11-19-2013, 08:12 AM
Russell asked the question "60 countries regulate GMOs for hysterical reasons, or the science is suppressed in the U.S., where a former Monsanto V.P. is in charge of food policy?"
The latter assertion Obie answered with the link to the Food Safety News article. No, the guy seems to be a public servant who has indeed been through the revolving door of government and industry. He indicated his trip through industry was less than satisfying.
As for whether ""60 countries regulate GMOs for hysterical reasons" the answer is "sure." Just look at the antics of the county council inviting a yogic flyer as their anti-GMO spokesperson. There's a well known conflict between the EU scientific and political organizations regarding GMO with the expected sides being taken.
Russell didn't provide links to the conclusions he stated, but a little research on one, the potato feeding experiment, showed that the researcher in question was eventually fired, partly for releasing preliminary results publicly before publication. The study itself is not well regarded.
Finally, I have to laugh a bit when a study is cited purporting to show that Bt toxins are detectable in humans. The Bt concentrates used on vegetables have been for years the go-to pesticide for *organic* farmers to control larva based insects. The Bonide Products (a large distributor of garden chemicals) federal label for their Bt product states that the pesticide "may be applied up to the day of harvest, the standard for Bt concentrates. Who knows how many tons of Bt concentrate has been loosed upon the world by organic farmers and thus may show up in humans? Why pin any such occurrence (if it actually happens) on a GMO rather than "organic" foods?
A Cornell University pesticide toxicology review states that "B.t. is considered ideal for pest management because of its specificity to pests and because of its lack of toxicity to humans or the natural enemies of many crop pests." The review notes experiments where humans consumed a gram a day of the concentrate and had no negative effects. It goes on to say "Since it was one of the first biological control agents registered for use against insects in the U.S., B.t. had to undergo a testing program which was more thorough than that which the EPA currently requires for biological pesticides. As a result, there are no data gaps in the toxicity information required by the EPA for registration purposes."
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/ext...t-ext.html
Maybe the organic farmers were right in their choice of Bt as a pesticide.
The latter assertion Obie answered with the link to the Food Safety News article. No, the guy seems to be a public servant who has indeed been through the revolving door of government and industry. He indicated his trip through industry was less than satisfying.
As for whether ""60 countries regulate GMOs for hysterical reasons" the answer is "sure." Just look at the antics of the county council inviting a yogic flyer as their anti-GMO spokesperson. There's a well known conflict between the EU scientific and political organizations regarding GMO with the expected sides being taken.
Russell didn't provide links to the conclusions he stated, but a little research on one, the potato feeding experiment, showed that the researcher in question was eventually fired, partly for releasing preliminary results publicly before publication. The study itself is not well regarded.
Finally, I have to laugh a bit when a study is cited purporting to show that Bt toxins are detectable in humans. The Bt concentrates used on vegetables have been for years the go-to pesticide for *organic* farmers to control larva based insects. The Bonide Products (a large distributor of garden chemicals) federal label for their Bt product states that the pesticide "may be applied up to the day of harvest, the standard for Bt concentrates. Who knows how many tons of Bt concentrate has been loosed upon the world by organic farmers and thus may show up in humans? Why pin any such occurrence (if it actually happens) on a GMO rather than "organic" foods?
A Cornell University pesticide toxicology review states that "B.t. is considered ideal for pest management because of its specificity to pests and because of its lack of toxicity to humans or the natural enemies of many crop pests." The review notes experiments where humans consumed a gram a day of the concentrate and had no negative effects. It goes on to say "Since it was one of the first biological control agents registered for use against insects in the U.S., B.t. had to undergo a testing program which was more thorough than that which the EPA currently requires for biological pesticides. As a result, there are no data gaps in the toxicity information required by the EPA for registration purposes."
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/ext...t-ext.html
Maybe the organic farmers were right in their choice of Bt as a pesticide.