, and be willing to pay extra for them?
A great analogy hyperzombie. It’s amazing what people who’ve drunk the green Kool-Aid will tolerate in the name of “keeping the faith.”
i regrettably did read the article. also, your false-equivalence example holds no weight whatsoever. nice try
I’m not on anyone’s payroll, but my house, my car, my second house, my condo in Vale, my country-club membership, my yacht and my 6 mistresses, are all covered.
Other than that I’m totally independent!
this is the first thing you’ve written that i believe.
Just don’t tell my wife about the mistresses!
if i were you, i’d be more embarrassed if she found out about this blog.
Right! Got it!
Thanks for the friendly advice hypercube!
Hey you’re still alive. So then, can you explain why you (presumably) keep preventing me from posting an explanation for others’ benefit on how to report your spam emails to Yahoo?
It’s true, I send a lot of email. All you have to do if you don’t want to receive an email from me is let me know. I do not send spam.
Since you are using Yahoo’s mail servers, I’d think it’s up to them as to whether it’s spam per their policies or not.
If you truly believe you do not send spam, then why continually take my post down?
If you are that confident that your unsolicited emails don’t constitute spam, you should have no issue leaving my post up since there shouldn’t be any repercussions for sending all this “not-spam” 😉
Which post was taken down? You’re posting here with no problem. Aren’t you?
Yep, but when i reply to the comment from Benjamin Edge in this thread I get an “awaiting moderation” note. Then the comment(s) are gone shortly after. Are you moderating them out of existence, or just not aware of the moderation queue in Disqus?
The owners of websites and blogs are responsible for everything they post. So many editors (like the editor of this site) moderate comments. Wait patiently; your comments will all appear shortly.
The spam mail is a “feature” of disqus registration. Your emails should have the following message at the bottom, with links. But that would require reading the message.
“You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive Disqus notifications.
You can unsubscribe
from these emails, or reduce the rate at which we send them by adjusting your
notification settings.”
Another excellent point Jason.
It’s like catching your spouse out on a date with another person. Okay, so they didn’t surpass the threshold of cheating on you by actually engaging in carnal relations with this other person, but you’re still rightfully upset that they even went out on a date!
As I have explained, all of the field tests I did as an organic inspector found NO PESTICIDE RESIDUE. None! These were domestic organic farmers, not those in far-off lands like China.
Mischa is the world’s biggest TOOL. Hey Mischa, suck on my fat genetically modified cock
one more thing… Mischa, go back to your little history class and leave the math and science for the big boys
Waa… stop hurting my feelings.
suck my fat gmo hog mischa
How telling that you would resort to censorship hypercube.
Cry me a river. You’re breaking Yahoo’s email account policies, which you agreed to when you signed up to user their services, and sending mass emails to presumably thousands of people who never agreed to receive email from you.
Don’t try and reframe this as a free speech / censorship argument. I’m just trying to assist others to compensate for your lack of decency or manners.
Try not to be so arrogant for once and build an email distribution list the right way, through opt-in.
Cue the violins.
Case in point to everything asserted above. Mostly disappointed in myself, though, for giving you more attention than you deserve.
No worries hypercube. I’ll forgive you.
Mischa,
With all due respect, I too have found your comments to be uncivil at times. Toning it down a bit would early you more followers. There’s a time and a place for a bit of snark, but far more often a restrained approach is far better. Let your opponents overreact and look like zealots. Don’t let their rhetoric draw you into the same tactics.
Spoken with true anonymity.