Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

And before anyone brings up the Seralini study.

Sprague-Dawley rats are predisposed to randomly grow tumors. And his Sample size was too small. He also didn't have a control sample. He also chose to feed the rats both Roundup and RR Maize. Which sort of contaminates his results as it doesn't show one or the other.

He's also the head of a Homeopathic company. It was not an "Independent" study.

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/17/2014 at 2:01 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

"Species Barriers" is bullshit. There is no such thing as a "Fish Gene" and a "Food Gene"

You share 50% of your DNA with a Banana. At the molecular level it's all genes.

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/17/2014 at 1:55 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

"Subsequent epidemiological studies[39][40][41] however, were able to pinpoint the syndrome to those exposed to specific batches of L-tryptophan supplied by a single large Japanese manufacturer, Showa Denko KK.[42] It eventually became clear that the cause had not been the tryptophan itself, but rather that flaws in Showa Denko's 1980s manufacturing process (long since corrected) had allowed trace impurities to contaminate these batches, and those impurities were in turn responsible for the 1989 EMS outbreak.[38][42][43][44] Against this backdrop, the FDA rescinded its restriction on sales and marketing of tryptophan in February 2001, but continued to ban importation.[42]"

Seems that impurities is what caused the problem. Not so much modification.

Mutagenic production is GE and has been around since the 1940s, 75% of all grapefruits are "Rio-Red" which comes from an irradiated seed. Furthermore there are a number of Mutagenic crops that are used in organic farming.

For the record Bt spores are regularly sprayed on organic crops. It's a myth that that large scale organic farms don't use pesticides. In fact there is a list on the USDA website that lists what pesticides are acceptable to use in organic farming.

In fact, the pesticides used in Organic farming are far more ineffective than say RoundUp with it's rather large spectrum.

The number 1 used pesticide in Organic farming? Sulfur.

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/17/2014 at 1:51 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

GE (GMO) foods safe? "Radical Medicine" p 177 discusses the dangerous consequences of GE. In 1990 the GE form of L-tryptophan caused 37 deaths and 1500 cases of permanent disability. What was our govt's response? The FDA banned the GE AND the blameless natural form of this nutrient rather than investigate the GE form. Independent [not paid for by the GE producer] scientific research on GE foods is rare, but what has been done shows link between GE foods and the increase in the number and types of cancer. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of bad consequences. Consumer beware! Eat organic.

2 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/17/2014 at 10:40 AM

Re: “Youth riot again, GMO battle lopsided, another city severance deal

xcellent selection of quotes
“Indeed, the use of more
precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods; and if there are unforeseen environmental effects - none have appeared as yet - these should be rapidly detected by our monitoring requirements. On the other hand, the benefits of these plants and products for human health and the environment become increasingly clear.”
--European Commission, Press Release of 8 October 2001, announcing the release of 15 year study incl 81 projects/70M euros, 400 teams (
and )
“The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies…”
“…because the technique is so sophisticated, in many ways it is probably safer for you to eat GM products - plants that have been generated through GM - than normal plant foods, if you
have any sort of reaction to food, because you can snip out the proteins that cause the negative reaction to certain parts of the population."
--Sir David King, Chief Science Advisor, UK. The Guardian Unlimited, 27 November 2007
“In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each
phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food.” (p. x).
--National Academy of Sciences, 2004. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Research Council, Washington DC. 256pp.
ISBN 0-309-53194-2.
"…in consuming food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the
contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health."
--- Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities. Commission Green Biotechnology, InterAcademy Panel Initiative on Genetically Modified Organisms. Group of the
International Workshop Berlin 2006. “Are there health hazards for the consumer from eating genetically modified food?”
“If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or
environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.”
Anne Glover, Chief Scientific
Adviser, European Commission, 2012
“GMO products have been tested to a particularly high extent and are subjected to rigid legislation control.”
--Commission on Green Biotechnology, Union of the German Academies of Science & Humanities, at
“Food from GM Maize is more healthy than from conventionally grown maize… samples with the highest fumonisin concentrations are found in products labeled ‘organic.’ ”
--Commission on Green Biotechnology, Union of the German Academies of Science & Humanities, at
“…the dangers of unintentional DNA mutation are much higher in the process of conventional plant breeding…than in the generation of GM plants. Furthermore, GM products are subject to
rigid testing with livestock and rats before approval.”
--Commission on Green Biotechnology, Union of the German Academies of Science &
Humanities, at
“Whereas for conventional varieties there is no legal requirement for allergy tests of their products, for GMO products, very strict allergy tests are mandatory… For this reason, the risk of GM plants causing allergies can be regarded as substantially lower than that of products from conventional breeding.”
--Commission on Green Biotechnology, Union of the German Academies of Science & Humanities, at
As for claims of “unexpected effects” – to date there are none reported, and “According to present scientific knowledge, it is most unlikely that the consumption of …transgenic DNA from approved GMO food harbors any recognizable health risk.”
--Commission on Green Biotechnology, Union of the German Academies of Science &
Humanities, at
“There is abundant and accumulating evidence from extensive worldwide experience for benefit, and lack of evidence for environmental or human health risk associated with GM crop technology.”
“There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute
to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”
European Sciences Advisory Council 2013 report-Planting
the Future;
“The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion:
consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
“Several current efforts to require labeling of GM foods are not being driven by any credible scientific evidence that these foods are dangerous, AAAS said. Rather, GM labeling initiatives are being advanced by “the persistent perception that such foods are somehow ‘unnatural,’” as well as efforts to gain competitive
advantages within the marketplace, and the false belief that GM crops are untested.”
American Association for the Advancement of Science 2012…

