Portside

***

Whoa, this article only tackles the question of whether are not eating GMO food is harmful or not. Not the whole question of growing it, not the question that these seeds, their development and use, are controlled by large corporations, not the question of how corporate farming effects farmers and the environment. It is like... Science says it is ok, so it must be ok, without the political, social and environmental context. And yes, Europeans CHOSE not to eat GMO foods. It was a democratic choice, just like Vermonters chose to have food labeled, but the corporations blocked the labeling in court using the corporate personhood, free speech, legal argument, by saying their free speech rights gave them the right not to speak and therefore not to label.

Judy Atkins

====

While this article is factually correct, GMO foods indicate a different kind of toxicity, that the food was grown with environmentally dangerous chemicals that are also dangers to human health.  They are also used as tools in the ongoing attack against small farmers when local sustainable agricultural practices are replaced by large mechanized farms forcing subsistence farmers and their families off their land into urban slums when they are lucky.  Naive progressives and cynical agribusiness boosters have focused the discussion on the GMO rather than the actual biological context that has brought about the GMO in the first place.  The question of the safety of GMOs is important, but is hardly the critical issue right now.

Ivan Handler

====

It seems to me that instead of trying to predict what will happen if GMO labeling takes place, we should look to those place where GMO labeling is the law and see what is really happening.  Has the average food bill in Maine and Connecticut increased by $400.  So, Europeans require GMO labeling and most producers have eliminated GMOs from their goods.  Has this be a bad thing?  Has it increased the costs of food?  The story should be on what are the results of GMO labeling where such laws exists, not on a "what if" scenario.

C. T. Weber Peace and Freedom Party of California State Executive Committee/ Legislative Committee Chairperson

====

Surprising that Portside ran this opinion article. It is well understood that genetic engineering is different than breeding or selection. Genetic engineering uses DNA from a different species than corn, soy, cotton etc. In nature this cross species sex if occurring wouldn't result in a viable offspring. Corn with DNA from other species and usually completely different genera is inserted into these commodity crops. This would never happen in nature. But cross pollination within a species does.

Beyond GE being different than breeding suggesting that the world will starve without this technology is a bit overstated.  Without GE of crops we already over produced calories prior to 1985 when the first GE crops came on the market. People without food is a distribution and policy issue way more than a production issue.

Third these GE crops have caused farmers to need to return to the toxic chemicals the companies said could be replaced by GE technology.

In the end we must remember that Mother Nature bats last.

Sarah Carlson

====

Disappointed to see this one-sided and misleading article going out on the Portside list.  It mentions nothing of the dependence on non-fertile seed that is being cultivated by the Monsantos of the world, backed with laws against traditional seed-harvesting and saving, and it says nothing about GMOs being used to create RoundUp Ready crops, resulting in the emergence of super weeds.  It talks about non-GMO crops using more water and pesticides than GMO crops.  But most of us who are anti-GMO activists are also opposed to the whole big-agricultural-as-usual model anyway, and we support sustainable, organic agriculture, and a shift from the globalization of agriculture (where your average food item is shipped 3,000 miles before it gets to your table) to a localized and regional model--and there's just no way that sustainably, organically produced foods from closer locales is using more resources that big, global agricultural models, including GMO crops.  This article that Portside is circulating does not tell the whole story, and indeed, it obscures very real issues and mainly serves to confuse and to try and pull the wool over the eyes of its readers.

James Patrick Jordan

====

I disagree with almost every sentence in this article. And what about the cost of the GMO seeds to farmers, seeds that are sterile and have to be bought by the man holding the patent?  Are they giving these seeds away to the poor blind children and the starving Indian farmers?  No.  They are making a tremendous profit and suing all the farmers that want to keep  genetically viable heritage seeds separate.

Nancy Shinn

====

This is propaganda for Montsano! GMOs while traditional food in Europe is far safer and tastier than the American as most transatlantic travellers can testify.

Richard Gibson London

====

Hmmmmmmm, I don't want any pesticide laced seeds creating my food.  They are saying all the stuff they tested was okay.  I don't believe them.

Germaine Cook

====

We should have the right to know!

Karen Bednarek

====

The very bad idea was printing and passing alone the article "Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea" in the first place.  Scientific American is a spokes-mag for corporation based research. There was no science in that article, only politics in favor of corporate profiteering from the illusion of science. Comparing natural selection or even cross breeding with genetic engineering is so laughably junk science that Scientific American is exposed for the corporation mouthpiece that it is.

Gregory Wonderwheel

====

It is all well and good for the people at Scientific American to tell us they don't like GMO labels.  But I noticed that they did not provide any reasons for us to agree with them.  Oh, they make the empty and unproven claim that GMO foods are so and so do not need labels, but this is precisely what is being disputed.  It does not advance an argument simply to make empty claims.

And why is Portside bothering with this sort of propaganda piece anyway?  The science is clearly mixed and consumers should be suspicious of big corporation messing with our food supply.  The people at Scientific American are apparently unfamiliar with the behavior of corporations, but I think you all at Portside are.  So why the pro-corporate propaganda?

Dr. Richard Curtis Seattle

====

This article on GMO labels is nonsense. People have a right to know what they are eating and GMO foods should not be an exception to any other foods. Large companies don't want such labels because they want to protect their intellectual property. If something goes wrong and there is a label a person can sue; if there is no label a consumer does not know who is responsible. In addition, there is a difference between a GMO and breeding of hybrids. A GMO is made up of organisms that normally and naturally cannot reproduce if they are combined. That far out manipulation is what activists are protesting. Large companies are fiddling with natural processes and they do not know what the health or environmental effects are because they have not tested such new products properly. So some people want to avoid them and in a marketplace they should be given sufficient information, so that they can do that. The road to food security in the future is more local, smaller, organic producers. The past developments that have allowed companies like Monsanto to use GMOs to promote their other products and intimidate farmers in the process for "infringing on their patents" must end. And consumers have as much right to choose products labelled well as they have to go to local markets to buy organic food.

Laurel MacDowell

====

Why are you putting out such dangerous information?

Learn the truth.

GMOs - David vs. Monsanto (Film) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwfzYDKd8jk

Genetic Roulette (Film) - by Jeffrey M. Smith - Narrated by Lisa Oz http://geneticroulettemovie.com

Seeds Of Death: Unveiling The Lies Of GMO's (Film) (by Gary Null) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OxbpLwEjQ

Institute For Responsible Technology http://www.responsibletechnology.org

GMO OMG (Trailer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynyB2fNn8kQ

The Dangers Of Genetically Modified Food - Jeffery M. Smith Lecture http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 4147551008386395793

GMO Ticking Time Bomb - Part 1 (by Gary Null) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC3yteAC9nk

GMO Ticking Time Bomb - Part 2 (by Gary Null) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4Dud0othY

GMO Ticking Time Bomb - Part 3 (by Gary Null) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppumc3iavzI

The World According To Monsanto (Film) http://www.youtube.com/monsantomovie

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Huber About GMO (Part 1 of 2)

Internationally Renowned Natural Health Physician And Mercola.Com Founder Dr. Joseph Mercola Interviews Dr. Don M. Huber, One Of The Senior Scientists In The U.S About Area Of Science That Relates To Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4swW9OFmf8

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Huber About Glyphosate (Part 2 of 2) Internationally Renowned Natural Health Physician And Mercola.Com Founder Dr. Joseph Mercola Interviews Dr. Don M. Huber, One Of The Senior Scientists In The U.S About Area Of Science That Relates To Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENmc9kHnvbo

From Mark R. Elsis