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

@Steven Shaver, not one of those 1700 prove GMOs are safe for human consumption. The fact that you cite the trillion meal study as any kind of evidence of safety at all tells me you have fallen for the GMO biotech company lies or you are deliberately trying to mislead people. Ninety five percent of the animals in that study were from 49 day old broiler chickens! Super short term studies prove nothing when it comes to safety. The remaining five percent were mostly cattle that were also killed way before their life expectancy. In other words those studies are worthless and they have already been debunked. By the way, if you think Round Up is so safe I'm sure you would be willing to drink it, but many of us want GMOs labeled so we can avoid it.

8 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Debbie Owen on 10/18/2014 at 3:08 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

@Steven Shaver. Glyphosate kills our GOOD GUT BACTERIA! Google "GMO + Glyphosate + Dr. Stephanie Seneff." That's why we have an explosion of health issues with our digestive system.

10 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Caroline Yunker on 10/18/2014 at 9:47 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

@Steven Shaver The Seralini Study used the SAME type of rats that Monsanto used. Furthermore, Seralini used twice the # of rats and their studies was for 2 years. Monsanto's study last anywhere from 30-90 days. Obviously you did not read the Seralini Study. The test was conducted using many different combinations of glyphosate and corn. Stop buying the lies perpetuated by Monsanto.

9 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Caroline Yunker on 10/18/2014 at 9:40 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Here is the other side of the GMO story, from the recent "Seeds of Doubt" conference in Broomfield, Colorado (on October 11th). I would encourage everyone to watch these films.

4 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Sandra Knauf on 10/18/2014 at 9:09 AM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Vote YES on labeling--64 countries have this, even Russia, China and India. It's ridiculous to make any argument against. As consumers it is our right to know--PERIOD. No one should have the power to "decide" otherwise. The thing that is most shocking to me is that people do not truly know what a GMO IS--that these are organisms that would never be able to be produced naturally in nature (or by humankind's hand in the greenhouse or field), they are laboratory combinations of not only different species, but different phylum. These companies are producing "foods" that the human body has not evolved to ingest. These are foreign substances. Since their introduction we have seen all the problems predicted occur--genetic contamination in wild species, death of beneficial pollinators, the need for ever-increased doses of toxic pesticides, superweeds. Furthermore, we have seen a huge increase in certain afflictions. In our children today, known to many as “Generation Rx”:

One in 13 has a food allergy.
One in 68 has autism.
One in 10 suffers from asthma.

Hence, one in three children is afflicted by allergies, asthma, ADHD, or autism.

(This information came from a GMO conference last week, quoted from Robyn O'Brien, expert in this subject.)

I think it is irresponsible of The Independent to be wishy-washy on this one and lazy in its research: it is our right to have properly labeled food.

11 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Sandra Knauf on 10/18/2014 at 8:38 AM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

Ion Cscityhall is either Bach, Cox, or one of their stooges.

26 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by bobdobbs on 10/17/2014 at 6:56 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

I amend my previous statement about sulfur to actually

Copper Sulphate…

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

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

@ Ion Cscityhall, Sounds like you should move to antarctica.

23 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by radical 1 on 10/17/2014 at 5:00 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

The difference between Conventional Corn and RR Corn is 2 amino acids. Also Corn can't reproduce without the help of humans to replant it.

Furthermore, mutations happen in nature all the time. Also "Messing with Mother Nature" is a logical fallacy (Appeal to Nature actually). All the food we eat today are a result of modification through selective breeding, hybridization, mutagenics, transgenics and other subsets of those semi broad categories.

8 likes, 16 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/17/2014 at 4:07 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

The Sierra Club gives another reason to be scared stiff of GE seeds: "Here you are creating millions of novel organisms ... and then releasing them into the environment ... and once released, cannot be recalled or contained. It will not dilute but rather reproduce, disseminate, and mutate. It is unstoppable." ["Radical Medicine" p.179] MUTATE!! Expect new viruses and diseases to result from tampering with Mother Nature.

GE proponents fund the research that says GE foods are OK. GE companies who profit from the sale of GE seeds and products made from them are funding the campaign to prevent labeling. They want an ignorant and compliant public, one that is unaware that GE products come from a laboratory test tube. Our govt won't protect us. We have to protect ourselves. Vote Yes on 105.

6 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/17/2014 at 3:22 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

I don't know, why is Vegemite banned in the US? The FDA just banned the importation of certain Bleu Cheeses even.

Hell for a long time Kobe (Not to be confused with "Kobe Style" or "Wagyu" Beef) had been banned in the US because the practices used to produce the beef was against rules and regulations set forth by the FDA. (They've recently allowed a small amount to hit the US markets, but only like .1% of the entire market)

These are all things that are seen as perfectly safe as well. But they're not allowed to be imported into the US.

7 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/17/2014 at 2:54 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

"the FDA rescinded its restriction on sales and marketing of tryptophan in February 2001, but continued to ban importation.[42]"

Has Japan not corrected their mfg process in the last 13 years so that the FDA can lift the importation ban? If the process was corrected, why hasn't the importation ban been lifted?

Label GE foods and let the public decide if they want to buy them. Vote Yes on 105.

4 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/17/2014 at 2:38 PM

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

Also RoundUp is toxic to WEEDS. Much like how you can consume Chocolate and your dog can't. It's less toxic to humans than Caffeine. Apparently it tastes like soap.

A nice .pdf on it here:…

7 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by Steven Alexander Shaver on 10/17/2014 at 2:32 PM

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.

7 likes, 12 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.

7 likes, 12 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.

6 likes, 11 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.

5 likes, 9 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…

0 likes, 1 dislike
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.

8 likes, 10 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.

8 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Caroline Yunker on 10/16/2014 at 3:47 PM

All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation