I will read the report you mention.

I'm a supporting member of the excellent organization Organic Consumers Association and buy local & organic from our Farmers Market as much as possible, figuring my dollars are my most important vote and am happy to support those who do so for a living.

Being an organic gardener, myself, I know how much goes into growing organically...and see in my own tiny properity what a difference it makes in this teeny part of the eco-system.

We each get to choose our priorities and how we want to spend our dollars, where we still have a choice....

Glad to know you're an OCA supporter, too. As individuals, we have to keep on this issue and spread the word in order to protect the Organic Standards we have here in the USA - and to IMPROVE them! (Am I an optimist or what?)

Neat you garden as well. My two supposedly dwarf fruit trees have shaded my now-not-so-sunny raised beds, so I can't grow the summer veggies I used to.....sigh. Enjoy your veggies!

I thought you were talking about GMO coffee beans and I had no idea those were being grown now.  Are they?

Thanks for both answers: what is the chemical difference and is there GMO coffee.

I don't kno chemical structure. I do know sugar beet is not a part of coffee. I doubt there is GMO coffee.

What is the difference in GMO beet sugar vs non-GMO beet sugar?  I have had a lot of chemistry classes and I'm qualified to examine the structures. Please provide those differences.

All I know is from what I've read about GMO food in general: that the placement of glyphosphate into the DNA is so inexact that it doesn't produce reliable results. Google the American Academy of Environmental Medicine to find out more as to why GMO food is a risk.

I don't think you really understand the chemistry if you think that there is "placement of glyphosphate into the DNA".  But feel free to offer that data as well. I'd be pleased to look at it.

You're pretty weird Eileen2, in that you refuse to offer up evidence yourself.

Here's a structure of glucose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose

Here's a structure of fructose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

I'm just trying to understand the difference in the GMO ones and why they are different and bad. According to wikipedia even the EU said that the sugar is ok, and they are pretty strict on GMOs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet  Maybe they have some data about it. 

Can you tell me how much of the DNA comes through the sugar purification process if that is the issue? 

But I would like to understand how they put glyphosphate into the DNA since it isn't a nucleotide.  That's what you said, right? 

And no, that's not what I said. It's what they claim to do. Maybe I'm just stupid, ignorant and an idiot to boot, but when a company claims that it has GENETICALLY modified a food, then I assume that they have "messed" with the DNA.

Can you tell me how it is that DNA is completely separate from the chemical structure?

I ask because I think that might be the answer you're looking for. You gave links to Fructose and Glucose as if those are the only two results from processing sugar beets into "sugar". If a sugar is labeled as Fructose or Glucose then it is a man-made sugar.

Sure, the wikipedia says Fructose comes from fruits, but that's only ONE sugar. Fruit also contains sucrose, glucose, dextrose, maltose, galactose and other saccharides. My point is: you don't separate the DNA from the "chemical structure" unless it's a man-made result to begin with.

So how could sugar beets exist as nothing more than simple chemical compounds aggregated in a shape that gives it its unique characteristics? How could sugar beets be processed down to just glucose and fructose when there are many sugars in various combinations? Why would you even ask me about DNA processes?

It goes right back to the beginning: when someone says they've modified a plant's DNA, I assume they mean just that. You need to go ask them. Or ask the Academy of Environmental Medicine why they says that ALL GMOs are a danger to our health.

You are what you eat. I know two CU scientists who won awards for proving that everything we put into our bodies affects EACH and EVERY cell, right down to the mitochondria. But ask them for that evidence because I don't have it. I just assume that their peers reviewed their findings.

There is evidence that many organic foods are nutritionally superior to their conventional counterparts.  Of course, there are also studies showing no differences.  One must consider the source of funding of such studies, and that information is often conveniently absent when results are reported.

What I do know: 

* Monsanto claims to be helping to feed the world.  In reality, they forbid purchasers of their seeds to save seed (requiring them to buy new seed each year), they routinely prosecute farmers who have unintentionally "sown" their seed (leading some organic farmers with GMO-contaminated crops to countersue), their "drought-resistant" varieties have been proven to be less effective than traditional varieties, and some GMO crops have proven to sterilize the soil over the course of several years and poison some beneficial insects.

* The Round-Up Ready line is designed to withstand heavy applications of pesticides at levels that will kill everything else.  Massive poisoning -- this is progress?

* The EU and many other nations ban GMOs and milk from cows administered bovine growth hormone.  It is said that in these countries, the governments fear the people -- rather than the other way around, the way it seems to work in the US.

* The potential for contamination of non-GMO crops is so vast that GMO crops, if grown at all, should have stringent safeguards to avoid potential destruction to the environment.  DDT was once considered so safe that children cavorted in its application sprays.  DES was once thought safe enough to administer to pregnant women.  Obviously, these weren't safe -- but they had been deemed to be safe because there wasn't evidence of their disastrous properties at the time.

What I don't know:

* Why I can't read a simple label on food products indicating that they are or that they contain GMOs.

* Why the American government continues to submit to Big Business.

* Why Monsanto feels it has to corner the market.

* How Monsanto summoned the audacity to sue organic farmers for inadvertent, undesired presence of GMO plants in their orgnic crops.

* If GMO crops are safe.  You don't know, either.  And if we don't know, why introduce them so blindly into our food system?

Same with HFCS: they've manipulated it enough so that nutritionally speaking it's the same as sugar. Of course it's not.

Thanks for your post. My sentiments exactly. I just have to go on a wild goose chase with a certain someone until that person gets tired.

The seed developers are moving too quickly in my opinion.

If the bees die, we shall all die because nothing will get pollinated.

I have only used honey for a sweetener for the past year. I don't buy anything with sugar in it. I am boycotting GMO sugar.

CCD has been found on organic and Amish farms, which led researchers to rule out genetically engineered crops, pesticides, and cell phones as a cause. Most likely, the cause of CCD is a combination of inbreeding and stress (from a number of sources including pesticides, movement of colonies in trucks, and variable food sources) which both make the bees more susceptible to mites and the diseases the mites carry, including parasites. A friend of mine wrote a paper about it: Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: A Literature Review which sums up the CCD situation. He writes about some potential solutions that have been suggested by bee researchers, such as planting flowers among crops to give bees additional food sources for when the crops aren't flowering.

As for the GMOs, Roundup Ready and Bt are very different traits.

The chemical glyphosate in Roundup blocks an important metabolic pathway in plants by binding to an enzyme. RR crops have a version of the enzyme that is not affected by glyphosate (How Roundup Works and Roundup Ready Transgenic Plants). Animals, including bees, do not have this pathway, so are not affected. RR crops have allowed farmers to replace the highly toxic atrazine with the relatively benign glyphosate, which overall has a positive affect on bees and everything else (unfortunately, Roundup has been overused which has led to the evolution of resistance in some weeds, but that's another subject). The only difference between RR sugar beet and conventional non-RR sugar beet is a little snippet of DNA, this one enzyme, and the fact that non-RR beets get more toxic herbicide sprays. The sugar extracted from them is indistinguishable since sugar does not contain protein or DNA.

Bt crops produce a protein that is toxic to a narrow range of insects, including the larvae of certain moths and beetles. There have been quite a few studies showing that Bt fields have more insect biodiversity than conventional BT fields that have been sprayed with insecticide, such as this study conducted by USDA-ARS and EPA researchers. The researchers say that no treatment is best, but that Bt is significantly less harmful to insect biodiversity than any of the pesticides they tested.When it comes to bees specifically, many studies have shown that Bt has no effect on bees young and old, even in concentrations much higher than they would encounter in the field, as described in this article by a University of Maryland pest management extension agent.

I hope that helps to clear things up :)

Feel free to visit my blog, Genetic Maize, if you have any questions.

A recent Salon piece went over the lastest news. It looks like the pesticide imidacloprid is likely involved so you might want to update your lit review.

Also, as I understand it, Monsanto never tested RR crops on bees and to suggest that a lack of testing proves anything is somewhat disingenuous. We simply don't know the facts yet.

I should also point out that a "little snippet of DNA" can be all that distinguishes a healthy individual's DNA from that of a severely disabled one. Your observation is entirely beside the point and doesn't suggest a strong grasp of the science of genetics.

"the nutritional value of the sugar beet H7-1 and the derived sugar beet products is comparable to that of analogous products from conventional sugar beet."

Comparable is good enough for you? Exact and comparable are two very different terms with very, very different meanings.

"The GMO Panel is also of the opinion that the risk of allergenicity is of no concern with this product."

I'm of the opinion that I'm the smartest guy in the world, does that make it true? Your demand for "evidence" and then lack thereof, is curious. Are you a Monsanto troll by chance? Thought so.

The issue is we don't know how it's going to affect us and the environment, so why would we want to be guinea pigs for this? There could be things created by doing this that we can't detect, because we don't know about them. If you don't know, you don't have a test for it - you don't know what to look for.

I'm not willing to be a guinea pig so they can make a profit making plants resistant to poisons, and possibly spreading that to the plants they are trying to get rid of. That's my bottom line.

What happened to the halfway decent goals they had - making food more nutritious for instance, that I read about decades ago? Why did they have to go into putting pesticides into the plants, and making them resistant to chemicals? Was all that altruistic stuff just to lull people into letting them become the what they have become; trying to take over all food production so people will have to pay them to survive? I am so disappointed in Monsanto. I had hopes for them. Now, I don't know why I was so naive. I  should have know that profit would rule, tempting them to go in the direction they have taken.

Then there's the fertilizer that is claimed to be "identical" to the organic fertilizer. In fact, it's claimed to be better than organic. But, we now know it's not the same.

I don't trust this "identical" claim, no way no how. Just because it looks identical with the tests we have now, doesn't mean it is and that in the future we won't find it's not identical. We only know what they tell us, and we know that profit drives their claims.

But I'm not making the claim that there is something worrysome in the GMO beet sugar.  People making those claims need to explain why the sugar is different and why that would be a health issue.  And nobody seems to be able to. 

Take onions for example: physical science can tell you that the stronger the onion smells, the better it is for your health. So what is that smell? They don't know. They've broken down onions into it's "chemical" structure, recreated it and tweaked it but couldn't replicate the smell.

And then there is humic acid, which is the complex acid resulting from compost. Last I checked (mid 90's, which is comparable to right here and now, which should be good enough for eileen2) physical scientists couldn't figure out the complex chmeical structure of humic acid. They know it creates nitrogen, so that's good enough for them.

Someone posited this, and I don't remember where I read it, and may have actually dreamt it: humic acid is formed by a series of soil-based organisms that break down organic matter. These organisms form a symbiotic relationship with plant roots, creating a form of nitrogen that that plant roots prefer. Each plant has its preference and the organisms respond without failure by making that nitrogen available to the roots, when it wants it.

Man made nitrogen washes away far too quickly and might not be the form that the roots want. Organic crops don't display a sudden burst of growth after rain because organic nitrogen breaks down extremely slowly, and is taken up by the roots slowly as well. This keeps the plant growth sustainable strong, and makes for superios yields that are far more nutritious.

All the RR talk is just ridiculous. Scientists cannot see the forest for the trees, and they never will. You cannot separate the body from the mind. You cannot break down something to it's mere chemical structure and say that is all there is. There's more to it than just that. If there weren't, then why, oh why, has science not figured out HOW things take the forms they do?

If you look at their meristems under a microscope, they all look the same: an amorphous blob of cells. Science cannot tell you why or how that blob eventually takes on the shape it does. If they claim to do so, then why don't human embryos look just like a microscopic adult?

I wouldn't touch a GMO food with a 10 foot strand of DNA.

Just google "GMO Sugarbeet health risks" or "GMO health risks". Watch any of the documentaries about not only the health issues, but environmental impacts and impacts on biodiversity. Do your own research, don't base anything on the one article someone cites in a comments section on a site you trolled. If you're not an informer, you're an idiot. Google "Trojan Gene Hypothesis" If it's safe, or even has benefits, why isn't it touted all over the front of GM foods "Made with genetically engineered ingredients", or "Made with Roundup Ready Corn"? Food manufacturers are quick to tout the "Omega-3s" and "Antioxidants" Why has the campaign AGAINST labeling been so voracious? Why, of the top 20 industrialized nations, are we the only one that don't require labeling? If this technology is really helping anybody, why aren't GE foods labeled "Made with GM: Saving Africa" or "Made with BT Cotton: Helping Indian Farmers"? If it is such a revolutionary technology, why hasn't it changed much in the last 60 years? Why on earth would you genetically engineer something to resist (or manufacture) pesticides instead of inserting naturally resistant plant proteins? Something natural breeding processes have done since the dawn of time? I'm all for logical science, and I would be behind biotech if it were at all logical to do any of the things they have done. Golden Rice, biotech-proponents' prized defense is laughable at best. And I'm not debating you for your benefit, I'm pretty sure you're a troll, these are questions all people should ask before they spend one dime on food they didn't produce. If you are supporting big-biotech by buying GE foods, you are one of the many Minute-Rice, microwave, fast-food, gotta' have convenience, where did I get this cancer and heart disease sheep, led by a world which has allowed to take authority as the truth, and not truth as the authority.

I hadn't yet seen an article about the effects of chloronicotinoids on bees (I study crop genetics, not pest control, and can only handle so many RSS feeds) so thank you for directing my attention to it. It's just one more reason why we should be investigating methods of crop insect control other than broadcast sprays, including genetically engineered crops like Bt. I did note in my comment that pesticides can negatively affect overall health, making bees more susceptible to disease. So, let me restate - researchers have ruled out existing genetically engineered crops and cell phones as a cause of CCD.

Monsanto has tested glyphosate on bees, as can be found in this extensive report (I didn't look for tests on the surfactants, which have come up as an issue before). There is no reason to hypothesize that bees would be adversely affected by glyphosate, the enzyme produced by the RR gene (one amino acid different from the native plant enzyme), or the RR gene itself (one nucleotide different from the native plant gene). Neither the substrate (shikimate-3-phosphate) nor the enzyme itself (EPSP synthase) exists in bees. The presence of the RR gene in pollen wouldn't have any adverse effect either. All of this doesn't even need to be tested because pollen already naturally contains all of these things and the bees do just fine. Regardless, CCD is happening in places where RR crops are a very small percentage of farmland, i.e. Europe. Occam's razor.

