Discussion: Donald Trump Retweets GMO Truther Dissing Monsanto

Discussion for article #242063

Trump to Iowa: Drop Dead

4 Likes

Trump is like an open carry with a hair trigger, walking around pointed at his own head.
First sign of friction, out go the lights.

And it’s not even about him—Iowa GOPers are just extra-Jeebusy so naturally Carson does well. Honest to God, if you can’t handle the slightest criticism then campaigning for the Presidency is probably not a good hobby for you.

1 Like

The candidate also gave oxygen to the anti-genetically modified foods movement, despite the fact that numerous public health agencies have found no evidence that foods made with GMOs are unsafe.

You mean the numerous public health agencies that used Monsanto’s data, without conducting their own research? The ones headed by ex-Monsanto executives?

3 Likes

King of the Retardicans!

Monsanto locations in Iowa.

Ames
Anamosa
Ankeny
Aplington
Atlantic
Beaman
Boone
Cedar Falls
Cedar Rapids
Clarion
Dayton
Grinnell
Huxley
Independence
Muscatine
Spencer
Storm Lake
Williamsburg

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/iowa.aspx

No, probably referring to the 1,783 separate independent (not using Monsanto’s data) studies in the 10 years up to 2014 which had not found any reproducible harmful effects of any of the current GMO crops (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595).

Of all the crops to paint with the “messing with nature” anti-GMO brush, corn is about the most ironic possible pick. Of course, none of our major crops are anywhere near what occurred naturally prior to human intervention in selective breeding and cross breeding of plants to attain sustainable and predictable crop yields.

The only halfway compelling anti-GMO argument as of today is that the use of Roundup-immune crops leads to greater and less discriminate use of Roundup, but that isn’t at all what the Trump retweet was saying. The tweet Trump furthered is based on pure FUD.

I don’t like Monsanto, and feel its tactics are reprehensible. No for-profit company will be able to accomplish what we need to accomplish with genetic engineering in the next century, especially with climate changes mounting. Without further advancing and adapting our crops we will not be able to sustain life on Earth. Genetic engineering is critical to our survival as a species (the alternative, selective breeding, takes too long to work and is paradoxically significantly more dangerous than targeted genetic modification). The ideal situation would be for Monsanto’s various patents to be bought out by a governmental organization or non-profit which can more reliably handle the responsibility of this technology. But, that definitely will not ever happen with a large portion of the population simplistically believing “artificial == bad”.

6 Likes

Me-ow!

So, is that genetically modified hair on Trump’s head? Could that account for the fact that he is such a buffoon? And, what does that say about Iowa? Stay tuned.

If T-Rump knew anything about Iowa he’d know that’s where TeaPubs go to confirm their ‘loser-ness’.

A lot of those comments on twitter sound like something smartassed he’d say but I really have to wonder if he just sits around typing up those responses minutes after something comes out or happens. If so he’s got way too much time to kill.

In 2009, Monsanto did heavily restrict independent science. An October 2009 news feature by Emily Waltz in Nature Biotechnology talks about a complaint by 26 scientists to the EPA about seed company’s restrictions.

“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops [because of company-imposed restrictions]”
In late 2009, seed companies, including Monsanto reacted to these complaints and changed their requirements.

Monsanto explains their new Public Research Agreements: (hat tip to @Atsby for the link)

As a result, Monsanto introduced the blanket agreement, which allows university scientists to work with Monsanto’s commercial seed products without contacting the company or signing a separate contract. This blanket agreement – the Academic Research License (ARL) – enables academic researchers to do research with commercialized products with as few constraints as possible. ARLs are in place with all major agriculturally-focused US universitiesabout 100 in total.
So, scientists are still required by Monsanto to comply to some restrictions, but the level of the restrictions has been lowered, and it can no longer be said that Monsanto forbids independent research.

What do these agreements actually say? They appear to be confidential, which is disappointing, and fosters some doubts over the scientific integrity of the resulting research - particularly publication bias.

However, the same science writer, Emily Waltz, reported this update as a News Brief in the October 2010 issue of the same journal. She quotes anonymous scientists as being happy with the new agreement:

“[The agreement] is extremely good and specific. ARS will be allowed to do basically everything that could be desired,” says one ARS scientist who asked to remain anonymous.
Waltz examined a version of the agreement:

The Monsanto-ARS agreement obtained by Nature Biotechnology allows ARS scientists to conduct agronomic research—studies on how crops interact with local environments and which varieties perform best. Studies outside of agronomic research, such as breeding, reverse engineering or characterizing the genetic composition of the crop, require separate contracts with the company. The agreement is nearly identical in scope to Monsanto’s licenses with universities, but is more specific. An appendix included in ARS’s license lists more than 25 examples of the specific types of studies that are considered “agronomic” and therefore permissible—a definition that has been unclear to public sector scientists in the past. “It allows us to do our research under a blanket agreement instead of negotiating everything [with Monsanto] every time,” says Larry Chandler, an area director at ARS who facilitated the negotiations. “This is much more efficient for all parties.”
To summarise:

This was largely true in 2009 that Monsanto tightly controlled independent research. It was no longer true in 2013. There are still some limitations on scientists, but Monsanto doesn’t forbid independent research.

3 Likes

The world is on to the GMO scam and that’s why most of Europe and Russia have outlawed it’s use and why Monsanto’s earnings are tanking.

Their Roundup-Ready crops have been requiring more and more Roundup to accomplish their goals, costing farmers more and polluting the environment even more. The recent classification of Roundup ingredient, glyphosate, as a likely cause of cancer has also brought the first class-action lawsuits. The chickens have come home to roost for the GMO

2 Likes

It’s funny the way people will express fear over their food when you contrast their complaints with their general state of health. An obese person that smokes, drinks, hasn’t exercised in years and possesses a permanent booth at the Golden Corral will lecture you on this or that unsafe food additive or GMO crop. They’re diabetic, don’t get annual physicals, wouldn’t dream of enduring a post-50 age colonoscopy, ride motorcycles without a helmet, don’t use a seatbelt, the batteries in their smoke detectors are dead. But those bastards at Monsanto are out to kill them!!!

2 Likes

Disjointed message, yes. But it was still oh-so-Presidential! Right Donald? I got my popcorn ready; the smartest guy in the room is soon to be crushed like a small grape, humiliated, then fired.

2 Likes

Ah, Monsanto makes tons of pesticides fro agriculture and nothing in the tweet indicates it has anything to do with GMOs.

I hate defending Trump, but this is some seriously weak shit to try and spin this as Trump embracing GMO activist “truther” theories.

The GMO fraud is crumbling like a stale cookie all around the world as more and more countries ban GMO’s (and the nasty Roundup that is sprayed on them).

Here’s what Guatemalan’s think about GMO’s:

Trumpy is exhibiting the classic behavior of the malignant narcissist: “If you don’t adore me, there must be something wrong with you.”

2 Likes

I will happily keep eating my non-GMO certified non round-up coated organic produce, while also avoiding the GMO stuffed processed foods lining supermarket shelves. The fact is many studies even those using the data from Monsanto have shown that there are negative health effects from GMOs. Let’s set that aside for a second though and look at only one of the health effects not related to directly ingesting the GMO foods themselves. The main genetic modification to GM corn allows it to be resistant to Round Up. The main ingredient in Round-Up, glyphosate, is a “probable” carcinogen, and farmers who have been using glyphosate pesticides are getting sick from it. The weeds killed by Round Up are becoming more and more resistant to it, requiring more and more Round Up to be sprayed on the crops to maintain yields. What is healthy about that?

1 Like