Dr. Oz’s New Episode Ends Controversy, Doubles Down on GMO Labeling

[Weston White]

Dr. Oz’s New Episode Ends Controversy, Doubles Down on GMO Labeling

Dr. Oz, choosing not to start the fight, has finished it in expert fashion. He opened his much anticipated episode with the statement “My life’s work has been built around one simple message; you have a right and a responsibility to become a world expert on your own body. And the way you do that is to have access to the best, and most current information, multiple points of view, and diverse opinions.”

At this point, the Dr. Oz show went into full investigative journalist mode exposing the underside of GMO lobbying, medical industry fraud, and falsified scientific research. This marks a new, high water mark for the show’s integrity and professionalism. A format that is sure to be a home run in the future if Dr. Oz decides to dip his toe into investigating the medial fraud and corporate collusion. At times feeling like an educational documentary on how the medical profession, scientific literature, and thought are falsely shaped. Mainstream viewers seeing this information for the first time will not forget or forgive anytime soon.

Following in the footsteps of the alternative community’s instant investigative journalism after the initial attacks on Oz, honorary Dr. Oz show investigative reporter Elizabeth Limy took things further by presenting a compelling report. In the line of fire were all ten doctors. Oz attacker Dr. Henry Miller was clearly shown to be a biotech shill and gun for hire working previously as a key supporter for the tobacco industry in the 90’s. The next target exposed was the “Rent-A-Scientist” group American Council of Science and Health (ACSH) for their work promoting cigarettes, pesticides, and GMO’s while collecting money from all three industries. Ross’s $8 million criminal Medicare fraud and jail time was another easy target for Limy’s report. Rounding out the rest of the attacker’s backgrounds showed more biotech shills and ACSH henchmen.

Also lending to the episode’s integrity were trusted names like Lisa Graves, Executive Director of Sourcewatch.org, Gary Ruskin of U.S. Right to Know, and Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, and Dr. Joel Fuhrman. Fuhrman hit this crocked nail on the head by saying “It’s ugly, its ugly…number one, they (the attackers) are not representative of the medical profession. Number two, it’s not an attack just against you (Oz), it’s an attack against all physicians, all health professionals…”

Fuhrman strikes at the roots by continuing “It’s very important we recognize this (Oz’s attacks) as being anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-the right to help people in the best way possible.” Not even the media was safe as Fuhrman correctly chastised mainstream news outlets and reporters stating “what the media did to explode it (the attacks) all over the place. It was sloppy and dangerous journalism because they didn’t do their background checks, they didn’t know who these people were, they didn’t understand their agenda, and they reported a lot of things that just we not accurate.”

cc: Angela, Zippy, Count, PRB, ARC,et al.

[Danke]

Dr. Oz’s New Episode Ends Controversy, Doubles Down on GMO Labeling

cc: Angela, Zippy, Count, PRB, ARC,et al.

[The Northbreather]

Let the games begin

[BuddyRey]

He's got cojones...I gotta admire that.

[juleswin]

Some where in Michigan, a rabid pro vaxx zealot and promoter of everything corporate science endorses is having a seizure from reading this thread. Maybe it's time for another measles vaccines to help with the seizure.

Good for him, I wish companies will voluntarily start labeling food genetically modified. And by GMO, I am talking about DNA spliced up crops

[Weston White]

Some where in Michigan, a rabid pro vaxx zealot and promoter of everything corporate science endorses is having a seizure from reading this thread. Maybe it's time for another measles vaccines to help with the seizure.

O-M-G! People are going to die!

What are the signs and symptoms healthcare providers should look for in diagnosing measles?

Healthcare providers should suspect measles in patients with a febrile rash illness and the clinically compatible symptoms of cough, coryza (runny nose), and/or conjunctivitis (red, watery eyes). A clinical case of measles is defined as an illness characterized by

• a generalized rash lasting 3 or more days, and
• a temperature of 101°F or higher (38.3°C or higher), and
• cough, coryza, and/or conjunctivitis.

http://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_mmr.asp


The only thing that will save us all are three-MMR vaccinations, two-measles boosters, and of course a Partridge in a Pear Tree.