I understand basic biology just fine, thanks. I didn't feel it necessary to go into great detail on this, because it really doesn't matter, but no problem, here we go into the world of maybes and could bes. Refined sugar doesn't contain DNA. Even if you took a big bite out of a GM sugar beet, the added gene would be digested with the rest of the DNA you eat (about 6 miles of DNA a day, or so I've heard). It is rare but possible that small snippets of DNA can survive in the stomach and even travel into the blood, where it is degraded. Loose DNA doesn't last very long when exposed to stomach acid or to nucleases which are present in blood. Even if the incredibly unlikely scenario of a human cell integrating the RR gene into its gnome occurred, it would most likely never be transcribed into mRNA because the gene uses a promoter which isn't recognized by our RNA polymerase. Even if the gene was incorporated into the human genome right after a promoter and t was transcribed and was translated into functional EPSP synthase, it would have no health implications because we don't have any substrates for it to bind to. There is some potential for bacteria to pick up pieces of DNA and incorporate them into their genomes, but the RR gene is actually from a soil bacterium, so multiple genes for glyphosate resistance are already out there in the wild naturally. There are tons of ways that gene transfer happens in nature (check out these posts about Natural GMOs) but they are all relatively isolated situations and statistically unlikely. Sorry to break it to you, but there is no danger associated with RR crops that aren't associated with their non-GM counterparts due to the snippet of DNA.

You're simply admitting through hairsplitting denials that RR crops are a danger but not in the way we think they are, and yet not telling us (denial) what the danger is.

Pure scientific heap of polymorphous nonsense. You can split hairs all day but until you can put it into plain language that non-GMO crops are not a danger... well, what's the point of trying to prove a negative, save to couch one's terms and arguments in such a way to stand firm on the bald patch of skin with one hair and proclaim "See, it's not bald at all!"

You cited a study done by Monsanto. Funny that you would believe/cite as sound science research done by a company which has such a vested interest in the very product they are "researching". No conflict of interest for you? Well, how about the fact Monsanto told everyone DDT was safe, until ACTUAL SCIENCE and not DOUBLESPEAK MUMBO JUMBO, proved it was COMPLETELY HAZARDOUS TO HUMANS.

http://allergykids.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ddt-household-pests-usda-mar47c2.jpg

And glyphosate; they have been sued for false advertising over it's claims that it's bio-degradable and organic.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1281320

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4114.cfm

How about a $700 Million settlement over PCB contamination? What about the FDA's own scientists disputing the safety of RR foods and GE food crops in general?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46648-2001Dec31

You're citing the 'science' of a company that sells the pesticide it's RR seeds are resistant to. And you think you're a scientist? You're a shill! Snake-oil salesman!

17,107 Indian farmers commit suicide in 2003, many by drinking Roundup, and you're touting GE technology. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46648-2001Dec31

GE is a not a stable technology, and is not ready to be released into the ecosystem:

http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/monsanto_gm_corn_harvest_fails_produce_seeds_south_africa

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/50-years-since-the-double-heli.pdf

Food safety of GE crops have not been tested by the FDA, because they go on the word of Monsanto. Who lies:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/index.cfm

And then there's Arpad Pusztai, who got fired for trying to warn of GE risks:

http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm

And the revolving doors between the Government and Monsanto:

http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm

or you could watch:

The World According to Monsanto, The GMO Trilogy, or Future of Food, and soon Food Inc.(June 12)

or read:

In Defense of Food, Silent Spring, Food Inc., Seeds Of Deception, A Brave New World

I'm a fan of science, not industrial biotech. You are a charlatan and a fraud, and you need to stop spreading lies and propaganda disguised as sound science. Your vacuous arguments and feckless rhetoric are not welcome in the independent scientific community, and I say good day to you. 

Your article is based on research by Bayer...and Bayer makes Round Up Ready Corn.

Indiana University research has proven that when caddisflies in streams near Round Up Ready corn fields consume the pollen which has blown into them, the caddisflies are negatively affected.

Hence, if bees consume that pollen, why wouldn't they also be affected?

I do not agree with your friend's paper, based on information from the very companies which make those GMO seeds.

Do you work or get paid to blog for any companies which have anything to do with GMO products?

Here's the link to the research at Indiana University.

Monsanto only tested the GMO corn seeds on an insect similar to the corn borer, not on bees.

No one is testing GMO products on bees and I think they should do it and do it fast. I would like to know what happens to bees when all they consume is the pollen from these plants.

BBC can occur near Amish farms because they can still eat the pollen from fields not that far away.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/6507.html

I have volunteered for wetlands and watersheds for some years.

Dragon flies are also disappearing, and one is already extinct in the state of Indiana which used to be common.

I do  not agree with you nor with your friends "paper".

Sorry.

I fear it is far too late to do the testing for many GMOs. 

Caddisflies are negatively affected from BT corn, which may be different than Round Up Ready Corn...

The bacteria can be very  bad in these seeds.

The bacteria goes from the plant to the insect.

Fuck all the molecule talk.

Speak something the general public can understand.

Monsanto and Bayer are too powerful...they want to control the food supply.

Not a good idea....

It's these contaminants that worry me.  We used asbestos with reckless abandon for insulation, shingles and a host of other uses.  Then we found that 20 or 30 years after exposure, people got lung cancer or mesotheleoma.  The EPA forbade the use of asbestos, set standards for exposure and tightened those standards over the years.  We still see ads on TV for victims to call class action lawyers.  Science is great but incomplete. 

I feel that we are probably safe from GMOs.  But can we afford to take the chance that something incredibly bad will show up 20 or 30 years later?  Do we know the long term effects of spraying huge quantities of "Roundup" on farm land?  What happens in the long term?  I am old enough to remember what happened with DDT.  DDT was another miracle farm chemical that caused immeasurable damage. 

The rate of autism has increased dramatically in past years.  Alzheimers seems to me to be a whole new disease.  Alzheimers may have been with us forever and is now showing up, because of better diagnotic techniques.  I don't know.  But there are enough questions about GMOs, "Roundup" and other new chemicals to be very cautious.

Large companies have huge lobbying budgets.  Congressmen and Congresswomen need to collect huge sums to finance re-election campaigns.  Concerned citizens and Citizen action groups have small lobbying budgets.  We are screwed the first time we have a new highly profitable chemical that is a ticking time bomb.  Think Thalidomide, DDT, asbestos and their new incarnations yet to come.  Don't be afraid, but do be aware. 

The people who are in the pollinating business are already losing so many bees, they are importing them from Australia. That can't go on forever.

Here is a syonpsis of the research below:  Oh and by the way theres also a tiny problem with the argument about GMO corn pollen and bee losses. Except in southern states honeybees rarely if ever visit corn. There is no nectar in corn for bees - ever hear of corn honey? Plus the pollen is very low nutritionally, only in severe droughts and some situations in the south will bees visit corn for pollen. 

i agree with Anastasia and others - the bogus claims from Tom L and Jill R are speculative in nature and there is no research or science to back up any of their claims just politics and hype. 

By GALEN P. DIVELY
Extension Pest Management Specialist
University of Maryland 

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has caused much concern among beekeepers nationwide and it is not clear to date what is causing the die-off. 
Genetically modified crops, specifically Bt corn, have been suggested as a potential cause of CCD. While this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence based on a multitude of studies argues strongly that the current use of Bt corn is not associated with CCD. 
The hazard to bees due to any potential toxicant depends on toxicity and exposure. The endotoxins currently expressed in Bt corn (Cry1 types against caterpillars; Cry3 types against beetles) are not biologically active against hymenopteran insects such as the honey bee, nor do the CCD symptoms resemble those expected in Bt intoxicated organisms. Exposure is also very low because the expression of endotoxins in pollen is barely detectable in most Bt corn hybrids and corn does not produce nectar. 
For these reasons, bees are not commonly found foraging in corn fields. Some argue that the increase in bee loss has paralleled the increase in Bt corn in the United States; however, severe bee losses have occurred in Europe and in areas of Canada where Bt crops are not grown. 
What do the scientific studies say about the issue? Numerous laboratory studies have examined the potential non-target effects of Bt corn on honey bees by feeding high doses of the pollen or purified endotoxin mixed with honey or sugar syrup directly to larvae in brood cells. This approach is a standard protocol for Tier I testing of non-target effects on bees and required by EPA before insect-resistant transgenic crops are approved for registration. 
Published studies and other technical reports submitted to EPA have all shown no adverse acute effects. In particular, recent laboratory studies in New Zealand and Switzerland exposed bees by feeding on pollen treated with purified Cry1 endotoxins at doses considered well above the maximum environmental exposure levels encountered in the field. Results showed no negative effects on bee survival. 
Laboratory feeding studies at the University of Maryland also showed no effects on the weight and survival of honey bees feeding on Cry1Ab-expressing sweet corn pollen for 35 days.
Potential sublethal effects of Bt corn on honey bees have also been addressed, but not as extensively as the acute effects. 
For newly-emerged bees, the presence of Bt proteins in ingested pollen may affect hypopharyngeal gland development and thus the ability of nurse bees to make brood food. 
However, the same studies in New Zealand and Switzerland reported no effects of Bt pollen or endotoxin on hypopharyngeal gland development of newly-emerged bees. 
Results of another recent study conducted in indoor flight cages showed no effects of Cry1Ab protein exposure on mortality, syrup consumption, or learning capacities of free-flying honey bees, but foraging activity was slightly reduced. 
A two-year field study (soon to be published in the European bee journal Apidologie) conducted by this author and his graduate student represents the first attempt to expose functional colonies of honey bees to Bt corn pollen under open field conditions. In this Maryland study, colonies placed in Bt sweet corn plots were allowed to forage on corn pollen and also fed Bt pollen cakes for 28 days. The pollen cake consumption alone represented approximately 44 percent of the expected daily pollen requirements of each exposed hive.
Results showed no adverse effects on bee weight, foraging activity, colony bee strength and brood development.
Although there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt endotoxins on honey bees, insecticidal products expressed by other transgenes in crops may need extended field testing on a case-by-case basis to assess the longer term consequences of sub-lethal changes in colonies and subtle modifications in bee behavior.

i'm a big fan of living green - that just does not mean I automatically believe all the talking points of that political affiliation. 

The bacteria goes from the plant to the insect.

Fuck all the molecule talk.

Speak something the general public can understand.

This should be easy for folks to understand, Alida - you do not understand what you are talking about.

Here is a the less-easy version - GE crops do not have bacteria put into them - thanks to Deborah Koons Garcia's film The Future of Food, many people believe that is true. Folks reading this should take note that "fuck the molecule talk" is a clear anti-science statement. It is only through understanding those nitty-gritty details about reality that science can discovery and study that we can tell the difference between what is true and what is false.

Sugar from GE sugar beets do not pose any health risk that ordinary beet sugar does not already possess. It is still sugar, chemically identical, plenty of sweetness and the empty calories that go along with it. There's nothing dangerous or toxic about the gene engineered into the beets, but even so, protein and DNA does not make it into the sugar due to the high level of processing. This is well-established by independent research.

Here is one example:

Glyphosate-Tolerant Sugar Beet H7-1

Here is their conclusion:

 In assessing the safety of a GM food, a key factor is the need to establish that the food is
nutritionally adequate and will support typical growth and well-being. In most cases, this
can be achieved through an understanding of the genetic modification and its
consequences together with an extensive compositional analysis of the food. Where, on
the basis of available data, there is still concern or doubt in this regard, carefully
designed feeding studies in animals may provide further reassurance that the food is
nutritionally adequate. Such studies may be considered necessary where the
compositional analysis indicates significant differences in a number of important
components or nutrients, or where there is concern that the bioavailability of key nutrients
may be compromised by the nature of the genetic changes to the food.
In the case of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet line H7-1, no significant compositional
differences were evident. On the basis of these findings, feeding studies were not
considered warranted in this case.
Furthermore, the principal human food derivative from sugar beet line H7-1 is highly
refined sugar which is composed of 96–99% sucrose and 0.6–1.2% other sugars
such as glucose and fructose. The extensive processing involved in the production of
sugar effectively eliminates all plant proteins, including the novel protein, from the
final food product. Refined sugar from any source has a long history of safe use as a
human food.

Or you could take a look at how the Japanese can't find any DNA to distinguish them:

Investigation of residual DNAs in sugar from sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.).

Oguchi T, Onishi M, Chikagawa Y, Kodama T, Suzuki E, Kasahara M, Akiyama H, Teshima R, Futo S, Hino A, Furui S, Kitta K.

Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2009 Feb;50(1):41-6.

 Genetically modified (GM) sugar beets have been bred for use as food and animal feed. To evaluate the applicability of GMO analyses to beet sugar products, we investigated residual DNA in eight sorts of in-process beet sugar samples and commercial beet sugar products. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses with taxon-specific primers indicated that sugar beet DNA was degraded at an early stage of sugar processing, and no PCR amplification was detected from the investigated sugar products because of low DNA recovery and/or PCR inhibition.

Sugar from these beets are not going to affect you any differently from before, or any differently from cane sugar, for that matter.

I think a good dose of factual information in these discussions is always warranted, I find it troubling that when presented with an opposing viewpoint, certain people above see fit to personally attack others, while simultaneously demonstrating their total lack of familiarity with the science. I find it ironic that someone with no background in genetics accused a genetics graduate student of being unfamiliar with the subject! My irony meter bent a rod on that one.

I think it would be of great interest to everyone to keep in mind what we are talking about here. Plant-based foods were bred from wild, small, often toxic plants into exaggerated genetically modified crops that we can eat and enjoy. There's a lot of discussion above about running for pure cane sugar to keep from eating sugar derived from beets that had one gene added to them from another species. But Sugar Cane is itself a prime example of pre-modern genetic modification. During the course of its domestication, it had its entire genome (all of its chromosomes) duplicated, and the entire genome of another species added to it. The result is an enormous, fast growing grass that accumulates a lot of excess sugar in its stalks, which we find suitable for drinking, refining, and even fermenting into rum. Sugar Cane is a combination of all of the thousdands of genes of two separate species - something called an "allopolyploid." Truth is, if you put 'sugar in the raw' into your coffee, you are eating a GMO.

You don't have to have a Ph.D. to understand these issues. I can safely say that scientists have not done enough to help people understand and become familiar with the science of this technology, something that many of us hope to change. I started a group blog to discuss it at Biofortified - and you might notice a familiar face or two writing there. I hope you'll join us.

Also, count me in as another beekeeper who agrees that the evidence is against CCD being caused by GE crops. I would like to add that the cries for extensive research into dead ends in order to satisfy the desire to find something wrong with GE crops somewhere risks pulling money away from the real causes of our world's problems, including CCD.