Posted by Robert Wager on 10/17/2014 at 10:33 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

"Produced with Genetic Engineering" is such a broad label. Technically all food we eat today have undergone some genetic engineering at some point. Be it through Mutagenics, Crossbreeding, Selective Breeding... or even Transgenics which this bill is technically about. The food we eat today is nothing like the food from 100 especially 10000 years ago. It demonizes and is discriminatory toward one form of genetic engineering while failing to recognize that there are other forms that are in regular use today. While it can be said that transgenic crops can be potentially harmful. This could be said for all breeding as well. Apricot pits for example contain cyanide naturally as it's own pesticide

There are 1700+ peer reviewed studies, along with a trillion meal study done over 18 years which show that the Transgenic crops used in the world's food suppy are perfectly safe to eat. All the major science boards in the world including the WHO have determined that the foods in production today are perfectly safe.

The label does nothing and creates more complications in the food line than does to solve anything. You might as well slap a label on all food ever.

The label is a meaningful way to scare people who don't understand science.

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/17/2014 at 10:28 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Robert Wager - stop trying to confuse the issue about GMOs. G = genetically, M = Modified and O = Organism. GMOs are organisms and organisms are things as in genetically engineered ingredients. Besides processes such as pasteurization are labeled anyways.

7 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Caroline Yunker on 10/16/2014 at 3:47 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Wow, GREAT information Jan Woods! Thank you!

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Tracy Madlener on 10/16/2014 at 12:24 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Robert Wagner, just because something has not been routinely done UP UNTIL NOW is no reason not to catch the error, when it is one. GMO is a breeding method and it is also a product. The breeding method, accomplished in a lab, creates new lifeforms by crossing species barriers that could never occur outside a laboratory. GMO is a product as well as a process. Therefore it needs to be labeled--perhaps doubly so! Breeding methods have in recent decades begun to use processes that can endanger human health. Food is denatured, irradiated and induced to make it's own synthetic pesticides and changed at the level of DNA in ways that would never occur outside a lab. Food (mad) scientists, driven by for-profit concerns, paid by chemical companies to contaminate seed and food crops, have crossed a line. I want those processes and their resulting products labeled. YES on Prop 105.

10 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Jan Woods on 10/16/2014 at 12:05 PM

Re: “Off to the races

Mr. Schlierf, you write, "On the issue of Federal Government inflating tuition, there are a number of reports i.e.[sic]"

First of all, you have not demonstrated "there are a number of reports" by citing this one pitiful example. Second, this report is an economic analysis by a political science professor published by the Cato Institute. With all those reports out there, you could not find one from an actual economist published in a peer-reviewed journal? Third, this report does not call delve into all government spending on higher education, only the student aid. Even an arch-conservative professor is careful of his own bread and butter and does not question what effect the grant money that funds all sorts of pet projects, both praiseworthy and dubious, has on tuition.

The bottom line, according to this report, is that student aid results in more people wanting to become students and earn college degrees. This increases the demand side of the classic supply vs. demand equation, resulting in higher tuition. The only non-governmental, private sector solution to this problem is to cut student aid and discourage young people from trying to get college degrees. Simply put, don't go to college and you won't go into debt--problem solved!

Since I do not live in the district, I will not have the pleasure of voting against you, Mr. Schlierf.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mr. K-- on 10/15/2014 at 8:51 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

One has to wonder how safe GMO's are if the company that produces them is spending more money to get this proposition shut down then it would cost them to actually label the product. What are they trying to hide? My kids are chemically sensitive--I have to read every label before I can give them food. It is my right to know what is in their food so I can make important decisions about their health!! Vote YES on 105!

14 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Jodi Parker on 10/15/2014 at 7:04 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

I want GMO foods labeled so I won't make the mistake of buying them. Big Ag's motives re resisting labeling are obvious. They're afraid an informed public will not only avoid buying GMO products - like they avoid HFCS and MSG and GLUTEN, regardless of how cheap the corn tortillas may be - but they will demand govt put a stop to GMO seeds. How many years did it take for the research to come in about how harmful trans-fats are? I'm not waiting for all the facts to be made known about GMOs - this could take decades - and so I buy Certified Organic, which guarantees there are no GMOs.

As for Big Ag's lie that labeling will raise costs, the organic certification process raises costs ... on organic producers. Industrial farms and their govt co-conspirators are squeezing out the small local farmers - and they're the ones producing the healthy food that's fit to eat.

VOTE YES on 105.

14 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/15/2014 at 5:40 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

GE is a breeding method not an ingredient. We don't label food made with ionizing radiation mutagenesis or chemical mutagenesis. We label food based on the ingredients not how the food crops were derived in the first place.

6 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Robert Wager on 10/15/2014 at 3:58 PM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

If we're talking about the City for Champions stadium, the current plan includes over $200 million in local public funding. The money would be collected from more than 9,400 cash registers located throughout 90% of the city. Some people inaccurately believe the State would pay for the stadium. The State's portion, at most, would cover less than 9% of the cost, and that money is not guaranteed.

24 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Anita Laydon Miller on 10/15/2014 at 2:47 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

I want to know what is in my food. Don't you?

Unfortunately, the money is rolling into Colorado to get you to vote no on 105. Don't believe it; vote YES on Prop 105.

Most of us are not aware how genetically modified foods are damaging our health. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) were introduced into our food supplies in 1996 by Monsanto. Monsanto modified the seed DNA of corn, wheat, soy, sugar beets, canola, alfalfa, and cotton to tolerate high levels of Monsanto’s herbicide called Roundup.

If you want to know what GMO wheat does to us, read the book "Wheat Belly."

An unfortunate side effect is that the crops absorb dangerous amounts of Roundup. Another unfortunate side effect is that it takes increasingly higher levels of Roundup to kill the weeds as the weeds adapt. According to the USDA the use of Roundup has increased 12 fold since genetically modified crops were introduced in 1996.

In addition, Monsanto adds the insecticide BT to the DNA of corn, soy, and canola. The insecticide works by bursting the stomachs of the insects that eat the crop. According to Wikipedia approximately 90% of the corn, soy, sugar beets, and canola produced in the United States are genetically modified. The end result is that our health is in danger because of the ever increasing amounts of herbicides and insecticides in food that we eat.

Like cigarettes in the 60’s, this is a situation that has been swept under the rug. My fear is that the consequences may be even greater. For decades they lied to us about tobacco, they lie to us about almost everything when big money is at stake. Vote YES on Prop 105.

18 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by OldCrank on 10/15/2014 at 2:44 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Here is the link of the study that shows Roundup is the most toxic out of 9 pesticides tested.

14 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Caroline Yunker on 10/15/2014 at 2:42 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Any rational person will come to the conclusion that eating toxic pesticides cannot be healthy for anyone. And eating GMOs is eating toxic pesticides. In fact in a recent study - Roundup was found to be the most toxic out of 9 pesticides tested. Those so-called studies that show GMOs are safe to consume are funded by the chemical companies. The FDA does NOT do independent safety testing of GMOs. Instead the FDA "evaluates" studies provided to them by the Chemical Companies. I don't need any FAKE studies to see our children are SICK.

For me the bottom line is that mothers have the RIGHT to KNOW if she is feeding her babies GMO soy infant formula? Or feeding her children GMO cereals. Mothers in 64 other countries can make an informed decision about the food they buy. Why not here?

21 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Caroline Yunker on 10/15/2014 at 2:36 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Labeling, information about a product, is a way that companies can alert the consumer: "Here is it! Here is my great product! And here is why you should buy it right now!" The fact that GMOs are NOT labeled leads to the obvious conclusion that while they are beneficial to the company that uses them in some way (cheap, government subsidized, made for pennies in a lab), they have nothing of value to offer the consumer--and may be of lesser quality or even harmful. Just like the artificial colors and man-made chemicals that have replaced real food in much of processed foods, GMOs are less nutritious than non-GMO foods, less healthful and even carry health risks according to several independent scientific studies (while industry studies of course conclude they are "safe") GMOs are not labeled because labeling allows for tracing its effects in consumers, and could therefore reveal that populations who eat GMO vs. those who do not, have more health complaints. Not labeling shows a lack of confidence on the part of companies who use GMOs, to say the least. Fighting labeling to the tune of almost 30 million in just a few years? That shows a desire to hide information. Labeling could have been paid for a hundred times over for that amount--a thousand. What are they trying to hide? Vote yes on Prop. 105 and let the free market decide on this product.

16 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Jan Woods on 10/15/2014 at 1:31 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Wether people agree or don't agree with the safety of GMOs, the right to know if our food is genetically engineered is something that benefits everybody.

16 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Tracy Madlener on 10/15/2014 at 1:17 PM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

If you'd like information about where to sign a petition, or would like a petition to circulate yourself, please contact me at ANITA.L.MILLER@ATT.NET. The cause also has a Facebook page: Petition with a mission.
Thank you!…

23 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Anita Laydon Miller on 10/15/2014 at 12:46 PM

All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation