Smart Talk

Smart Talk is a daily, live, interactive program featuring conversations with newsmakers and experts in a variety of fields and exploring a wide range of issues and ideas, including the economy, politics, health care, education, culture, and the environment.  Smart Talk airs live every week day at 9 a.m. on WITF’s 89.5 and 93.3.

Listen to Smart Talk live online from 9-10 a.m. weekdays and at 7 p.m. (Repeat of 9 a.m. program)

Host: Scott LaMar

Smart Talk: Are genetically modified crops safe?

Written by Scott LaMar, Smart Talk Host/Executive Producer | Feb 16, 2015 11:21 AM
corn cob GMO.jpg

What to look for on Smart Talk Tuesday, February 17, 2015:

In the twenty-first century the vast majority of corn, soybeans, and cotton grown in the United States is genetically modified to resist pests or pesticides. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, such as "Roundup-ready corn" have caused some of the most controversy among anti-GMO advocacy groups. They fear that the widespread use of the pesticide Roundup on herbicide-resistant crops like corn may cause health problems in adults and children.

Close to home, anti-GMO groups like GMO Free Lancaster County have voiced concerns about the use of genetically modified crops and their pesticides in the county famous for having the highest density of organic farms in the state of Pennsylvania.

Appearing on Tuesday's show are molecular biologist Dr. Nina Fedoroff from Penn State University to discuss how genetically modified crops are developed and what problems they are designed to solve. We'll also speak with the founder of GMO Free Lancaster, Zoe Swartz as well as Emily Givler, a pediatric nutrition consultant, who are advocating to stop the use of genetically modified crops and their pesticides in Lancaster County.

Emily Givler.JPG

Zoe Swartz and Emily Givler

Tagged under , , ,

back to top
  • John H. img 2015-02-17 08:59

    My understanding is what they're doing is producing a plant that withstands being sprayed with a herbicide; Namely roundup.

    Plus, I don't believe that the plant will produce a seed that will germinate.

    So, taking those two effect into account, I don't think that they're a good idea.

    What we'll end up with is the possibility of cross pollination and weeds becoming resistant to the spray. And farmers that use traditional farming practices ending up with plants who's seeds do not germinate. This will result in one or two major corporations controlling the seed supply.
    Scott, I hope you cover that farmers are being sued for patent infraction, I believe because their crops are being cross pollinated. Which to me is a good indication of the squeeze from major corporations that will result if we keep using GMOs.

    • John H. img 2015-02-17 09:08

      If anyone states that it's about producing more crops, if we needed the addition grains the federal government wouldn't of had a program that pays farmers not to plant crops.

  • Robert D Colgan img 2015-02-17 09:09

    As I drive around here in southcentral PA during the Spring planting, I find it absolutely shocking to see that no-till farming with its generous application of glyphosates has created a moonscape in countless thousands of acres of farmland.

    The insects are disappearing.
    The birds are disappearing.
    The animals are disappearing.

    Yet the manufacturers of those herbicides--and pesticides--have insisted for years they are NOT a risk to the public.......even when it was revealed they have known for years they are endocrine disrupting carcinogens and that the companies had hidden the truth for years from the American public.

    This is a menace far greater than smoking-------which killed what?--millions? before it was finally acknowledged the tobacco companies had known about and hidden the true health risks from disclosure.

    Those glyphosates need to be banned-------IMMEDIATELY.

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 09:12

    Maria emails:

    I heard the intro for today's show. I will be teaching today, but I wanted to comment on the use of "autism."

    I believe in natural foods, etc. I was a hippie back in the day, was a founder of a natural foods co-op in West Va.

    I was afraid of vaccines and autism when my daughter was a baby. But we did have her vaccinated because we felt it was the responsible thing to do for the community: herd immunity.

    The only reason a person can get away with not vaccinating is because everyone else does.

    Now, so many parents have not vaccinated that we have outbreaks of measles, a disease that in 2000 was declared eradicated.

    I do not like the idea of GMOs, for sure, but I think we need to be more cautious throwing around "autism" unless you have the science to back it up, with peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals.

    Science has shown that vaccines do not cause autism. The study by the British doctor from about 10 years ago was debunked yet antivaxers keep using it to justify not vaccinating. That doctor can no longer practice.

    Now, we see the outcome of using faulty science to justify personal belief.

    I bet you already know all of this, but I thought I would throw it out there.

  • John H. img 2015-02-17 09:13

    Come on Doctor, GMO plants are totally different than what we've been doing in the past. So far she has lost all credibility.

    • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 09:24

      How is genetic modification by selective interbreeding "totally different" from genetic modification by molecular biological techniques?

  • John H. img 2015-02-17 09:16

    Round up is brought to us by the same company that brought us Agent Orange.

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 09:17

    Manuel writes:

    Do we see any correlation between the rise in celiac and related GI auto immune diseases and the increase of GMO?

    • GMO guru img 2015-02-20 13:47

      BTW, the rise in autism correlates very well with the rise in organic food sales. Check this out: http://www.ithinkwell.org/autism-correlation-does-not-equal-correlation/correlation-does-not-imply-causation/

  • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 09:21

    Bringing up Stephanie Seneff, who publishes worthless research in junk journals, is the absolute end of the credibility for this guest.

    • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 09:39

      Just FYI, the journal "Entropy" is on a well-known list of junk journals maintained by Jeffrey Beall. Most real academics are aware of this kind of thing.

  • redoerfler img 2015-02-17 09:30

    I take exception to Dr Federoff's comment to Zoe Swartz. The argument that "so-and-so isn't a________" biologist, MD, etc. is specious. This means that citizens have no valid opinions after their own review of the science just because they don't have a certain credential? By that logic, none of us has a civic right to comment on anything outside our vocation! By the way I am myself a PhD in Nursing. I am aware of my limits regarding ag biology, but by no means am ill-equipped to comment on what affects my environment.

    • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 09:36

      You may take exception, but this is because you misunderstood the point. The "so-and-so" was being cited as an expert, when in fact the particular so-and-so in question (Stephanie Saneff) has no particular expertise in toxicology, medicine, or environmental science. Dr Saneff publishes this work strictly in junk journals.

      So while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it would not be proper to cite you as an expert on glyphosate biology.

      • redoerfler img 2015-02-17 09:58

        I disagree. You are taking the same position as Dr Federoff: lack of disciplinary expertise automatically refutes any point others make--yet we all have to live in this world. I did not misunderstand. This is not a discussion of "glyphosphate biology"; it is a discussion of politics. The main issue is disclosure--these tiny discussions of various aspects of GMO biology are simply the industry trying to protect against mandatory disclosure. If GMOs are such a good idea, then industry can disclose and let the public decide with their wallets.

        • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 10:12

          You clearly did misunderstand, and continue to do so either intentionally or otherwise (especially in accusing me of claiming that lack of disciplinary expertise refutes "any" points, something I certainly have not said at all). The only time Dr. Federoff addressed anything involving authority was to point out that the mainstream scientific position on glyphosate biology was in opposition to the "expert" that Zoe Swartz cited. That was all.

          The discussion of the politics is, of course, a larger issue and all are entitled to their own opinion. However, we must insist that these opinions be based on facts-- and people are not entitled to their own versions of those. That is the point Dr. Federoff made, and you continue to miss.

    • GMO guru img 2015-02-23 15:05

      If you were having a heart attack, would you rather have a cardiologist taking care of you or a computer scientist?

  • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 09:31

    Interesting that people are mentioning the correlation between GMO use over time and rising rates of autism. In fact, there is a much greater correlation between the use of organic foods and autism.

    Zoey Swartz seems to have no idea what a "species" is. Why would anyone listen to her pseudoscientific claptrap?

    Remember, everyone: correlation does not equal causation!


    Talking about gut biomes and pesticide use is nonsense on multiple levels. Pesticides are not antibiotics for one thing, and gut bacteria are not susceptible to them. Also, humans ingest very little of these pesticides on their food-- they break down in the environment and foods are washed before consumption. Moreover, pesticides would have to withstand the pH 1 of the stomach before having significant action on gut bacteria anyway. This is quite a stretch, and has never been proven to occur.


    • Barbara from Atglen img 2015-02-17 13:44

      Gosh, when I google the subject of "Harmful effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria" i get a wealth of links to research citations. Have you rad any ot these? Here's an abstract: Field Investigations of Glyphosate in Urine of Danish Dairy Cows


      Monika Krüger

      Wieland Schrödl

      Jürgen Neuhaus

      Awad Ali Shehata
      J Environ Anal Toxicol 08/2013; Volume 3(Issue 5):1-7. DOI: 10.4172/2161-0525.1000186,
      ABSTRACT In the present study, thirty dairy cows from each of eight Danish dairy farms were investigated for excretion of glyphosate in urine. Blood serum parameters indicative of cytotoxicity as alkaline phosphatase (AP), glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH), glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase (GOT), creatinine kinase CK), nephrotoxicity, (urea, creatine), cholesterol and the trace elements as manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), selenium (Se), copper (Cu) and zinc

  • Mark img 2015-02-17 09:38

    I think there is not enough information about the safety of GMO crops on human and animal health to deem them totally safe. That said, any product genetically tweaked to increase yields in conjunction with a specific chemical manufactured by a company with the nasty reputation of Monsanto is something I will avoid like the plague. Monsanto has an unsustainable, aggressive and strictly profit-based business model that I definitely do not want to support. Since GMO corn and soybeans go to animal feed, I’ll stick with a mostly vegetarian diet and if purchasing soybeans for my consumption. I’ll make sure they are GMO-free...

  • John H. img 2015-02-17 09:45

    Would Dr. Fedoroff each a GMO chicken that was modified to produce more drum sticks?

  • John H. img 2015-02-17 09:51

    Can GMO Grains be germinated, if not, why not?

    • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 10:01

      Some GMO seeds can be grown on their own, some cannot. Some which cannot are designed to be infertile so that farmers have to purchase new seeds every time. This is a choice that is particular to a given genetically modified organism, not a feature of GMO in general.

  • Dr Mark img 2015-02-17 09:57

    One significant problem, as I see it as both a physician and a bioscientist (MD and PhD), is that "GMO" is not one thing. Genetic modification is a technique, and there are a wide range of genetic modifications that can be made to an organism.

    Some of these modifications increase the nutritional content of a food crop. Some allow foods to produce their own natural pesticides or to resist insects, vastly reducing the amount of chemical pesticides that are sprayed on fields. Only some are of the infamous 'BT' variety that allow increased resistance to glyphosate (which, incidentally, is a rather safe chemical).

    So what is it people are opposed to, exactly? I suspect it's mostly an undifferentiated fear of what they simply do not understand. Even as a supposed "expert", Zoe Swartz has made uncounted scientific errors in this segment. How are people who spend much less time on this issue supposed to make a clear judgement?

    • Barbara from Atglen img 2015-02-17 13:27

      Dr Mark, I believe you are mistaken when you state that Bt corn is made to withstand direct application of glyphosate/Round up. Bt crop species are developed using genetic materials from a different bacteria than are Round Up Ready glyphosate resistant crop species. Some species are engineered with both, and these will both create a systemic insecticide and resistance to glyphosate. But Bt and Round Up Ready are two different modifications.
      From the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture website:
      "Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a protein that kills Lepidoptera larvae, in particular, European corn borer. This protein is called the Bt delta endotoxin. Growers use Bt corn as an alternative to spraying insecticides for control of European and southwestern corn borer."

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 10:02

    Ann writes:

    I would like to hear comments why some European countries ban GMO food? There must be a reason why.

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 10:02

    Micheal writes:
    While today's science may believe GMOs are safe, and perhaps they are, one has to ask is the potential risk worth taking. The question becomes, what are the benefits of the science. In this case, is it worth saving 10 cents on a box of cereal? A factual reminder to those who study science- science only knows what science knows at any point in time and this knowledge changes with time

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 10:03

    Kristen writes:
    I don't understand. There are many peer reviewed studies linking round up to health problems in humans from hormone disruption to lymphoma.
    Isn't it labelled toxic?

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/roundup-herbicide

    Scientific American also has a piece on its toxicity...

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 10:04

    Dean from Lemoyne writes:
    This discussion sounds eerily similar to the anti-vaccine discussions that were more prominent during the past decade. As was the case there, individuals were using pseudo-science to champion certain positions and mislead individuals about the supposed dangers of vaccines. The recent measles outbreak is evidence of what happens when these individuals are provided an equal forum as scientist.

    Scott Lamar's comment was irresponsible for potentially linking GMO plants to autism and food allergies. There are no scientific studies (peer reviewed and validated by other research) that show this link, only anecdotal or inferred based on exposure to a pesticide directly, not through food consumption.

    Thank goodness Dr. Federoff has been able to be reconnected to the discussion. She is the only sensible voice in this conversation.

    • Barbara from Atglen img 2015-02-17 17:26

      Round Up Ready corn, soy, etc. are created in order to be able to spray Round Up directly on the growing food plant. Because of this, the presence and consumption of glyphosate in our food has increased. This is of great concern to me. Some GMO advocates will make crazy remarks like, "You can drink a whole glass of Round Up and it won't hurt you," The next time I hear someone say this, I swear I'm going to ask him bring his youngest child or grandchild in, and invite him to have the child drink it right there! (Knowing fully well, that I would never let a child drink a glass of glyphosate. But you see my point.) and there is research that Round Up/glyphosate has a great deal of potential for harm. Here is a study that I have read about he potential link between glyphosate and breast cancer:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 10:04

    Ann writes:
    I respect Dr. Fetterolf's opinions as well as the other guests. However, I wonder who, if any, organizations financially support Dr. Fetterolf's research? I apologize for asking this question but it is relevant.

    I really believe European countries are less influenced by lobbyists than in the US. I believe Europeans side of safety first. In the US, whatever the issue, profit rules. I believe caution should supersede financial profit.

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-17 10:05

    Gary writes:
    All humans tolerate and process substances differently, I have suffered from migraines for over 40 years. So far, no positive treatment through medical means. Through years of research I realize what foods trigger and now understand food additives, colors, artificial sweetners,etc. and particularly MSG can cause me to suffer a migraine within a hour of ingestion. MSG does not need to be labeled and in fact was sold as Accent in the grocery store in the '60's. I do not eat out, use very few labeled products and rely on my own food prep so I know what goes into my body. I deserve to make a choice for my health. .

  • DrJ img 2015-02-17 10:09

    I am appalled at the way Dr Fedoroff was treated. It's like having Mozart and Iggy Pop on... well, not really, because Iggy Pop would show tremendous respect to Mozart. WITF is presenting itself as the anti-science station. I don't know why I'm a member. There are better stations out there.

    • Scott LaMar img 2015-02-17 10:47

      Dr. J:
      I just spoke with Dr. Fedoroff about the phone issues and she mentioned that she has similar conversations every day on this issue and appreciates the opportunity. I certainly respect her credentials and her willingness to come on the program. It is not often that a scientist of her stature appears on a local program.

      • DrJ img 2015-02-17 11:11

        Well, Dr. Fedoroff is being very polite, not surprising. But it's like debating evolution. You imply by bringing these people on that there is some kind of equivalence between Dr. Fedoroff's encyclopedic knowledge and their talking points. And they're allowed to conflate pesticides and herbicides... and to imply that natural foods are not composed of CHEMICALS (most of which you can't pronounce). >99% of the pesticides and carcinogens that we encounter in our foods are from natural sources (according to the inventor of the AMES carcinogen test, and many others) -- which is of course why evolution gave us livers, not just to metabolize drugs. Or that viruses have been transferring genes between species for a very long times. But no one has the time to educate your listeners on all of these issues, which are necessary to get past the talking points. Autism indeed -- we all know that's really caused by vaccines, right? Did you have a show on that in its heyday? As you can tell, I'm still really mad about this, and I'm not as polite as Dr. Fedoroff. And since correlation is apparently causation, you must have been cutting her off on purpose (QED).

        • GMO guru img 2015-02-20 14:05

          It is indeed very difficult in a real time discussion, without a real time fact-checker, to respond to all of the nonsense that people can find on the internet and quote as absolute truth.

  • Barbara from Atglen img 2015-02-17 10:18

    Dr Federoff commented twice that Dr Stephanie Seneff is not a biologist, and in this way she attempts to discredit the Samsel and Seneff study. We hear this all the time from GMO advocates, and I believe this is intended to mislead. Dr Seneff is a professor of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence at MIT. She is a highly regarded mathematician and statistician. The Samsel and Seneff study http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf is a research review. Any scientist, who knows very well what this means, who still criticizes not the merits of the study itself, but the credentials of the authors, is purposely trying to confuse the public. The truth is that Dr Seneff is eminently qualified to compile and statistically analyze the research she cites. She cites both landmark and recent research done by scientists of various disciplines published in peer-reviewed journals , and derives not only strong correlations, but also probable causations, for the potential of harmful outcomes from the use of glyphosate pesticide resistant GMO's.

  • peggy img 2015-02-17 10:19

    I enjoyed this all-too-short conversation about genetically modified organisms and how they impact our food supply. One reason supplied for the purpose of genetically modified organisms was to increase our food supply. The response to that was that we already have a very large food supply, most of which ends up in land-fills. What seems obvious to me is that not only are we mass producing foods that only look like real foods, but they are not as nutritionally sound. So we are literally starving ourselves by eating this toxic food, while others in the world are actually starving...
    don't tell me that this process is not politically or profit-driven.

  • Scott LaMar img 2015-02-17 10:20

    Maria writes...
    I heard the intro for today's show. I will be teaching today, but I wanted to comment on the use of "autism."

    I believe in natural foods, etc. I was a hippie back in the day, was a founder of a natural foods co-op in West Va.

    I was afraid of vaccines and autism when my daughter was a baby. But we did have her vaccinated because we felt it was the responsible thing to do for the community: herd immunity.

    The only reason a person can get away with not vaccinating is because everyone else does.

    Now, so many parents have not vaccinated that we have outbreaks of measles, a disease that in 2000 was declared eradicated.

    I do not like the idea of GMOs, for sure, but I think we need to be more cautious throwing around "autism" unless you have the science to back it up, with peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals.

    Science has shown that vaccines do not cause autism. The study by the British doctor from about 10 years ago was debunked yet antivaxers keep using it to justify not vaccinating. That doctor can no longer practice.

    Now, we see the outcome of using faulty science to justify personal belief.

    I bet you already know all of this, but I thought I would throw it out there.

  • lashgroff img 2015-02-17 10:21

    Thank you so much for his discussion! Glad to hear the truth on glyphosate, Dr. Don Huber's scientific research, the shiKimate pathway, numerous other countries which ban GMO's.

    Next topic instead of hearing so much about fighting cancer, can we hear from some naturopathic doctors on cancer prevention & treatment?
    Sherry Groff

  • Scott LaMar img 2015-02-17 11:04

    Dr. Val Gidings, who called in to the program adds...
    I would encourage you to revisit the topic, as your guests (other than Prof. Fedoroff) made many statements that were and are flatly contradicted by the facts we find in nature, and by vast and broad experience. You can find some of their misunderstandings addressed here http://www2.itif.org/2014-testimony-opposition-hb-1770.pdf and others here http://www.innovationfiles.org/consumers-union-makes-false-claims-against-the-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods-based-on-ideology-not-science/

    At the end of the day, what mandatory labeling proponents deny despite the clear facts, is that everything they claim they need a mandatory label to provide is already abundantly available to them. In fact, folks like Zoe Schwartz (who is a truly lovely person, although seriously misinformed and misled) are being misused by folks with ulterior motives and pecuniary interests (see http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/31/genetic-literacy-project-infographic-is-labeling-really-about-our-right-to-know/ and http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/10/22/the-roots-of-the-anti-genetic-engineering-movement-follow-the-money/ and http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/why-consumers-pay-more-for-organic-foods-fear-sells-and-marketers-know-it/).

    These labeling issues are vitally important to me, as I have a son with a life threatening peanut allergy. The last thing we need is for good intentions based on gross misunderstandings to undermine the reliability of our current labeling system, which is robustly focused on safety.

    I'd be delighted to help in any way if you decide to revisit this issue. While I'd be delighted to be one of your guests, I'd also be happy to help you come up with an All Pennsylvania roster of competent experts on whom you could draw. You are blessed with an abundance of expertise starting with Dr. Fedoroff, continuing with Prof. Rick Roush, and many more.

  • Farmtalk img 2015-02-17 12:23

    There is a lot of information about GMOs "in the news." Unfortunately, that information is often misleading or simply inaccurate and it leads to fear spreading throughout the public. Those fears often lead people to reach conclusions that are not based on facts or science. Those fears, however, are real, even if the reason for the fear is not. Moms, who do the majority of food buying for the family, are especially concerned, because they rightly do not want to feed their family anything that is harmful. Here are some thoughts to help alleviate those fears:
    *GMOs are Safe - There has never been a single documented case of human health or animal health issues related to GMO food in the 20 years they have been on the market. More than 600 scientific studies support the safety of GMO food.
    *GMOs are Endorsed - The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Society and hundreds of other health groups have concluded that GMO food does not pose any more risk to people than non-GMO food.
    *GMOs are Tested - GMO crops are extensively and continually tested for consumer and environmental safety. Test are conducted and reviewed by the Departments of Agriculture and Environmental Protection, along with the FDA and similar international organizations.
    *GMOs are the Same - There is no significant difference between crops using GMO seeds and those from non-GMO seeds. If the food was different, such as if it had different nutritional properties or included an allergen that consumers would not associate with that type of food, then USDA and FDA would require that information to appear on a label. FYI... that has never been the case in the history of GMO food.
    *GMOs are positive Environmentally - Farmers are able to use far fewer pesticides and fertilizers than they did before using GMO seeds. The crops are more drought resistant and allow farmers to grow more food on the same amount of land.

    • Barbara from Atglen img 2015-02-17 13:10

      It seems to me that there are also studies that will refute every point that you make. I read this last year, and I think you are either wrong, or that the so-called benefits of GMO's are based on a strong need to believe they are better than they really are.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

      • GMO guru img 2015-02-20 13:58

        While this is undoubtedly true, science goes forward on "the weight of the evidence." So if one study says they're dangerous and one study says they're not, you don't know what to believe. If 1 study says they're dangerous and 10 studies say they're not, you'd tend to begin to believe they're not. By the time it's 1 dangerous to 100 not dangerous, it's a pretty good bet that you can ignore the one that says they're dangerous. In the case of GMOs, it's about 1 to 1000 at this point.

  • miromenev img 2015-02-17 13:20

    Hi folks I would say that no one could make the pests get away and maybe with time the best. And no one cld change the idea of something as cool as that . I would say that there is a chance of good firms to do something about it. And even the guys at SJ Co. and http://www.london-pest-control-london.co.uk/ said the same.
    Cheers.

  • Sheena Victoria Good img 2015-02-17 13:33

    What bothers me most is everyone using the argument that correlation does not equal causation - while this is true, it's also a beacon of hope that people hold onto. Did we not forget that correlation is how we were able to say that cigarettes cause cancer and a whole lot of other health concerns. The tobacco industry wants us to forget their deceptive advertising from the 1950s that depicted smoking as “Best for You” as approved by “50 years of scientific tobacco research”. The truth is the tobacco companies only cared about their own profits and not about the health of their customers. The same is true for the biotech industry - GMOs do not benefit the consumer only the biotech industry's pocket. And they will attack and discredit anyone that disagrees with this because they own our politicians and our government. Keep on saying that correlation does not equal causation meanwhile our kids are paying for it. This generation of children are the sickest in history. We need to start thinking differently before its too late.

    • DrJ img 2015-02-17 14:00

      But you're confusing even the nature of the correlations involved. The tobacco correlations were between people who smoked and people who didn't smoke. This "correlation" is "things that occurred over the last several decades". Come on. Maybe the astronauts brought health issues back from the moon!

    • Barbara from Atglen img 2015-02-17 14:01

      Sheena, you are absolutely correct. The phrase " Correlation is not causation" is thrown around so much by GMO advocates, in order to refute the validity of the statistics about the strong correlation between the increases in GMO food production and concurrent increases in reported cases of autism over time. I agree this correlation does not prove cause. But if I were a gambler, insurance underwriter, or a stockbroker, I would be paying very close attention to strong correlations. As a mother buying food for myself and my family, I would not bet the health and well-being on the possibility that the correlations are meaningless. Strong direct correlations indicate a need for more research!

  • Sheena Victoria Good img 2015-02-17 13:52

    Americans have 10 times the glyphosate accumulation in their urine as recent testing shows than Europeans. Even worse, the chemical is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers. Dr. Stephanie Seneff refers to glyphosate as “a deceptively simple molecule” that kills by interrupting the shikimate pathway in weeds and other pest plants. Because our human cells don’t have this same pathway, scientists and researchers mistakenly assume glyphosate exposure is harmless to us. However, the flora residing in our intestines (where they help us digest food) do have a shikimate pathway, and so when glyphosate kills these beneficial bacteria, it harms our immune system. This science is explained in a paper, which Seneff wrote with co-author Anthony Samsel and appears in the online journal Entropy. For anyone interested: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

  • oldsoul img 2015-02-17 16:07

    I can't site studies of harm and tragedy caused by GMOs, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers but I do know that I would not run barefoot through the streams I did as a child. I also gave up fishing in any bodies of water near human habitation. I don't have to be a scientist to know something is wrong with the way we grow food now. You can site all the studies in the world funded by agribusiness and try to tell me not to worry, we're scientists, and we are watching out for you. But I'm not buying it!

  • Jesse Sanders img 2015-02-17 20:13

    It is so easy to sell fear:
    The farmer talked about how that they would spray Roundup to corn that is 3 feet tall. That is in the second or 3rd week of June. The corn is harvested 2 months after. Are you telling me that Roundup hangs around in the environment and the corn all that time? I do not know of any study that shows that it does. If he wishes to grow organic or Non-GMO corn there is a market for that.
    Good luck.

    Breast milk study is not verifiable. But is was touted as absolute fact. http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/debunking-pseudo-science-lab-testing-health-risk-claims-about-glyphosate-roundup/

    I am not certain that GMO corn is safe. but I am also not certain that getting up in the morning is safe either but I do it anyway. I give you the permission to live in fear of every assumed risk but please stop trying to sell it to me.

  • Scott LaMar img 2015-02-18 08:03

    Jacinta asked...
    I would like to know if we should be safe choosing organic diets. Would that steer us safe from all or most GMO foods if we find it scary or unconvincing to consume them.

  • Radio Smart Talk img 2015-02-18 08:41

    For more information, a recent talk given by Dr. Fedoroff:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqJAeReFr8I

  • Farmtalk img 2015-02-18 10:22

    Have more questions about GMOs? Check out www.gmoanswers.com