Coolfusion

Coolfusion

I don't believe enough research has been done regarding bees and BT GMO products.

I have talked to some other researchers who also believe more research should be done regarding GMO pollen and bees.

I am still not convinced.

I know researchers and professors at Purdue who are totally against anything organic. 

It's not that difficult to write a research paper and only put in certain variables to get the result you want.

The bee industry is in turmoil.

More research needs to be done.

And I would like that research done by people who have no vested interest whatsoever, and that is hard to do in this country because of money donated to universities by the companies making GMO products.

In the U.K. research must be done with no vested interest whatsoever.

Not so in this country.

I still am not convinced till I see more research.

SOMETHING is killing the bees and mites are only ONE of the problems.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,552556,00.html

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/05/18/bees_pesticides/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html

It seems to me that the EPA isn't really researching GMO products, only a few select items.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foia/reviews/044309/index.htm

While I do believe that Bee Colony Collapse can be caused by more than one factor, I will continue to want more research on the pollen affects on bees by GMO products. And that research doesn't exist.

And until it's done, I will not be convinced of the safety of GMO products on bees and other insects.

Already, with Round Up Ready products, the insect micro-environment is affected.

Many insects die, not just the ones Round Up Ready wants to target. Those insects are in the food chain...everything in the food chain is affected.

You don't see butterflies like you did 50 years ago.

What has happened to all the butterflies????

Sure, development has occurred, and herbicides are sprayed EVERYWHERE on roadsides......

But, the safety of GMO pollen and it's affect on non-problematic insects has not been done to my satisfaction.

Germany has banned some chemicals they say are responsible for bees dying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/23/wildlife.endangeredspecies

Are these banned in the USA also?

A graduate from Purdue in AG who is a farmer is the one who told me of the possibility.

with all due respect the premise you are working from that bees are still in trouble is deeply flawed. 

the bee industry is not in turmoil and bees are not dying anymore. most of us have extra bees to sell of to the huge increased interest by hobbyists. pollination prices for almonds and fruit trees was also way down this spring. but yet blogs and some news wires and publications like Salon continue recycling old stories and bogus theories.  what I see is an agenda of blaming anything on conventional farming practices by some groups and the honey bee is the poster girl for that endeavor. 

I am heavily involved with bees as a full time career and have been my whole life. there is a lot of inaccurate reporting on the bee story. like would we really expect the media to understand beekeeping? the story of missing bees has a lot of traction and draws from a doom and gloom outlook on the climate and environment.

likewise some of the reporting on AGW also is flawed and politicized. 

You are aware that organic farmers regularly spray plants with BT preparations, right?  For decades they have been doing that.

As for Bt, please educate yourself on how it works. Each strain of Bt is very specific. For an explanation of how this works, please see How does Bt work? by researchers at UC San Diego.

I said there is no more losses and I do not need to defend that. Sure you tree huggers cans find something online to prove your own beleif systems but that means jack in my book. The internet is a cess pool of misinformation and information taken out of context. 

While we have always lost some bees from ag chems the losses are under 10% a year. the number ONE issue right now and has been since the 1990's is the varroa mite and the associated contamination of brood comb by beekeeper applied miticides. Like how hard is that to understand that chems beekeepers put willingly into hives far outweighs the nanograms of external contamination they might pickup. Beekeepers are not stupid and often place hives as I do in areas far from intense spraying and crops that are of no value to beekeepers. bees spend most of their time up here in basswood and sweet clover neither of which are ag crops and therefore have no chem residue. 

There is not a single bee researcher who considers GMO to be an issue for bees. Other then canola and cotton,

soybeans, corn , sugar beets and wheat are hardly or NEVER visited by bees. You theories are full of holes like Tom's well meaning but unsupported claims about GMO's. 

I don't have to keep bees to understand there is a serious problem.

And your argument that there isn't a serious problem with bees in this country makes everything you say, MUTE to me.

http://gardening.about.com/od/gardenproblems/a/OrganicPesticid.htm

http://www.extremelygreen.com/Product.cfm?Name=Thuricide - Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/hortcrop/h1106w.htm

http://intheloop.groworganic.com/tag/bt/

http://books.google.com/books?id=SAAsf4H8BocC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=organic+gardening+BT&source=bl&ots=Ff0tAIynHX&sig=wHD6wRR5PrMn901cT9QTDkVItxE&hl=en&ei=zkAtSpXlGduwtge3mbixCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=_u2i5A-tZdAC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=rodale+gardening+BT&source=bl&ots=G7wDTxGf9W&sig=88xT0V7wExbpNVU8NEYD8M8gZek&hl=en&ei=YkItSuXYNIWEtwepsoSwCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA339,M1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming

I know of two organic farmers in Boulder County, Colorado who don't use Bt, just to go showoff that their ocrn is indeed organic. Almost every single ear of corn has a worm in the tip. This is normal. This is natural, but OMFG - people who don't know the least thing about food and growing it would freak out if they saw it in the supermarket. And the supermarket produce manager would assume that the worm would spread to other produce and ruin his produce section. So s/he won't even bother to sell organic corn. Heck, even Whole Foods doesn't sell it very much at all.

But man, does it ever taste so good - the corn, not the worm.

I know of two organic farmers in Boulder County, Colorado who don't use Bt, just to go showoff that their corn is indeed organic. Almost every single ear of corn has a worm in the tip. This is normal. This is natural, but OMFG - people who don't know the least thing about food and growing it would freak out if they saw it in the supermarket. And the supermarket produce manager would assume that the worm would spread to other produce and ruin his produce section. So s/he won't even bother to sell organic corn. Heck, even Whole Foods doesn't sell it very much at all.

But man, does it ever taste so good - the corn, not the worm.

Sounds like a pollen problem to me.....

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJV-4W1BVD7-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4442c74b4a298bd2cacc238b6b9f5ac7

I also wanted to add that beekeepers have also used Bt sprays to control the wax moth - if Bt killed bees this would not be the case!

Entombed pollen is affecting bees!

Again, Bt does not kill honeybees, you are trying really hard to avoid acknowledging the information that I have posted here demonstrating that fact.

This is the same person, everyone, who said "fuck the molecule talk" above. When science disconfirms our beliefs, tha rational approach is to change those beliefs. The irrational one, however...

If you want to be 100% sure about everything you come into contact with, you couldn't do/eat/touch anything. Water, required for life, can kill you if you drink too much. "Naturally bred" plants can accumulate natural toxins that cause anything from skin irritation to death.

Research can tell us only limited things, it's true. Yes, there is a possibility that something was missed. Each individual paper can only tell us about the particular situation that was tested. It is only when many papers on a subject are accumulated that we can see the full picture. Regarding genetic engineering, the weight of all the papers is on the side of safety. No, every study that could potentially be done with genetic engineering or genetically engineered crops has been conducted. That's why science is always changing, always adapting to the new data. At some point, though, we can find some thing to be reasonably safe, and that's what has happened with genetic engineering.

If we waited until we knew 100% we would have nothing.

And regarding my statement regarding molecules and scientific explanations, if you want to convince the general public, you must be able to translate that information into layman's terms.

All I know is that pollen from nearby BT corn fields is negatively affecting the caddisfly larve when they consume it.

That is recently PROVEN.

So, I am looking at POLLEN problems.

You don't know if BT pollen is not affecting fungi and the article also stated that pesticides are also in the pollen.

Here is some interesting reading...

In a total of 108 pollen samples analyzed, 46 different pesticides including six of their metabolites were identified. Up to 17 different pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average of 5 different pesticide residues each.  Only three of the 108 pollen samples had no detectable pesticides. In a total of 88 wax samples analyzed, 20 different pesticides including two of their metabolites were identified. As was found in pollen, fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, and the fungicide chlorthalonil, were the most commonly detected pesticides with fluvalinate and coumaphos  detected in 100% of the samples.  

Unprecedented amounts of fluvalinate (up to 204 ppm) at high frequencies have been detected in brood nest wax, and pollen (bee bread). Changes in the formulation of fluvalinate over time resulting in a significant increase in toxicity to honey bees, makes this a serious concern. The large numbers and multiple kinds of pesticides that have been found could result in potentially toxic interactions for which there are no scientific studies to date. European researchers have found similar pesticides and frequencies in hive matrices and express similar concerns. Also these chronic levels of pesticides in pollen and wax at potentially acute toxicity levels need further investigation with regard to their potential interactions with other stressors (e.g. IAPV) and their potential contribution to CCD.  

Closing Remarks 

We know that pesticides are present in the food the bees are consuming, in the wax combs where they develop and live, and in the bees themselves. What we don’t know is how these chemical residues are affecting the bees. From February 2007 to the present,  $247,334 has been committed to our work on pesticide research. Of the $96,000 spent to date, $57,683 or 60% has been paid to the UDSA for pesticide residue analysis. If this service could be provided at a reduced cost, it would allow us to redirect our limited research dollars to understanding the impact pesticides are having on honey bees and other pollinators. 

For most of the last 20 years US beekeepers have had essentially only two registered chemical miticides to combat the most significant honey bee pest in the world, the varroa mite. Granted three “soft” materials have been registered more recently, but these are of limited use for our large commercial beekeepers. These materials require specific time and temperatures to work and often give sporadic results not amenable to migratory operations. There has been little effort invested in finding biologically-based alternatives to pesticides, including the most promising, the development of bees resistant to mites. Thus, the varroa mite, known to transmit diseases, possibly including the newly identified IAPV, and to impair the honey bee immune system has been largely ignored by industry and researchers, thus beekeepers have been left to their own devices to try to control it. Additionally, the chemical miticides being used to control varroa mites, accumulate in the wax combs and pollen reserves and are possibly contributing to the bee’s demise as much as they are controlling the mites.  For the beekeeping industry to survive we must have safe, effective varroa mite control methods. This will only happen if significant new resources are focused in this direction.  

While in the long run honey bees will most likely survive, our beekeepers may not. In an effort to keep their bees alive and their businesses afloat, and to meet critical pollination contracts they have pushed themselves to the limits financially, emotionally and physically during the past 18 months. Direct financial assistance is overdue, and is critical to their survival, or next years agricultural pollination needs will not be met.  One immediate small step would be to exempt beekeepers from paying the sugar tariff on sugar used to feed their bees. I urge the committee to consider these five suggestions for improving our efforts to find the cause or causes for CCD and save our pollination industry before it is too late.  

I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and would be happy to answer any questions.  
 

Read the whole article here...and anyone who says the bee industry isn't in turmoil, should not be listened to whatsoever in anything they say here...the GOVERNMENT knows they are in peril. It's odd a person who claims to be a bee keeper disagrees...

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:I8yvzFMfLFMJ:agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h80626/Frazier.doc+entombed+pollen&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

I don't think any evidence is going to convince you that GE is a bad idea when it comes to food, fibers, or anything else. And no info you could bring from Monsanto, or anywhere else is going to sway me. You may trust the industry to not to steer you wrong, but I am going to take a step back for a moment and describe the situation from my point of view.

Monsanto gave us Aspartame, DDT, Agent Orange, rBGH, RoundUp, RR corn, soy, and canola, and sugarbeets and BT corn, and cotton, along with many others, not approved (yet). They've been sued in almost every country they've operated in, many times. They poisoned a Georgia community and lied about it. They snuck these GE foods past the regulatory agencies by placing their own in the FDA and USDA. They have sued farmers for unknowingly being contaminated, and been caught bribing officials and scientists. They are a chemical company. It's like buying food from Dow, or DuPont..."Ask Sherwinn-Williams" IFood is not their business, RoundUp is. And they probably don't give a sh*t about it, or you, or me. Glyphosate has been shown to ruin the soil after long-term application, and has created so-called superweeds. The principle of "Substantial Equivalence" is beyond me, too. You even claim it's a "snippet of DNA" different. Something strange is going on when some one can get a patent on something, meaning it's unlike anything made before, but not have to label it in our food, claiming it's exactly the same as the other (native) crops. It's like getting a patent on an MP3 player, then calling it an Ipod, and putting it on the shelf with all the other Ipods, as an Ipod, but Steve Jobs gets screwed out of market-share. 

Then there's Bayer. Bayer gave 1000's of hemophiliacs AIDS by selling them AIDS-infected medicine. The FDA banned the sale of it in the US after finding contamination of AIDS, so bayer just shipped it overseas and sold it. Bayer CropScience developed LibertyLink rice, and StarLink corn, which was engineered to resist Liberty herbicide. However, the unapproved-for-human-consumption crops of both these were found in the [human] food supply. They can't even keep their test subjects on a leash. True Frankenfood.

Now, regardless of the science, which I have yet to see any convincing, long-term, independent studies done on GE foods, I would not support these companies based on MORAL grounds. They suck, ethically. I will not give any biotech companies any money until I see peer reviewed, conclusive data that these foods are safe, AND that the GE process is doing something for the consumer. So far, BT and RR crops have only provided less work for farmers, and have no cost, health, or environmental benefits. Why, if I don't save money, or assume any other benefits, would I want to support this? The hard part is knowing what foods don't contain GE ingredients.  There really are very few, as I have come to find out. Even items listed as "Organic" are questionable, due to the possibility of contamination, or lack of clarity about procedure due to ambiguous terminology in the NOP guidelines. And companies DO lie. I am a proponent of science, and biotech, in that a level head has to be kept, and we can't rush to judgement. If there were a way to separate corporate greed from biotech, there is a great possibility to do amazing things. However, when profit is even remotely involved, science, scientists, and otherwise morally-sound individuals will do unlikely things.

Basically, I have not seen any GE crops that are actually beneficial to the consumer, who, as per my understanding, should drive the market based on demand.  Not many people are demanding GE foods, and the reality is, most don't even know they are eating them. However, everyone that I've talked to has stated that if GE foods were labeled as such, they would not buy them. Why? Probably not science-based reasons, but more like what many animals who refuse to eat GE crops rely on. Instinct. If we even have any left. 

I'm gonna go ahead and bow out, having said my piece. Anastasia, I really hope you will take truth as the authority, rather than the other way around when it comes to making decisions about your food, health, and where your dollar goes. Voting with your dollar, and your fork, are the best ways to support companies that are more inline with your ethical, and moral principles. 

Oh, and chemically the RR sugarbeet sugar and native beet sugar might be the same, but ponder this: "A live human body has just as many particles as a dead one. Structurally, they are the same." 

The 2007 caddisfly-Bt study by Rosi-Marshall that you mentioned has been debunked by several experts in the field. The researchers unfortunately made inappropriate conclusions from their work, and other scientists have called them on it. I wrote about it in Even scientists make mistakes or you can view the challenges to the paper directly at PNAS: Beachy and Parrott. One paper is never enough to make a definitive statement. It is only with an accumulation of papers that the reality of a situation shows through.

Pesticides sprays on crops and within the hives themselves are contributing to stress which makes the bees susceptible to diseases and parasites. This has nothing to do with Bt crops.

"All I know is that pollen from nearby BT corn fields is negatively affecting the caddisfly larve when they consume it."

Which shows that you haven't bothered to read and comprehend this information. Let me state it clearly for you - the research you are bringing up about pesticide residues in pollen are finding pesticides (that have been sprayed) in pollen, suggesting that it is adverse affecting bees. They have not found any hint that Bt in GE crops has affected bees. We know from many published studies that Bt in pollen does not kill the bees. This is an established fact. When you put two and two together, the logical result is four.

Something in pollen killing bees + Bt pollen not killing bees = something other than Bt in pollen is killing bees. Why are you willfully avoiding this conclusion? I know you are smart enough to get it.

"Peaceiscomoingforyou" beat you to the punch:

Until the industrialization of food, there was no such thing as a food-borne illness. "Science" told us it was okay to feed cows to cows. "Science" once told us that cigarettes did not cause lung cancer. "Science" once told us that DDT was safe for our children to play around while it was sprayed. Many other things have been pushed on consumers as safe, by big industry, until years later it turns out to be false. Now it is common knowledge that these substances are unsafe. Why is it so much of a stretch to think the "science" surrounding the subject of GE foods is any more reliable? Sound science, removed from agribusiness, is much needed. I think there is a very good chance, given time, that this correlation between the interests of big-business, and the lack of safety surrounding many of the products they are pushing on us, will come to light and a few generations from now, just like I question how doctors were allowed to smoke in hospitals, our children will question how we let Monsanto, and others, dupe us so egregiously, without demanding clear, independent, long-term research.  We will be made to look like fools, and by then we will be living in "a transgenic world ", as Monsanto states their goal is in numerous adverts. Doom and gloom? Maybe. Considering that big-biotech has hired former big-tobacco marketing teams, and lobbyists, I don't think so.

This is a clear statement from this person that they are not open to having their beliefs disproven by anything. Peaceiscomingforyou has admitted that they are closed-minded, while trying to make some sort of equivalent statement about Anastasia.

Although they indicate that there are some things in biotech that they would like to see later in their comment, they state that no information can convince them that their current beliefs about the technology are wrong. What are we to make of this? Trying to have it both ways?

You cannot say that you are pro-science and also say that no information from anywhere will change your opinion. Peaceiscomingforyou, Welcome to the Flat-Earth Society.

With all of the problems with capitalism, one might say we need far more public agricultural research, but that costs a lot of money. One way to raise money for development is with patents. Of course, the patenting of genes for any purpose is undoubtedly a major ethical and practical problem. If individuals and companies weren't able to protect their work, there would be little impetus to develop anything new - but we know there are a lot of problems with patenting life. One solution is to go totally open source like CAMBIA. Another solution is to have a conditional patent that protects the intellectual property but allows people below a certain financial threshold to use the plants without penalty. I don't think any solution is going to be perfect, but this is all a legal problem, which has nothing to do with the science of genetic engineering.

If you want to consider the science of genetic engineering - there has been a wealth of independent research - but it sounds like most people can't be bothered to read it. Instead, most want to continue claiming that there isn't any independent research and focusing on a few long debunked or misunderstood studies. However, if you decide you have a moment, check out this list of independent safety assessments (and feel free to ask questions at GMO pundit too, since he compiled the list). Of course it isn't an exhaustive list, but you will get the idea.

As for what Bt and RR have done for you - think about what they were designed to do. Bt replaces an insecticide. This has allowed yields to go up (because less of the crop is eaten by insects) while taking toxic insecticides out of the environment (including all the insecticides that we KNOW kill bees). RR allows the farmer to replace toxic herbicides like atrazine with the relatively benign herbicide glyphosate. This isn't perfect! It would certainly be better if farmers used methods that didn't require any herbicides or insecticides, but that's not going to happen. If it did, food prices would skyrocket due to yield loss with weed competition and insect damage.Think about how expensive organic is compared to conventional. The price difference is partially due to marketing, but a good portion is because growing food organically is expensive.

There might be ways to make it less expensive though, by combining sustainable methods with science to develop a new type of farming. I challenge you to read Tomorrow's Table, a book by a genetic engineer and an organic farmer who show ways that organic farming methods might be complemented with crops containing certain genetic improvements. They make a strong argument for organic as well as for genetic engineering, explaining everything in laymans terms while providing peer-reviewed references for anyone who wants to read the research for themselves. There is a Google Book preview here.

It is a shame that Bt and RR are the only GM crops that we've seen, but the blame for that can be placed on activists that prevent research into much else. Luckily some researchers are pushing on and have created some incredibly helpful GM crops. The first that comes to mind is virus resistant papaya, which is discussed in Tomorrow's Table. I won't provide any links because you'd probably think they were tainted just from me providing them. I challenge you to look it up (preferably from a variety of sources) and think about it for yourself.

Finally, I just wanted to reiterate what has been said before. If you have to resort to insults, then you might want to do a bit more research on your own claims. Also, before you make any claims, it helps to be able to back it up with more than gut feelings and rumors. These issues are complicated (ethical, social, environmental, legal, and on and on) and require a lot of untangling even before getting down to the "fucking molecule talk". Agriculture is complex. If we're going to bother talking about it, let's do it justice by doing our homework.

They article rebuting the IU research on BT negatively affecting caddisflies was insufficient. They didn't prove it wasn't true. They only questioned it.

However, that PNAS site gave evidence of BT negatively affecting Monarch butterlies.

THANKS for that information.

Gee, Germany has banned some GMO maize seeds.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/432.germany_aigner_bans_mon810_bt_maize.html

And many other European countries have followed suit.

Let's hope all those farmers committing suicide in India over their new GM crops will stop further penetration of GM there...

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ban-both-bt-cotton-and-bt-brinjal-in-india/417641/

Maybe they will have not died in vain.

When a company has helicopters which fly over fields to see if their seed has been harvested from a previous crop and then try to sue farmers, there is a huge problem in our society.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1929

Why should we trust a company which developed a drug to inject into dairy cows in order to produce more milk, when there is a milk surplus and farmers are now going out of business and hundreds of thousands of dairy cows are being sent to slaughter as a result of it????

I love the French...they have banned GM corn also...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUKLC50438220090212

Anastasia, who pays you to blog?

And Inoculated Mind, you can't prove that BT products are not affecting bees because there is not enough research as yet.

A prudent nation would fund as much research as possible to find that out.

But, I guess the Washington lobbyists just keep that from happening.

I don't eat processed foods. I am not obese like the majority of Americans.

And I don't eat anything GMO either.

Seems a bit odd to me...

When even the government knows it is....

Many of us do this because we can't stand to have people use lies and fear to scare people who don't understand the science. http://xkcd.com/386/

And it is funny, because some of the same people want to rely on the authority of science on other topics. 

BAYER!!!!!!!!!!

To me this is one of the most interesting less understood stories within the story of the so called missing bees. To this day comaphous is still being used under a section 18 so called emergency label while the evidence keeps mounting of synergistic effects between compaphous and fluvalinate and also that just compaphous reduces sperm count in drones and causes most queen bees to not be fertile. 

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493(2002)095[0028:EOFACO]2.0.CO;2

You haven't even read it. You can't plug your ears and say that there is no music playing because you are unwilling to hear it.

Also, the criticisms of the Caddisfly research don't prove that they were not harmed, but they demonstrate that the caddisfly research did not prove that they were harmed. A subtle distinction, but important.

There is a real issue when it comes to people who are educated in a particular field trying to have a conversation with those who are not educated in it. That is, people like Alida feel left out and restricted from contributing. Not restricted by any outside force, but by their unfamiliarity and lack of background knowledge that is necessary to understand the "fucking molecule talk" that Alida so derides. But we are talking about molecules, which can sometimes be really complicated, and sometimes really simple to understand.

It is imperative on those who are well educated in this field to help those that want to contribute to the discussion to understand these things so that they can contribute to the discussion, and it is equally imperative that people who wish to be a part of the discussion realize that there is a lot they may need to learn. Just as it may be arrogant for an educated person to tell those who are not that they can have no say, it is even more arrogant for someone who is uneducated to assert that the limits of their imagination are a substitute for reality.

For those who wish the learn more, and continue in civil discussion, check out our blogs Biofortified and Genetic Maize. Graduate students who are willing to talk about genetics and genetic engineering for free for hours on end until you know it all? What a deal! People pay fifty bucks an hour for this, more if there's an upcoming midterm.

Maybe I was unclear. "No info you could bring me from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience or any other biotech company, or any "scientist" who could benefit from the research, therefor creating a conflict of interest, could sway me," is my revised statement. Independent third-party testing of GE seeds, or crops is very hard to do. It is illegal to obtain any of these things without signing a release from these companies that you will not do any scientific testing on them. Arpad Pusztai has some very compelling things to say. I go not only based on "science", which in the cases of DDT, cigarettes, Mad Cow, and many other consumer issues has been greatly flawed in its infancy, but on the track record of the companies in question. I am not anti-science, I am anti-faith-based-corporate-driven science. I believe the earth is round, but consider this: The first people who started publicizing their beliefs of a round-earth, or a helio-centric universe, were ostracized by the existing scientific community which held firm beliefs in a flat earth. The existence of germs is another widely held belief today, when in fact, in it's infancy proponents of germ theory were crucified by the scientific community.  Having your beliefs challenged is very hard, but is necessary in the pursuit of sound science. Sound science is something, when industry-led studies are conducted, no matter the field, that is hard to come by.  Firestone, PhenPhen, HydroxyCut, Saccharin, DDT, Splenda, Agent Orange, Ambien, Mad Cow, Asbestos, Vioxx, and hundreds, if not thousands more are good examples of scientific testing proven to be inaccurate, tampered-with, or generally misleading verging on the border of fraudulent. Questioning everything is the only way to achieve sound science. So, as I've said many times before, long-term, peer-reviewed, independent studies are needed to show the safety of these crops that already comprise 70% of the consumer food items available. Considering the secrecy surrounding these GE crops, and their food counterparts. Basically, the corn, etc. I was eating before was fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I would rather err on the side of caution. Hey, I'd be fine with just passing legislation to require labeling so that I can make an informed CHOICE, as a consumer, as to whether I trust the validity of the science behind these things. Labeling is not just a safety matter, either. Products are required to be labeled as "Made from concentrate" simply to inform consumers of the process. I think it's justifiable to ask to know that foods made using GE processes are labeled as such. Hindsight is 20/20, but I'd rather not have adverse health effects because I chose to take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority. And if they are totally safe, then hey, you were right all along! Yay! But as long there is a question as to the safety of GE foods, I'll stick to the ones that don't require e.coli, or a gene gun, to be manufactured.

 Okay, "IM", then if three of you (or whomever you refer to as "our" blogs), then who pays you all to blog or gives you any consideration at all to post and try to drive people there by posting on sites all over the 'net on GM foods? There are companies which are giving free samples to moms who blog about their products. What's your reward? Cheers!

I have been writing my own blog at The Inoculated Mind for several years, frequently about the same topic along with several other subjects. As I am also studying plant genetics, and have a passion for science journalism and communication, I decided to start a group blog about plant genetics to bring together a community of scientists to write about this topic and help educate the public. I created some space on my own server account and built it last summer, and launched in on Halloween. I invited Anastasia, a former professor of mine, and another professor in Australia to join the group blog and they did.

What's my reward? Well, I must admit that all the big biotech companies pay me in experimental hormone-injected GMO corn meal. Mmmm... Ovulicious. No, seriously, my reward is to be a part of the overall discussion, to learn about this fascinating topic, and to educate others who have not had the benefit of an education in genetics but want to learn about the genetics of the food they eat. How would GE seed companies send me free samples? A little hybrid corn and a bottle of roundup? No, I'm afraid no one is paying me any money or giving me gifts to write on Biofortified or my own blog. And the weeds in my backyard - I pull them myself with no herbicide freebies (or paysies) to help in that.

Alida - I have been very clear that I am not paid to blog - you really have a talent for not reading what you don't want to read. In your world, genetic engineering is only promoted by companies that stand to make a profit, and there can be no neutral commentators. How many times have you been asking repeatedly "who pays you?" like a broken record because the thought does not occur to you that someone could be writing about something because it is fun, interesting, and very important for people to know about? In fact, graduate students like Anastasia and myself put ourselves at risk, because there are not many outspoken plant geneticists - who would prefer to stick to doing research over getting in the public spotlight - we stand to lose just as much as we could gain from volunteering our time to do this.

For those who slogged through all of this, thanks for reading, and Alida, thanks for not-reading. It is easier when your opponent does not bother to address your points. See you the next time this perennial topic comes up.

Karl J. Haro von Mogel

P.S. peaceiscomingforyou: You can read the hundreds of safety studies done by independent researchers at the GMO Pundit. You are right to not take company-driven reports at face value, but wrong to form your opinion of the technology without first seeking the independent, peer-reviewed science. With the way you put "Science" in quotes and claim that "Until the industrialization of food, there was no such thing as a food-borne illness." (which is false), I suspect that there is an underlying pseudo-religious faith leading you to your preferred conclusion, sans science. Think about the analogy to the shape of the Earth that you continued and ask yourself, which of us is demonstrating their position with peer-reviewed science and which is using insults, personal attacks, and grandstanding to avoid addressing those points?

I'm out.

THAT is only your opinion and not based on fact.

You don't seem to read any of the links I post.

Many professors get paid for research by the companies they tout.

There are too many people negatively affected by GMO products and Round UP Ready products. You have stated that Round Up Ready doesn't kill insects, but it kills the food they depend on...in the micro-food chain.

I have shown that BT products ARE affecting Monarch butterflies and even research at IU on caddisiflies, but you want to refute that with lame rebuttal research.

All I have stated is that more research needs to be done, but evidently you don't want any of that.

Both of you come to sites to debate and drive people to your website...Anastasia tries to act like her blog is for an "eco-geek", which is far far from what her blog is really all about.

Sorry, you can't try to make me out to be a fool, when it takes people like you to try to argue for GMO, which is being forced on the American people without free choice.