Sen Ruderman, where is the proof

[snorkle]

Quote:

"Voluntary labeling of products as "GMO Free," if they are, is legal, and something you are welcome to encourage.
_________________________________________________________________

They shouldn't have to label things "Harmful or fatal if swallowed" either. Products that are safe to swallow are free to state it on their label. If a few anti science people are poisoned, that's the price we have to pay for progress.

[Guest]

Those that think that GMOs arent harmful, are the same people that think nuclear plants spilling chemical waste into the ocean is not harmful.

To even argue, dillution, is missing the whole point.

Let me simplify, POISONS, are POISONOUS.

The rest of your arguement is invalid.

How harmful is it ? Well that is for the future to decide, but harmfull, it WILL BE in some way.

So id like to stop Fukushima and stop GMO's.

Its not worth it.

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneself

To even argue, dillution, is missing the whole point.

Let me simplify, POISONS, are POISONOUS.

The rest of your arguement is invalid.

---

Your comments here and elsewhere portray your complete ignorance of chemistry and toxicology. EVERYTHING is POISONOUS at some exposure level: copper is poisonous - too much copper intake will kill you; deprive yourself of all copper in your diet and you will DIE - is it poisonous or is it an essential element? IT IS BOTH. All the whining about hydrogen sulfide - is it poisonous, yes at high concentrations; it is also produced inside your cells; without it, your body will die. How about oxygen - we all need oxygen - at too high a concentration, you will not survive more than a few minutes.

To bring the thread back to the original topic: Mr. Ruderman's business model, and the business model of his whole industry, is to instill paranoia in the public consciousness over their food and over non-organic food production - that is their marketing strategy. If they can cripple conventional food production, or make those costs so high, organic producers and vendors are more competitive in the market place. Mr. Ruderman and the rest of organic marketers wrap themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness to protect themselves from any real scrutiny over their motives and the deceptiveness of their whole marketing strategy - the success of that strategy has now emboldened them to attack the conventional farming community that produces the majority of our food. It is self-serving and it is dishonest.

Oh, and the rest of your argument is invalid...

[Permie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObieThis is what the study said.I got the study from a website you linked to.

I'm sorry that you posted a link to a website that contradicts what you were trying to say.

There is a search link at the top of this page to answer another question you had !!

---

Do you not understand what the NIH is? I posted a link to a study at the NIH that raises allergenicity concerns. When you went there, you found a position paper. "My website" didn't contradict what I was saying.

I searched and searched and could not find the answers to the questions you say were covered. So how about you or someone else link me to them instead of skipping over the hard questions here if we're going to have this debate. I raised legitimate questions that I supported with links to reputable studies (which I might point out that I'm the only one doing that). Any good debate should have its assertions supported with quality sources.

[Permie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geochem
To bring the thread back to the original topic: Mr. Ruderman's business model, and the business model of his whole industry, is to instill paranoia in the public consciousness over their food and over non-organic food production - that is their marketing strategy. If they can cripple conventional food production, or make those costs so high, organic producers and vendors are more competitive in the market place. Mr. Ruderman and the rest of organic marketers wrap themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness to protect themselves from any real scrutiny over their motives and the deceptiveness of their whole marketing strategy - the success of that strategy has now emboldened them to attack the conventional farming community that produces the majority of our food. It is self-serving and it is dishonest.

---

Ah, someone who is also of a scientific mindset!

What is your feeling on the chasm between biocide compounds that go through animal testing then at least three rounds of human clinical trials and, once approved, are only given by people with many years of training, and biocide compounds that are now produced by our food due to genetic modification that only go through animal studies and are released, unlabeled, to the general populace?

Are you ok with that enormous divergence and if so, why? Thank you.

[Obie]

Permie

This is the topic


"Sen Ruderman, where is the proof"

If you want to debate,why not start your own topic.

I will address this though.
"I posted a link to a study at the NIH that raises allergenicity concerns."
These were farm workers who came in contact with bt in the field.One can only assume it was at an organic farm because that is where it is primarily used.I am not a farm worker at an organic farm so I don't see how this should concern me.

[Permie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obie
I will address this though.
"I posted a link to a study at the NIH that raises allergenicity concerns."
These were farm workers who came in contact with bt in the field.One can only assume it was at an organic farm because that is where it is primarily used.I am not a farm worker at an organic farm so I don't see how this should concern me.

---

You do realize that the BT the farm workers were spraying is now in your food because GMO technology causes the plants to produce it, right?

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Permie

Ah, someone who is also of a scientific mindset!

What is your feeling on the chasm between biocide compounds that go through animal testing then at least three rounds of human clinical trials and, once approved, are only given by people with many years of training, and biocide compounds that are now produced by our food due to genetic modification that only go through animal studies and are released, unlabeled, to the general populace?

Are you ok with that enormous divergence and if so, why? Thank you.

---

Yes, I am. The people who set up the system of approvals/denials of release of these compounds have forgotten more than you or I will ever know about the specific compounds involved and their likelihood of causing significant harm. I choose to trust their expertise - while recognizing that they are not perfect. Neither am I.

By analogy: You indicated in an earlier post you were moving your family to Hawaii. How do you propose to get here? Fly in an airplane? If so, you have chosen to trust the expertise of the engineers that designed that airplane, the maintenance staff who repair it, the pilot at the controls, and the air traffic control system that dictates everything about that flight. None of whom are perfect - planes crash, people die. But you have chosen to trust that imperfect system.

Hundreds of millions of people have consumed GMO products in what probably amounts to billions of individual exposure incidents - with exactly zero deaths or injuries associated with those exposures. Yet you choose to obsess on the threat posed by those products - likely because of a very sophisticated marketing program produced by the organic food industry. An industry whose foods have no demonstrable evidence that consumption of their products leads to better health outcomes for those consumers.

I find that to be both naive and irrational. But, that's your choice - you can do whatever you want::: until it inflicts restrictions on what I choose to grow, what I choose to consume (and the costs associated with its production), and what otherwise legal farming and gardening chemicals and practices I choose to employ on my land. And that's where I object.

And, to stay on topic, having Sen. Ruderman, whose primary business is thoroughly invested in the organic food industry's organic marketing campaign, use his position as a state senator to further that marketing effort while wrapping himself is self-righteous denials of a conflict is insulting to the informed voters of this island.

[Permie]

Thank you for taking the time to respond geochem, I appreciate it.

If an airplane manufacturer screws up, 300 people die. A tragedy, no doubt. If a GMO is released that turns out to have toxicity or allergenicity we were aware of, the potential ramifications are enormous. I would agree that there have likely not been any deaths due to GMO. But let's take a look at Irritable Bowel Syndrome, an issue science does not yet understand the cause for (there are likely various causes). What if millions of americans are having intestinal allergic reactions to BT Toxin from GMO food? Crazy you say? Remember the study I posted showcasing BT toxin can induce IGG and IGE antibodies? Well, now give this study a read: http://gut.bmj.com/content/53/10/1391.1.abstract

The research required to approve GMO for the populace is like the airplane manufacturer building a scale model of their airplane, showing that it flies just fine (and hey, other airplane designs were fine so this one should be too) and getting rubber stamped to start rolling them out for passengers.

And you want to talk about conflict of interest? How about the political interference at the EPA? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03074.html

quote:

---

More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.

The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists' complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.

"Things are not as they should be at the EPA," said Francesca Grifo, director of the group's scientific integrity program. "Scientific findings are being suppressed and distorted; 889 scientists personally experienced at least one type of political interference. Scientists are being pressured by outside interests."

---

I can't trust expertise when that expertise hasn't done enough research, their ENORMOUS paychecks are at stake, and the people supposed to be regulating them are interfered with by special interests. I've been involved with the business side of multiple clinical trials and I've seen the games that go on. I assure you that the health of the people is one of the last things on their mind.

[Obie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Permie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obie
I will address this though.
"I posted a link to a study at the NIH that raises allergenicity concerns."
These were farm workers who came in contact with bt in the field.One can only assume it was at an organic farm because that is where it is primarily used.I am not a farm worker at an organic farm so I don't see how this should concern me.

---

You do realize that the BT the farm workers were spraying is now in your food because GMO technology causes the plants to produce it, right?

---

How Bt Works

What’s wonderful about Bt-toxin is that it’s only toxic to insect larvae. Rather than referring to Bt compounds as “toxins,” it would probably be more accurate to call them proteins. Unless you happen to be a larval-stage weevil or gypsy moth, in which case the description of what happens in the ad is fairly accurate: it binds to your gut, ruptures your intestines and you die.

Since I'm not a weevil I'm not worried