Greenpeace posted a headline that neither their own story, nor the facts of the case backed up. The question here isn’t “Are GMOs dangerous?”, it’s “did the decision of this jury affirm the danger of Bayers genetically engineered rice?” and it didn’t. The Greenpeace headline was wrong on the facts. The article they wrote clearly reflects their views that GMOs are unsafe, but it doesn’t say anything provably false the way the headline did. The whole point of my post here was that even when put over a story that tells no lies, and misleading headline can still lead people to believe false information.

Now you very clearly want to turn this discussion on a single misleading headline into a broader debate about the safety/ethics/broader societal impact of genetic engineering. I’m happy to debate these subjects, because I think it’s educational for others to get the chance read the arguments both you and I could present. But I have access to the view stats for this page, and you and I are the only ones reading at this point. I’m not going to convince you that genetic engineering is safe (though I was hoping I would be able to show you that this Missouri lawsuit wasn’t ABOUT safety), and you aren’t making any progress convincing me of their danger (for example I was aware of the study you just linked to, and you’ll notice I was discussing it with Matt and nosmokes farther up this very page).

In an argument where neither you nor I will be swayed, and no one else is around to be informed in the process, what would be the point? What do you hope to gain? I grew up surrounded by creationists, and have had enough debates that accomplished nothing to last a dozen lifetimes.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11
Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 ©Ivyspring International Publisher
Research Paper
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

This is the bottom line quoted from above mentioned article, and there are many more similar articles from scientists readily available for those willing to care for humanity instead of the almighty buck.

“Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.”

People like you don’t want to eat genetically engineered crops. Therefore, when it was found that American rice contained trace amounts of Bayer’s genetically engineered rice, people stopped buying it (more specifically Europe stopping importing it for a while, and resumed only when each shipment was tested to ensure it was completely free of the genetically engineered variety). Less people buying the rice meant the price of rice went down and American rice farmers made less money.

All of this has nothing to do with the safety of genetically engineered crops, simply with the fact that farmers made less money because 1. Bayer’s rice got into rice shipments 2. People such as yourself wouldn’t buy such rice, and the EU wouldn’t even let it across the border. The court found Bayer should have been able to avoid their rice getting into the food supply, so they are, at least in part, liable for the money rice farmers lost.

Let me try putting it in another context: If I did something to make a company that sells kosher food unkosher, the people who pay more for kosher food would stop buying from that company (at least until they fixed whatever was wrong) and so the company would lose money. Since I’m the one who caused the company’s food to no longer be kosher I’m liable for the money they lost. This is true whether you or I personally think kosher food is better, worse, or identical to normal food. Does that make sense?

“A United States federal jury ruling on 4 December 2009, that Bayer CropScience LP must pay US$2 million to two Missouri farmers, affirms that the responsibility for the consequences of contamination from genetically modified organisms (GMO) rests with the company that releases GMO crops. The Missouri farmers’ crops were contaminated with an experimental variety of rice that Bayer was testing in 2006.”

—-obviously the court thought there was some danger that certainly implied there are some “facts” to back that up.

“Filipinos, whose staple food is rice, to consume food that is safe and free from GMO-contamination,” said Danny Ocampo, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. “Aside from the risks involved in the process of developing this genetically modified rice strain, residues of the powerful herbicide — Liberty Link (glufosinate) — also put at risk those who will be consuming it on a daily basis and at least 2 times a day.”

—again, the court must have felt there is some danger from Liberty Link. I can’s say what actually went on in the court case, but if you do, please present it. I only know what is in the article you refer to.

“Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite ‘the best practices’ to stop contamination[1]. It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GMO crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.”

“Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops ‘Contaminated’ by Modified Rice
By Andrew M. Harris” (from link)
““Bayer was supposed to be careful,” attorney Don Downing told the jury of four men and five women during his opening statement yesterday. “Bayer was not careful and that rice did escape into our commercial rice supplies.”
The farmers, who grow rice in southeastern Missouri, claim the export market for their crops was curtailed when the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006 announced that trace amounts of the genetically modified rice, designed by Bayer to be herbicide resistant, were found in U.S. long-grain stocks.
Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing the rice, which hadn’t been approved for human consumption, for resistance to the company’s Liberty herbicide.
Bayer’s genetically modified strains “contaminated” more than 30 percent of U.S. ricelands, Downing told jurors.”

“…a decline in rice futures cost U.S. growers about $150 million, ”

“Exports also fell, the growers said, as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas markets slowed for testing or stopped their imports of the U.S.-grown long grain rice. ”

—obviously the court agreed there was danger to farmer’s livlihood

““If you’re first to the market with a new product, it can be very, very profitable,” Downing told the jury. The evidence will show that in its haste, Bayer became sloppy, the “Bayer did not keep track of its genetically modified seed,” Downing said later. ”

—again, obviously, the court agreed that Bayer was sloppy.

The court must have “facts” that we do not. I know that even the justice system is flawed, but it’s the best we have. Every line from every article may be taken as a “fact” from what you say. But when the court judges against a company, they presumably have more facts than we do, and until we can actually see the court case, we have no facts either, not you nor I.

OK. you say “that wasn’t what the court case is about.” So what was it about?

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” Still, you think you are the only one with the facts.

My personal fact is – from my research, I’ve come to the conclusion that I do not want to eat GMOs. Simple fact. Give me a choice. Can you deny that organic agriculture will be totally gone from our landscape because of the invasion of GMO plants? Then I will have no choice at all.

Further, no proof exists that GMOs are safe as no trials have been conducted on humans. Don’t tell me that millions are eating it. I know that. But millions are also sick and with dramatic increases in allergies, with no known cause. If you are looking at the sky, you will not see a penny on the ground.

You can believe all that genetically engineered crops are dangerous if you like. But the fact is that the court case this article reported on had nothing to do with their danger one way or the other. The headline is provably incorrect.

As former Sen. Moynihan famously said: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”

You certainly read the article with a biased twist, and spin, the same twist and spin you accuse others of….but, oh yes, we “don’t know better” do we. You are definitely one of those who knows better.

Brilliant you are, you Fact checkers, polished comments, brilliant research, and mutual admiration society members. Monsanto fudges research. Check that out. Others can research too, and like you, don’t want to spend hours trying to convince the cool-aid drinkers. Truth is out there.

The great thing about the web is that, when people actually bother to link to their sources, I can actually see the process of an idea mutating as it jumps from one site to the next. It must be the geneticist in me, but (when it’s not annoying) I find it fascinating to follow that evolution.

It makes sense you used to work at a publishing company, the posts you write up for your blog have been so polished from day one.

I used to work for a publishing company in DC – we published financial advice and personal finance newsletters – and the biggest part of my job was to fact-check. I was astounded by how often the major money/finance magazines/newspapers repeated incorrect information. Of course, I was young and naive back then.

That was one of the most difficult jobs I ever had, but it taught me that it’s important to find the truth. Especially when it’s hard.

I don’t think the job of fact-checker exists anymore. I took pride in it, and I see that in you, too. Keep up the good work!

Here, I discussed the statistics behind that “toxin” study