September 29, 2015

Alberta: Anti-science NDP want safe GMO food labelled like cigarettes

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

Where does your preferred candidate stand on GMOs?

Well, if your preferred candidate is NDP they stand with the activists against science and farmers.

The NDP produced a national food strategy document called “ Everybody Eats” and in this document they plan to specifically label all GMO foods. To make matters worse, the NDP has been meeting with activists and special interests groups, and not with farmers and scientists. Even some familiar NDP candidates have taken up this cause, like anti Albertan candidate Jacqui Gingras.

The NDP wants labels for perfectly safe food, proudly produced by Canadian farmers. Should it be labelled like cigarettes? I don’t think so.


JOIN for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

VISIT our NEW group blog The Megaphone!
It’s your one-stop shop for rebellious commentary from independent and fearless readers and writers.

Alberta’s NDP just gave their unionized government workers a 7.25% raise!
SIGN THE PETITION against this insane decision at

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-10-02 06:26:37 -0400
“Even some of the most creative, brilliant, and respected minds were known to be somewhat eccentric and have some crank views.”
Indeed. And then, many who held crank views were simply cranks. Strohman’s credibility on issues related to genetics are rather seriously compromised by his peculiar theories on cancer and AIDS.
But to be fair, let’s not judge the value of his view on that basis. Let’s look, instead, at his actual scientific research that indicates that shows of evidence GMO peril.
Oh, gee – there is none.
commented 2015-10-02 03:35:52 -0400
Terry, Yes, even some of the most creative, brilliant, and respected minds were known to be somewhat eccentric and have some crank views. Hence the origin for the term, “mad genius”. The question is, does what he says with resect to GMO science make sense? Based on what I have read and my perspective of what is and what is not natural, I think it does.

Richard Strohman, Ph.D. was one of 32 signatories (scientists/doctors) in 1991 calling for a reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Is that not what scientists are obliged to do when it comes to a scientific hypothesis/theory?

You may find the following news release describing Richard Strohman’s accomplishments of interest.
commented 2015-10-01 22:45:30 -0400
Ken, you may or may not know that “Richard Strohman, Ph.D.”, was regarded as a bit of a nut, with some crank views on the causes of cancer and AIDS that have been thoroughly debunked.
commented 2015-10-01 14:14:03 -0400
“You can’t believe everything you read on the internet.” – Abraham Lincoln.
commented 2015-10-01 05:08:18 -0400
i do not think there has been sufficient studies done by independent labs.
the GMO’s use bacteria and virus’ to introduce changes to proteins and enzymes in the host plant. that alone tells me how many potential problems can be incurred. proteins and enzymes that humans and animals have not encounter previously in their food.

the internet has become a difficult world since there is so much dis-information that it becomes difficult to find the truth. let alone independent research. it is quashed or not done since critical work is usually not easy to accomplish as it costs money and the independent don’t have access to it.

personally I don’t think large corporations have the public interest at heart unless it co-indices with their interests. as an outsider I don’t trust them. I am surprised that the REBEL media has even posted such a essay without any proof of what they are saying just because someone sees an opportunity to bludgeon the NDP.

I think the NDP are scum or useful idiots, socialists which I equate with communists.
commented 2015-10-01 02:27:27 -0400
I’ve lived and worked on the farm for the last 55 years. When Monsanto introduced roundup and touted it as biodegradable and non-toxic, I questioned that logic and suggested that any chemical that demonstrated such a wide spectrum of toxicity cannot but be harmful. To date science has not proved me wrong and has increasingly shown that roundup is indeed toxic to all life forms including man. Glyphosate (Roundup) is designed to destroy the plants immune system and its extensive use relies heavily on the introduction of genetically modified plants/GMO’s.

What also should be noted is that GMO’s in turn rely on the use of a technology known as ARM (antibiotic resistant marker) genes, The use of ARM’s have demonstrated their ability to affect all soil born microbes including microbes found in animals and the human gut and have also demonstrated the ability to alter antibiotic resistance to commonly used antibiotics. Studies from the University of Illinois and University of Newcastle have identified the ability of DNA transfer from GE foods to microbes in the gut. The WHO has issued warnings and the British Medical Association has called for a ban on using antibiotic marker genes.
commented 2015-10-01 01:39:53 -0400
My last sentence should have stated, “It’s apparent that companies such as Monsanto are spending huge amounts of $$$ in order to deny the consumer the right to know what foods have been genetically modified. Why is that the case?
commented 2015-09-30 23:02:22 -0400
Robert, I agree that the left has been bent on destroying the agricultural industry, but I think it has been done via the death of small family farms. Bigger farms, less individual farmers and if they want to survive, plant what they are told with the seed they are forced to use for planting. I don’t blame farmers sticking up for GMO’s, they have been forced into it in order to compete. They have no choice.
But here is the catch, while you can force it on the farmers, the general public are a harder sell and they are the ones who will or will not buy it. I don’t want to be backed into a corner where my only food source it the supermarket, stocked by Monsanto.

