Monsanto glyphosate causes cancer – so do apples

Monsanto glyphosate

Monsanto glyphosate (Roundup)  is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that are known to compete with commercial crops grown around the world. It has several advantages over many herbicides in that it breaks down in the soil into non-toxic organic molecules, reducing or eliminating contamination of groundwater and lower soils.

Monsanto has developed genetically modified (GMO) grains that are resistant to glyphosate, so that agriculture can apply the herbicide to kill the competitive weeds while not harming the crop. This allows farmers to suppress the weeds while allowing better production out of the grain crop.

Whatever the benefits of Monsanto glyphosate, GMOs and the herbicide are tied together in many minds. And there has been an ongoing effort by many people to claim that glyphosate causes cancer. But let’s look at the science, because maybe we’ll get some information.

Continue reading “Monsanto glyphosate causes cancer – so do apples”

GMO vs non-GMO foods – genetic modification techniques

GMO vs non-GMO foods

There are so many myths and tropes about genetically modified (GMO) foods, much like the vaccine world, it’s sometimes difficult to find out what is based in science, and what is not. Thus, I thought it would be the time to examine the crop modification techniques for GMO vs non-GMO foods.

Not to give away the conclusions early on, but all crops that end up being our food sources are genetically engineered. And have been for 10,000 years, since the dawn of human agriculture. If we hadn’t been genetically engineering our foods from day 1, we’d be eating corn that provided little nutritional value.


GMO vs non-GMO foods

Take a look at the evolution of corn from the wild ancestor, teosinte, to the delicious cobs of corn we eat during a summer BBQ – it’s closely tied to human advances in genetic engineering of food crops over the past 10,000 years. Teosinte is barely edible, and the amount of nutrition per plant pales compared to modern corn.

If you want corn that’s never been genetic engineered, then you’ll have to travel through some wild fields in Mexico to find yourself some teosinte. Then harvest a small warehouse of it to feed yourself for a couple of days. But 10,000 years of genetic modification, using a variety of techniques, gave us modern corn.

I know what you’re going to say. No, ancient farmers did not practice genetic modification. They didn’t stick a gene from a walrus into the corn plant – but then again modern genetic modification doesn’t do that either. Time to take a look at various genetic modification techniques used since the dawn of agriculture – let’s see what is the difference between GMO vs non-GMO foods. Continue reading “GMO vs non-GMO foods – genetic modification techniques”

GMO sugar vs natural sugar – can you tell the difference?

GMO sugar

Chemistry is important. If you’re going to make negative claims about GMO sugar or high fructose corn syrup, we ought to be able to look at these different sugar molecules and confirm a difference between them. So let’s take a look at sugar from three different sources that capture our attention. Sorry, but there will be a quiz afterwards, so please pay attention.


A. GMO sugar after consuming it

GMO sugar


B. Natural sugar after consuming it

GMO sugar


C. High fructose corn syrup GMO sugar after consuming it

GMO sugar


The Quiz about all of this chemistry


Editor’s note – this was ruthlessly and unapologetically stolen from a meme from Kevin Folta, who spends a lot of time dealing with GMOs. I hope he doesn’t mind.


Anti-GMO anti-vaccine activists – convergent evolution

anti-GMO anti-vaccine

I naively once thought that anti-GMO activists only occasionally crossed paths with the anti-vaccine ones. Sure, on the Venn diagram of anti-science beliefs, anti-GMO anti-vaccine activists overlapped quite a bit, but I just thought they were separate species. Maybe they once were, but there appears to be a substantial amount of convergent evolution between the separate species of anti-science activists. It’s hard to distinguish the two these days, as I regularly see one or the other type of activists just lump GMOs and vaccines together as one evil against all children.

Anti-GMO and anti-vaccine zealots may have started independently for different reasons. These days, however,  they have converged into one group, the anti-GMO anti-vaccine militants, which utilize almost the exact same methodology:

  • Ignore, attack or belittle the scientific consensus.
  • Cherry picking badly designed and poorly analyzed published to support their pre-conceived conclusions rather than examining the body of evidence and see what conclusions one can reach from it.
  • Creating ridiculous straw men based on conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Using bad, or no science, the anti-GMO anti-vaccine extremists attempt to blame each science, and/or both together, as the cause of a whole host off issues with children – autism, other neurological disorders, allergies, and so many others it would take 5 articles to describe them all. Worse yet, they try to simplify their messages with memes and tropes that attempt to scare the reasonable parent away from the safety of GMOs and vaccines. We’ve all seen the the photos with a tough looking nurse or doctor trying to inject a crying baby with a syringe that is so large, it appears to be used for elephants. Or to really conflate the issues, a photo with some researcher injecting chemicals (and genes I suppose) into an ear of corn or tomato. As if that’s how GMOs are created.

Let’s take a look at the three areas where the anti-GMO anti-vaccine activists have gone off the rails.


Anti-GMO anti-vaccine anti-scientific consensus

I think a scientific consensus is an extremely important stage of developing new scientific ideas and principles. The scientific consensus is the collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a particular field of study. This consensus implies general agreement, and if there is disagreement, it is limited and generally insignificant. For example, the scientific consensus around GMOs doesn’t arrive from mathematicians or quantum physicists – the consensus is formed by the leading experts in the field, including geneticists, plant biologists, agronomists, other agricultural scientists.

It doesn’t come about from a handful of scientists over dinner and drinks, as has been stated by lots of opponents. In fact, a scientific consensus is quite different from the consensus used in a political or group sense.  There are three criteria necessary to establish an evidence based consensus:

  • Consilience of Evidence – Many different fields of science all contribute to the understanding of major scientific principles, such as anthropogenic climate change – scientists range across the fields of biology, geology, chemistry, and other natural sciences. Similarly, our acceptance of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is supported by research in diverse fields like epidemiology, public health, microbiology, immunology, virology, physiology and many others. It’s not one subspecialty of science that builds the consensus, it’s several interrelated ones.
  • Social calibration – The experts involved in the consensus agree on standards for evidence – and this standard is ridiculously high, which is why it is so powerful. Moreover, there is broad and powerful evidence that creates a scientific consensus, something that is lacking in pseudoscience. For example, the best research in the biomedical sciences are either a double blind clinical trial or a case-controlled epidemiological studies, both with huge number of participants.
  • Social Diversity – Having researchers from many cultural and economic backgrounds provides diversity that helps eliminate social biases as a cause of error. For example, the published literature on the safety of GMOs has provided agreement from researchers in countries around the world from various cultural  backgrounds.If the evidence of safety only came from middle-class white scientists, whose parents are farmers, and who live in St. Louis, Missouri only 5 blocks from Monsanto headquarters, we might rightfully suspect the consensus. But in general consensus is formed by the weight of evidence, and to get that weight requires research from nearly everywhere on the planet.

Furthermore, and this is a key point – a consensus is not permanent, because, as I’ve said a number of times, science is not dogmatic. If contradictory evidence arises, of the same quality and quantity that formed the original consensus, then the established concord could fall apart, or move to a different one. Remember, all science is provisional – if the evidence changes, the consensus changes.

But you can’t disestablish the consensus based on one cherry picked article found in some obscure predatory journal. Writing “GMOs are dangerous” with crayon on a big sheet of paper will have all of the effect of a badly designed, written and reviewed paper in a junk journal. That would be nothing.

Actually, scientific consensuses require the best research available. It generally relies upon the highest level of excellence that science has to offer. On the hierarchy of scientific evidence, meta reviews and large studies count the most, and scientific consensuses generally demand these studies to even get formed. Again, it isn’t 5 old white guys eating a steak and drinking expensive wine who make this decision. It’s the evidence that drives the consensus.

The number of meta-reviews that have shown no link between GMOs and issues between humans, animals (livestock) and the environment is fairly robust. Similarly, there is overwhelming scientific evidence about the safety of vaccines with respect to autism.

One of those prestigious scientific bodies, the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Sciences), has released a statement regarding a GMO scientific consensus  (pdf):

The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe … 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.

Just to be clear, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences is an international non-profit organization that has as its stated goals to promote cooperation among scientists, to defend scientific freedom, to encourage scientific responsibility, and to support scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world’s largest and most prestigious general scientific society, and is the publisher of the well-respected, high impact-factor scientific journal Science

There are a number of other international scientific bodies that agree with this consensus. This is a fairly solid consensus, any way you examine it.

It’s the same with vaccines. The National Academy of Sciences, probably the most prestigious scientific institution in the world, has written:

Vaccines offer the promise of protection against a variety of infectious diseases. Despite much media attention and strong opinions from many quarters, vaccines remain one of the greatest tools in the public health arsenal. Certainly, some vaccines result in adverse effects that must be acknowledged. But the latest evidence shows that few adverse effects are caused by the vaccines reviewed in this report.

This consensus wasn’t achieved by the aforementioned dinner and wine. It is backed by a massive review of the vaccine literature, where they looked at every possible adverse effect and weighed it against the benefits.

I know, some anti-GMO anti-vaccine activists will like to say that these consensuses are bought off by Big Agra or Big Pharma – but those appeals to conspiracy are worthless. Bring evidence, once again in both the quality and quantity that formed the consensus in the first place, and we can then look at revising the consensus. But it becomes tiresome to read an anti-GMO anti-vaccine screed whereby someone with a degree in art or marketing thinks they have it within themselves to dismiss the whole scientific consensus about vaccines and GMOs. These statements aren’t weak, pathetic thoughts from a few drunk scientists – they are powerful statements that completely contradict what the anti-science activists say.


Cherry-picking studies

I cannot repeat this enough. Science deniers are all alike – they think they can pick and choose which science agrees with their beliefs. I know that the anti-GMO anti-vaccine forces will hate this, but they do precisely what the climate change deniers do. Ignore all science that supports the real scientific consensus while cherry picking the worst possible studies as long as it fits in their narrative about the dangers of GMOs and vaccines.

The anti-GMO zealots spent a year (actually more), trying to prove that a study by Gilles-Eric Séralini, poorly designed and analyzed research that didn’t show us that GMO corn caused cancer – but the anti-GMO forces believe it, as a matter of faith, showed the world that GMOs are dangerous. Gasp! Of course, that study was eventually retracted, and ultimately, gave us zero evidence about the safety of GMO articles.

As I mentioned above, there are dozens of high-powered meta reviews and large subject number studies that have examined the impact of GMOs on human health, animal heath and the environment. They sit at the top of the hierarchy of scientific research and provide us with the solid evidence that GMOs are extraordinarily safe.

But if you scan the blogosphere of the anti-GMO world, you will find the same old logical fallacies used by all science deniers (anti-vaccine types included). They’ll find one article and pounce on it. But they fail to examine the article critically, they don’t check the premise, or analyze the plausibility of results, statistics, methods – all things that a real scientist would do. And more often than not, the research that seems to “support” the anti-GMO side is a one-off primary research article that has never been repeated. Or has been retracted.

The same thing happens with our “friends” over on the anti-vaccine side. Late in 2016, a paper was published and retracted by a predatory journal. Just a few weeks ago, that same paper was republished in another predatory journal, and then was almost immediately retracted. The paper (both versions) tried to show that vaccinated children were less healthy than unvaccinated ones. But an analysis of the research, irrespective of whether it was retracted or not, showed us nothing about whether vaccinated children were less healthy than unvaccinated ones. Nothing at all.

Real scientists across the world pointed out how bad the article was – it did not meet even the lowest level of credibility. Yet, the anti-vaccine world, like Sayer Ji, jumped all over the article (even after it was retracted) as proof of the danger of vaccines.

If these were the only cases, maybe the anti-GMO anti-vaccine forces could not be criticized – unfortunately, this happens all of the time. But the larger point is that there is no evidence being published that support their points of view on GMOs and vaccines. Not even close. The best they can do is scan bad journals and cherry pick terrible articles to make it seem like there’s a controversy about GMOs and vaccines. But there simply isn’t, except in the minds of these activists.


Creating straw men

The anti-GMO anti-vaccine science deniers, lacking evidence of any quality, have decided that since there is no evidence, or they have only really bad evidence that supports their beliefs, they have to go on the attack. So they invent ad hominem criticisms about Monsanto, which include conflating GMOs with Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide. glyphosate. They invent stories that GMOs all require glyphosate, because evil Monsanto is trying to poison us.

The facts are that the case against glyphosate, independent of GMOs, is ridiculously weak (and beyond the discussion of the article). But to conflate the two, when most GMO crops have little to nothing to do with glyphosate, is just a method to mischaracterize GMOs as unsafe. There are other strawman arguments used by the GMO deniers, including that Monsanto owns the GMO seeds so they’re trying to destroy agriculture. Or something, the arguments often fall flat.

The same tactics are used by the pseudoscience pushing vaccine deniers. They want us to believe that vaccines are a huge profit center for Big Pharma, so they’re foisting vaccines onto the innocent population of the world. An interesting argument that falls apart with real analysis. Setting aside the inane belief that all employees of Big Pharma are pod-people who all march in lockstep to the demands of the corporation, what would a truly greedy Big Pharma executive really want? Well, vaccines prevent diseases – and there’s nothing more that Big Pharma would want is hospitals filled with critically ill patients who need all kinds of devices, equipment and medication to survive. In fact, Big Pharma clearly would make more profit in a world filled with measles and polio epidemics than they would by selling vaccines.

So, the anti-vaccine activists need to be consistent – is Big Pharma really evil and greedy? If they are, they would shut down every vaccine manufacturing plant, convert it to making hospital beds and IVs, and wait for the millions of sick children. But of course, not a single Big Pharma exec would ever joke about it, because they’re goal is always to create products that save lives, not causing disease.


Can we change minds?

Dr. Daniel Summers asked a rhetorical question in the Washington Post with respect to vaccine denial, “At what point does a body of evidence become massive enough to count as proof? When has a question been answered enough times that it can be put to rest?”

Kavin Senapathy, writing in Forbes, answered:

When it comes to the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements, the answer is never. There is absolutely no amount of evidence that will convince them to drop the ideology and distrust in expertise and in the vast weight of evidence. These movements are based in conspiracy theories, plain and simple. A hallmark of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable—a matter of faith rather than reason—and therefore any opposing information becomes part of the conspiracy theory.

People constantly dismiss real science because they have a political or personal belief system that just dismisses rational scientific evidence. Right wing conservatives, using precisely the same methods and ignorance as the anti-GMO anti-vaccine activists, deny the existence of human caused global warming. Why? Because accepting the science will contradict their tightly held beliefs that coal mining, drilling for oil, and emission standards on cars are all evil political stances of the left.

But the left doesn’t get a pass. I often cross-post these articles to the Daily Kos, a left-leaning website, and I constantly get trolled by science denying liberals who just want to believe that autism is caused by GMOs. Or labelling GMOs isn’t really a science issue. Ironically, I have higher standards for liberals with respect for science, so it is even more despicable when these faux liberals become real-life science deniers, just like their buddies over on the right. What makes the left’s science denying on GMOs and vaccines particularly galling is that by denying it, they hurt those who need it more. Dropping GMOs will only lead to increases in the price of food, especially for those who cannot afford higher prices. And let’s not overlook the fact that the white privileged types who prefer their gluten-free/GMO-free food from Whole Foods think to themselves, “I’m buying better food, and I don’t care about those who have to buy the lower quality food.” Even though that belief is unscientific, so those individuals on “food stamps” are buying the same scientifically sound food as their rich white liberal counterparts.

There’s evidence in California, that the higher clusters of unvaccinated kids occurred mostly in wealthy, white, liberal areas of the state. Those people believe, again without a stitch of scientific evidence, that their precious snowflakes don’t need vaccines because they are protected by crystals, acupuncture, a GMO/gluten free diet, and whatever other new age pseudoscientific nonsense is flying through the community. Maybe some of these white liberals just think they’re genetically superior, I don’t know.

Well, who gets hurt by this? Yeah, once again, it’s those who are least able to protect themselves. Babies who aren’t ready to be vaccinated. Children with immune deficiency. Poor immigrant families who are saving up to get their kids vaccinated.

The science clearly shows us that most of this science denialism is wrong. Very wrong. Yet it exists, even among educated liberals and conservatives. To me, the science is clear. I don’t presume to be Neil deGrasse Tyson, so I’m mostly incapable of explaining astrophysics to you – but I’m smart enough to know when someone like Dr. Tyson has got it all right.  But I do presume that I know biomedical science pretty well, I’ve got 40 years of experience – and the overwhelming evidence tells me that vaccines and GMOs are safe. And I’m not cherry picking, I’m doing real science. I look where the science takes me, and it’s damn clear.

If you think that vaccines haven’t saved millions of lives across the world, and still don’t get your kids vaccinated, you need the sign that says “science denier.” If you think that GMOs cannot safely feed the planet and save many countries from regular starvation, then you need that sign again. You are a science denier.

I forgot to mention one important – there are GMO ingredients in vaccines. Uh oh.


GMO science – overwhelming consensus that it is safe

GMO science

Real science is hard. It takes lots of high quality evidence to support it. That evidence needs to be published in real journal. It needs to be repeated. And it has to be open to criticism and analysis. GMO science, the study of genetically modified organisms used for crops and food, shows us that GMOs are safe.

The hard work and intellectual challenges to form a scientific consensus about the safety of GMO crops and foods isn’t something that appeared out of the ether. These individuals didn’t suddenly wake up one day and proclaim from the ivory tower that GMO science says that GMOs are safe. Not even close.

Science has provided substantial evidence supporting the assertion that GMO’s are safe. GMO refusers have provided precious little evidence, save for Cherry PickingSpecial Pleading, and a few Strawman Arguments. Oh, and the occasional Poisoning the Well with the Monsanto shill accusations. Sometimes the GMO deniers will resort to the Naturalistic Fallacy that things that grow “naturally” ought to be the way foods should be – this ignores the fact that we’ve been genetically manipulating our food for ten thousand years. We’re just better at it today, but the DNA is still the DNA.

Like I said in another article, “The typical pseudoscientist will use logical fallacies to state very definitively that “it’s proven.” It’s the same whether it’s creationism (the belief that some magical being created the world some small number of years ago), alternative medicine (homeopathy, which is nothing but water, has magical properties to cure everything from cancer to male pattern baldness), or vaccine denialists. The worst problem is that in the world of the internet, if you Google these beliefs, the number of websites and hits that seem to state that they are THE TRUTH™ overwhelm those that are more skeptical or critical.”

So, using an open, but critical mind, the evidence is overwhelming – the GMO science says it’s safe for human consumption.


Continue reading “GMO science – overwhelming consensus that it is safe”

Scientific consensus on GMO safety and climate change

scientific consensus on GMO

A scientific consensus is one of the most powerful principles in science, sitting just below the predictive power of a scientific theory. In general, a scientific consensus is the collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a particular field of study. This consensus implies general agreement, and disagreement is limited (sometimes from individuals who are not experts in the field) and considered insignificant.

This lead me to a search for the prevailing scientific consensus on GMO safety and climate change.

For clarity, the major difference between a scientific theory and a scientific consensus is that a theory is essentially considered a fact. The theory of gravity is a fact. The theory of evolution is a fact. A theory is so predictive, it is supported by so much evidence, and it is so well accepted, it would take an incredible amount of data to refute it.

The only thing that matters in forming a scientific consensus or theory is evidence. Not rhetoric. Not debate. Not opinion. Not political expediency. Not logical fallacies. Just evidence.

I’ve written about the scientific consensus on GMOs, and it is clear that nearly every independent scientific organization across the world agrees that GMOs are safe for humans and/or the environment. Moreover, most of these same organizations provide a similar consensus about climate change–ironically, there is a significant portion of people who deny one consensus but accept the other, despite the fact that the consensus for both scientific principles are based on nearly overwhelming evidence.

On the next page, I will review the statements of seven prestigious scientific organizations across the world for the scientific consensus on GMO safety and on climate change.

Continue reading “Scientific consensus on GMO safety and climate change”

GMO scientific consensus – it’s broad and unequivocal, they’re safe

GMO scientific consensus

I have been writing about the GMO scientific consensus for quite some time, because this scientific consensus for the safety of GMO crops is so overwhelming that it’s almost impossible to ignore. Let me put it this way – if you accept the enormous evidence that supports the scientific theory of climate change, then you should know that there is almost the same volume of evidence that supports the safety of genetically modified foods.

If you accept the science of climate change, but deny the science of GMOs, then you are a science denier. It’s pretty simple. In fact, many of us think that GMO deniers are the left’s version of climate change deniers.

The scientific consensus is based only on evidence. Not politics. Not your snowflake opinion. And certainly not on your cherry picked junk science.  The scientific consensus is the collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a particular field of study. This consensus implies general agreement, and if there is disagreement, it is limited and generally insignificant.

Moreover, a consensus is not permanent, because, as I’ve said a number of times, science is not a dogma. If contradictory evidence arises, of the same quality that formed the original consensus, then the established concord could fall apart, or move to a different one. Remember, all science is provisional – if the evidence changes, the consensus changes.

So, the GMO scientific consensus is based on mountains and mountains of evidence, reviewed by the best scientific bodies in the world. These are the world’s leading scientists, individuals with expertise in agriculture, genetics, biotechnology, and other related fields, who have come together to review that data, and, eventually come to a consensus that appeals to the broadest swath of scientists.

Of course, I’ve written about the GMO scientific consensus many times. Reading comments to those articles are always amusing. In the past, I generally relied on a couple of august scientific bodies for this consensus, but I always get the comment, “yeah but they’re bought off by Monsanto, it only represents a couple of countries,” or any number of other logical fallacies. Thanks to an exhaustive list produced by the Credible Hulk, it’s time to review all of the world’s science organizations’ statements on the GMO scientific consensus. Spoiler alert – there is no consensus that will state GMOs are evil, dangerous, or cause us to fall over dead because corn is growing out of our brain.

Just to be perfectly clear, the term GMO also encompasses other terms like genetically engineered or genetically modified foods. There are no differences between these various terms for these foods. Furthermore, the scientific consensus includes two separate, but related claims:

  1. All GMO crops, that were developed using modern genetic engineering processes and that are approved for commercial use by national regulatory bodies, are as safe to consume and as safe for the environment as the corresponding non-GMO counterparts.
  2. Modern genetic engineering would be no more likely to cause unpredicted dangers than would other methods of changing an organism’s genome (for example, selective breeding, radiation mutagenesis, polyploidy or wide cross hybridization) which have been employed in agriculture for over 10,000 years. And we simply reject the naturalistic fallacy, which some use to claim that “natural” changes to the genome are inherently “better” than genetic engineering.

Continue reading “GMO scientific consensus – it’s broad and unequivocal, they’re safe”

Alternative facts – skeptics have been dealing with this for years

Alternative facts

Alternative facts, what most of us would call outright lies or misinformation, are the new standard of truthfulness coming out of the Donald Trump administration. It started when Kellyanne Conway, one of the numerous Trump talking heads who think Americans are stupid, said, “You’re saying it’s a falsehood. And they’re giving … alternative facts.”

Alternative facts seem to be pretty close to the Nazi propaganda technique, called the Big Lie. It is about the use of a lie so colossal that the public would not believe that someone would have the audacity to distort the truth so impressively. Except, I’m going to reiterate most Americans (an non-Americans) aren’t that stupid. And sorry for going Godwin so early in the article, but sometimes, it is necessary to point out the obvious.

I’ve been fighting alternative facts as skeptic for nearly three decades. It started when I got into an argument with a school board candidate in California who said that “evolution is just a theory.” Now, those of you with scientific understanding accept that a theory, at least in science, is approximately equal to a fact. What he should have said is, “evolution is just a fact,” but instead he was making “theory” a pejorative which implied evolution wasn’t a fact.

He and I must have argued for 20 minutes, when he finally claimed that science was a religion that required faith, which, of course, is the exact opposite of what science represents. I told him that he apparently lacked any education in science, so why should he be on the school board. He lost, though I take no credit for it.

Over the years, I have evolved (pun intended) into other areas of scientific skepticism, like GMOs, vaccines, and alternative medicine. See, even the junk medicine quacks grasped that “alternative” label long before Donald Trump walked into the national spotlight.

Let’s look at my favorite alternative facts of science.

Continue reading “Alternative facts – skeptics have been dealing with this for years”

Girl Scout cookies and GMO – subtly pushing an anti-science agenda

Girl Scout cookies and GMO

Of all the icons of American life, buying Girl Scout cookies is one of the annual obligations of life. Americans buy these cookies from parents selling for their daughters, from uniformed Girl Scouts in front of the grocery store, or from a family member. I can’t wait for my annual infusion of Samoas, the Girl Scout’s take on the macaroon. Caramel and coconut – how could we go wrong? Well, apparently, I need to spend more time to consider the issue of Girl Scout cookies and GMO ingredients.

To be honest, I’m more concerned about the calories in each. But here we are.

Late last year, The Girl Scouts of the USA made an announcement in regarding Girl Scout cookies and GMO products:

At the current time, there are genetically modified agricultural crops (GMOs) in some Girl Scout Cookies based on a range of market-related factors and depending on specific cookie recipes. In some markets, the specialty-ingredient Girl Scout S’mores sandwich cookie baked by Little Brownie Bakers is made with ingredients that are verified as not containing genetically modified organisms. Girl Scouts recognizes that many people have concerns regarding GMO ingredients, and we monitor member and consumer opinion on this matter while simultaneously addressing industry trends, scientific trends, and, of course, consumer preference.

Sadly, the Girl Scouts have decided to cave in to the demands of certain groups that GMOs bring some sort of harm to consumers. Of course, the usual anti-science groups jumped into the fray. March Against Monsanto, a group that ticks off the most of the junk science checklist with their anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, and anti-fluoridated water arguments, were ecstatic with the announcement. They chimed in that,

There was a time recently in the United States when Non-GMO and organic packaged foods were surprisingly rare, so much so that choice was a virtual non-entity and entire communities of people have no access to non-GMO options.

But now, non-GMO has officially gone mainstream: one of the country’s most recognized institutions, the Girl Scouts of the USA (formerly known as America) has announced its first-ever (officially speaking, anyway) non-GMO cookie.

You can almost see the glee dripping from the announcement. Once again, let’s take a look at Girl Scout cookies and GMO safety. This change happened because of a lot of noise that signified nothing. Time to examine it again.

Continue reading “Girl Scout cookies and GMO – subtly pushing an anti-science agenda”

Jon Rappoport attacks GMOs and medicine – should we care?

Jon Rappoport

For faithful readers of this blog, you know I try to keep focus on a small field of science – vaccines, GMOs, alternative medicine, and whatever strikes my fancy. I get all excited when a couple of my interests intersect, like GMO vaccines. Then I read a blog post from some writer, Jon Rappoport, who started out with criticism of Donald Trump and what he might do with the FDA. That got me excited.

Now a lot of us are worried about what Donald Trump might do with the FDA. The cantankerous Orac summed up many of our thoughts about Trump and the FDA thusly:

Obviously, though, I don’t like either of the two candidates under consideration by the Trump transition team to become FDA Commissioner. Basically, you have to pick your poison: Do you want the libertarian who doesn’t think that the FDA should have to require the demonstration of efficacy before approving drugs or the bona-fide, honest-to-goodness pharma shill, someone who’s pharma shill to a level that most pharma shills only dream of? It’s basically Sophie’s choice.

But Jon Rappoport quickly went off the rails by attacking the FDA and claiming GMOs are dangerous (and the FDA should regulate them). Here we go.

Continue reading “Jon Rappoport attacks GMOs and medicine – should we care?”