[Zippyjuan]

In a statement prior to the show, he said:

http://time.com/3831926/dr-oz-criticism-answers/

Other times the topics are controversial, but are still worthwhile, like our campaign supporting GMO labeling. And this brings me back to a motive for the letter. These doctors criticized my “baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops,” which is another false accusation. Whether you support genetically engineered crops or not, the freedom to make an informed choice should belong to consumers. The bill in Congress this month proposing to block states from independently requiring labeling offers a coup to pro-GMO groups.

As a scientist, I am not that concerned about GMOs themselves, but I am worried about why they were created. Highly toxic herbicides would kill crops unless they were genetically modified, but with the genetic upgrade, these plants can be doused with much higher doses, with potential complications to the environment. The WHO believes that glyphosate is “probably a human carcinogen.” Perhaps we are all showing “disdain for science and evidence-based medicine,” but I would argue that unleashing these products creates a real-time experiment on the human species. Sure, we will eventually know if these pesticides are a problem, but at the expense of the pain and suffering and disease in real people. I owe my kids more. And so do you.

So he is not opposed to GMOs- "which is another false accusation" but is in favor of labels so people can choose. He is more worried about pesticides.
"As a scientist, I am not that concerned about GMOs themselves".


http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/06/bi...ticide-study-r

Biotech Crops Use Less Pesticide: Study Rebuts Perennial Anti-GMO Activist Lie

Anti-technology activists incessantly claim that planting modern herbicide and pest-resistant biotech crop varieties results in farmers using more pesticides. For example, the thankfully failed anti-science Oregon GMO labeling initiative asserted...

...genetically engineered, herbicide resistant crops have caused 527 million pounds of additional herbicides to be applied to the nation's farmland.

This activist disinformation has been rebutted by researchers numerous times. The latest rebuttal is a study,"A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," just published in the journal PLoS One. The study was done by by two German researchers from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen. After analyzing 147 original agronomic studies dealing with pesticide applications on biotech crops, they report:

On average, GM technology has increased crop yields by 21%. These yield increases are not due to higher genetic yield potential, but to more effective pest control and thus lower crop damage. At the same time, GM crops have reduced pesticide quantity by 37% and pesticide cost by 39% (emphasis added). The effect on the cost of production is not significant. GM seeds are more expensive than non-GM seeds, but the additional seed costs are compensated through savings in chemical and mechanical pest control. Average profit gains for GM-adopting farmers are 69%.

More yield and lower pesticide applications means less potential damage to the natural environment. And more profits for farmers too! What's not to like?!!

[GunnyFreedom]

In a statement prior to the show, he said:

http://time.com/3831926/dr-oz-criticism-answers/



So he is not opposed to GMOs- "which is another false accusation" but is in favor of labels so people can choose. He is more worried about pesticides.
"As a scientist, I am not that concerned about GMOs themselves".


http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/06/bi...ticide-study-r

This has been one of the primary arguments of GMO sceptics since day 1. You do not appear to have been paying attention.

[angelatc]

Some where in Michigan, a rabid pro vaxx zealot and promoter of everything corporate science endorses is having a seizure from reading this thread. Maybe it's time for another measles vaccines to help with the seizure.

Good for him, I wish companies will voluntarily start labeling food genetically modified. And by GMO, I am talking about DNA spliced up crops

There's already a label for non-genetically modified. It's called "organic."

Besides, practically every food you eat has been genetically modified. For example...corn in it's natural state looks nothing like the plant we consume. It took hundreds of years for them to get to what we have now. But God forbid we use science to speed that up.

Seedless watermelons are another example of genetic modification. But one that's perfectly acceptable to label as organic.

The "label it!" GMO crowd are demanding only that a specific method be labeled. Then they'll start saying, "If it isn't dangerous, why would it be labeled?" T

And I like the way you spit out "corprate science." Leftists always use "corporate" as in insult. It's a tell. The anti-science religious right always go for the "OMG! Messing with God!" approach. But it's lovely to see the most distasteful elements of both factions find something they can both be wrong about.

[dannno]

lol, funny the Daily Show did a sorta pro-GMO-esque show the other night..

[Created4]

Some where in Michigan, a rabid pro vaxx zealot and promoter of everything corporate science endorses is having a seizure from reading this thread. Maybe it's time for another measles vaccines to help with the seizure.

Good for him, I wish companies will voluntarily start labeling food genetically modified. And by GMO, I am talking about DNA spliced up crops

Some are, and not just GMO testing, but also glyphosate-testing:



Healthy Traditions

[angelatc]

Answer yes or no (no peeking!) Which of the following are considered to be GMOs in the United States?


Corn engineered with a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis to express an insecticidal protein


Corn created by crossing genetically homozygous corn genomes, resulting in more robust heterozygous varieties. These are commercialized and sold.


Watermelon created by crossing a parent with four sets of chromosomes with a parent with two sets.
The offspring, with three sets, cannot complete the process of meiosis, rendering it sterile and unable to produce seeds.


Papaya with a short viral sequence in its genome, allowing it to resist harmful ringspot infection.


Kiwi created by applying a chemical to induce multiplication of the number of chromosomes (polyploidy) causing the fruit to be larger and more commercially viable.


Apple created with reduced expression of the enzyme that causes it to turn brown (it will still brown when rotten, but not when bitten.)


Grapefruit created by exposure to gamma radiation to induce artificial genetic mutations. Those with beneficial mutations are then commercialized and sold.

[juleswin]

There's already a label for non-genetically modified. It's called "organic."

From google, it defines organic food as

Simply stated, organic produce and other ingredients are grown without the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, genetically modified organisms, or ionizing radiation. Animals that produce meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products do not take antibiotics or growth hormones.

Food not being gmo is only part requirement of it being organic. I want labeling that will tell me if something as radical as DNA splicing was used in the creation of my food. I don't really care if synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were used

Besides, practically every food you eat has been genetically modified. For example...corn in it's natural state looks nothing like the plant we consume. It took hundreds of years for them to get to what we have now. But God forbid we use science to speed that up.

Again, not true. When people talk about GMO, they are talking mainly about DNA splicing where DNA from x organism is merged with DNA from another organism not the process of hybridization. I don't necessarily think it is bad but I just would like to know. The corn , banana, wheat are examples of hybrid and you can do amazing thing with hybridization, it just takes a lot of time to achieve desired results.

Hybridization is the process of interbreeding between individuals of different species (interspecific hybridization) or genetically divergent individuals from the same species (intraspecific hybridization). Offspring produced by hybridization may be fertile, partially fertile, or sterile.

Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/Ho-L...#ixzz3YGN1gw8P

The "label it!" GMO crowd are demanding only that a specific method be labeled. Then they'll start saying, "If it isn't dangerous, why would it be labeled?" T

And I like the way you spit out "corprate science." Leftists always use "corporate" as in insult. It's a tell. The anti-science religious right always go for the "OMG! Messing with God!" approach. But it's lovely to see the most distasteful elements of both factions find something they can both be wrong about.

Its no secret that I used to be very liberal before I discovered Ron Paul, I have admitted it on so many occasions. So I still use the word corporate as a pejorative. I guess old habits die hard? For whatever reason, I would like food labeled and when I can buy more foods that are "more natural" than GMO. It maybe irrational but I prefer food that is less genetically tinkered with.

[angelatc]

From google, it defines organic food as


Food not being gmo is only part requirement of it being organic. I want labeling that will tell me if something as radical as DNA splicing was used in the creation of my food. I don't really care if synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were used

The USDA standards maintain that food can't be labeled organic if it is transgenic. Hence, we already have a label. It's called "organic."

Again, not true. When people talk about GMO, they are talking mainly about DNA splicing where DNA from x organism is merged with DNA from another organism not the process of hybridization. I don't necessarily think it is bad but I just would like to know. The corn , banana, wheat are examples of hybrid and you can do amazing thing with hybridization, it just takes a lot of time to achieve desired results.


Its no secret that I used to be very liberal before I discovered Ron Paul, I have admitted it on so many occasions. So I still use the word corporate as a pejorative. I guess old habits die hard? For whatever reason, I would like food labeled and when I can buy more foods that are "more natural" than GMO. It maybe irrational but I prefer food that is less genetically tinkered with.

So you're not against genetically modification, just not efficient genetic modification. And you want foods that are genetically modified using modern methods labeled, while foods that were genetically modified using inefficient manual methods to not be labeled.

And this despite the fact that there is no nutritional difference, no proven harm despite 40+ years in the food supply, and decades of research looking for the hidden dangers that apparently don't exist.

I have no problem with manufacturers labeling their food voluntarily. I understand why (even though I don't agree with it) the government mandates nutritional and content labeling.

But I do not understand why I should have to pay extra to have a specific process identified. There is no "right to know!"

[juleswin]

The USDA standards maintain that food can't be labeled organic if it is transgenic. Hence, we already have a label. It's called "organic."


So you're not against genetically modification, just not efficient genetic modification. And you want foods that are genetically modified using modern methods labeled, while foods that were genetically modified using inefficient manual methods to not be labeled.

And this despite the fact that there is no nutritional difference, no proven harm despite 40+ years in the food supply, and decades of research looking for the hidden dangers that apparently don't exist.

I have no problem with manufacturers labeling their food voluntarily. I understand why (even though I don't agree with it) the government mandates nutritional and content labeling.

But I do not understand why I should have to pay extra to have a specific process identified. There is no "right to know!"

This is exactly what I want. Its really not that controversial which is why I cannot understand the resistance to it. I prefer the process of gradual/slow genetic modification via hybridization over what I consider the rushed genetic modification via DNA splicing.

It will also be voluntary not govt mandated.

[angelatc]

This is exactly what I want. Its really not that controversial which is why I cannot understand the resistance to it. I prefer the process of gradual/slow genetic modification via hybridization over what I consider the rushed genetic modification via DNA splicing.

It will also be voluntary not govt mandated.

I don't have any issue with voluntary labeling. But that's not what most of the anti-GMO people want. They want mandatory labeling.

[ClydeCoulter]

To be labeled organic, you have to go through more hoops and cost than just labeling non-gmo. It's not the same at all.

[Created4]

To be labeled organic, you have to go through more hoops and cost than just labeling non-gmo. It's not the same at all.

Exactly, it is not the same at all. USDA NOP forbids many things besides GMOs, including glyphosate and many other pesticides and herbicides. However, our own independent testing finds GMOs, glyphosate, and others in Organic products. For example, pretty much ALL of the organic corn in the U.S. is contaminated with GMOs. We know, because we tried to find truly GMO-free corn, and it is extremely difficult to find.

But the kicker is that if you read the fine print of USDA NOP, these "residue" amounts found in organic products are allowed. They take a percentage of the EPA limits for conventional crops, and allow that for organics. Most of the public does not know this. They think if they are purchasing something that is USDA organic, it is free from these contaminants. Not so. They just contain a lot fewer, but it is not necessarily ZERO.

As to mandatory labeling of GMOs, I am sympathetic to the cause, but I don't believe it will solve the problem. Far better is what some counties are doing in Hawaii, California, and Oregon at the local level, which is BANNING GMOs in their communities. This is far more effective, but of course at the federal level they are trying to prevent communities and states from doing that by passing federal legislation to stop these bans.

For a good argument from someone who is opposed to GMOs but also against a federal labeling requirement, listen to Joel Salatin's presentation in a debate he had with Joseph Mercola on this issue:

[video won't embed for some reason - see link below]

Transcript here: Should the Federal Government Mandate GMO Labeling?

See Also:

Victory! Hawaii Leads Nation on Banning GMO Crops