For many people it is "ignorance of the product".

Many organizations that are anti-GMO are too busy feeding slogans and fear rather than science at their audience leading to some extremely weak stuff bordering on conspiracy theory.

Speaking of conspiracy theory...the last line of that "news" blurb...

"Oh, we understand, alright. Dr. Just works for Cornell, which is on Monsanto's payroll. Just like half the lawmakers in Washington who rode there on Monsanto's dime."

Really? These people want to be taken seriously?

Not dumb, just ignorant. There's a difference.

That the veracity of the manufacturers of these products is suspect is not in question. The makers of many products have, if not outright lied, obfuscated about whether their products were actually safe or not. Industry apologists like to try to make those of us concerned about whether these products are all right as flakes when they are the ones for accepting, apparently without question, what the manufacturers tell them.
With 5 EPA Superfund clean up sites within 100 miles of me, because companies outright lied about the affects dumping waste from their products would do, I have good reason to be skeptical.

"The makers of many products have, if not outright lied, obfuscated about whether their products were actually safe or not. "

This could very well apply to almost any industry....think automotive.

Lloyd

The makers of many products have, if not outright lied, obfuscated about whether their products were actually safe or not.

Supplement manufacturers and "natural remedy" makers come to mind.

And others are busy lying about and obfuscating the safety of genetic manipulations.

INSULIN is made by genetically modified yeast. Many other drugs and vaccines are made by genetically modified bacteria or yeast, including the vegetarian/vegan version of rennet. Notably Vermont's labelling law exempts that from having to be on a label, because ... BigCheese industry.

The "Arctic apple"? Same gene change as found in Sultana grapes that make "golden raisins".

No, Roundup Ready crops are not "drenched in herbicides" (6oz/acre diluted on lots of water is the usual application, before canopy stage), nor do they produce herbicides.

The ones with Bt producing ability are producing the same stuff that organic growers spray on their crops. If you are a human, it's just another protein.

Golden Rice ... don't gripe there isn't enough testing at the same time as you are ripping out the test crops and threatening the test growers.

Using the Seralini study as if it meant anything is like feeding dog food that contains genetically modified corn or soy protein to pregnant Pekinese and claiming that it causes skull and leg deformities. Even his control groups were developing tumors.

Well, if you want to be skeptical...

How about an organization that makes a "news" release that takes a quote from an invited expert...twists it's meaning...and then makes a headline attributing the whole thing to lawmakers rather than the invited panelist?

No red flags there?

Nothing says "hmm...these people seem to not trust me with straight facts and seem to want to emotionally anger me."?

Heck, they threw every single lawmaker as well as a scientist under the bus based upon an assumption in their last paragraph...

"Oh, we understand, alright. Dr. Just works for Cornell, which is on Monsanto's payroll. Just like half the lawmakers in Washington who rode there on Monsanto's dime."

So...to this organization 1/2 of the lawmakers and anyone who works for Cornell is on Monsanto's payroll and beckoned call to do their bidding. OKAY! SURE! WHY NOT?

Should I mention yet again that this organization is run by people with no science or agriculture experience? One (Ronnie) is a career activist who has spent most of his time being a labor activist and K.Paul has spent her entire career in fundraising and public relations communications. These 2 people are writing a bulk of the "news" they churn out and they are grossly unqualified not only to write about it, but to even understand the science they rail for and against.

NC, they are no more "unqualified" to express an opinion then you are.

I'll let stand what the OCA wrote and how they chose to "sell" this story to their audience speak for itself.

I'll also let stand the fact the organization is run by people who have no connection to farming or food aside from their self-anointed status. For a group of people who are diving head-first into science themes they don't understand even on a rudimentary level in too many cases.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Jul 22, 14 at 18:36

We are aware of your humble opinion, NC. My opinion is formed from a variety of sources that include the New York Times, Washington Post, and more.

"My opinion is formed from a variety of sources that include the New York Times, Washington Post, and more."

Those news sources left unbiased reporting long ago in my opinion.

Good grief kimm, your opinions/facts and sources have been less than stellar in the past so I'm not sure hanging your hat on them is the wisest thing to do.

Just sayin....

Lloyd

Take it easy on kimmsr, k's finally gotten around to not calling soil texture "structure". So the officially recognized science terminology is improving.

And there is something to be said of companies/industries and their chemicals/waste/products, especially if they're big enough to have major impacts in the economy and influence many of the regulations that govern them.