I understand that there may be applications worthwhile to areas in the world where conditions of one thing or another make it difficult to produce healthy food. For example, beta carotene rice to deliver vit. A to children dying for lack of that specific vitamin.

However, I would like to buy some corn on the cob that wasn’t modified to grow faster, get bigger, or survive heavier pesticide applications. I know its more often than not about a bigger crop, a better yield. Its also more about control by Monsanto and money than anything else. Not to mention all the unintended consequences which may or may not exist. Bottom line, I want it labelled.
commented 2015-09-30 20:46:15 -0400
Destroying the modern agricultural industry has been on the left’s agenda for a long time. It’s an old leftist tactic, claim it’s not safe, and repeat the lie over and over again to create fear.
commented 2015-09-30 20:44:34 -0400
I’m not a socialist…
I’m not anti science…
But when it comes to the food that I eat, I want to know how it has been adulterated.
It’s apparent that companies such as Monsanto are spending huge amount of $$$ in order to deny the consumer the right to what foods have been genetically modified.

Consider this scientists observation,

“When you insert a single gene into a plant or an animal, the technology will work. You will be able to move that gene from organism A to organism B. You will be able to know that the transfer was successful. You will be able to know that the gene is being expressed, and even that the function of the gene is being expressed. So you’ll get the desired characteristic. But you will also get other effects that you couldn’t have predicted from your original assumptions. You will have also produced changes in the cell or the organism as a whole that are unpredictable. And that’s what the science is having to deal with.

‘The reason why Monsanto can claim scientific soundness is that they are only answering the technical question, ‘Can I move this gene and this characteristic from A to B?’ They are not asking the questions that the current understanding of cell biology demands. You can ask the technical question and get the answer you are looking for. You can take a gene from A and put it into B. We know that. But that’s the only question we can answer with certainty. We now realize that there are a whole host of other questions.

‘Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation. And the fact that the industry folks don’t deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous. If you send these new genetic structures out into the world, into hundreds of thousands of acres, you’re going into the world with a premature application of a scientific principle.

‘We’re in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don’t know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don’t want to look at it because it’s too complicated and it’s going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable. And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that’s what you get when you’re dealing with living systems."

Richard Strohman, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California at Berkeley
commented 2015-09-30 14:38:33 -0400
No science is ever settled, Russell. That’s how science differs from revelation. Not even Newtonian physics is an absolute anymore. Just as long as we’re clear that there’s no actual scientific basis for your fear, by all means support the NDP in their initiative.
commented 2015-09-30 13:50:04 -0400
The science is not settled. We have a right to know and to select the foods we want to eat. Soon I’ll start quoting from Mark Steyn’s speech, and start equating you to the climate change groups.
commented 2015-09-30 13:43:15 -0400
“Plants and humans pollinating each other may be natural process.
Plants and humans pollinate each other in your world, do they?
commented 2015-09-30 13:41:37 -0400
“What are you really afraid of? "
I’m not afraid of anything, Russell. I think the “fear” resides among the folks who think without scientific basis that GMOs are inherently health risks.
commented 2015-09-30 13:25:34 -0400
I got your point Terry Rudden, but I don’t think you got mine. Plants and humans pollinating each other may be natural process, but food engineering is not, and this is not the main point anyways, but a side topic. I want to know what I’m eating, and I want to decide. It’s also why I decide on one product labeled with certain content of sugar, sodium, trans-fats, versus another, and if you would deny us the right to know what is GMO, I ask if you are also against labels of sugar, sodium, trans-fats. Let people have the info and let them decide. What are you really afraid of?
commented 2015-09-30 12:40:46 -0400
I’m not sure you got my point, Russell, which is that human beings have been “redesigning the natural food supply” since the first grower noticed you could improve crop yield by making sure that these two specific plants pollinated each other. We’ve been been practicing genetic modification for centuries before Watson and Crick, or Darwin, or Mendel.
commented 2015-09-30 12:16:14 -0400
Terry Rudden: And for most of human history, we even had slavery, and no human rights. But we have evolved, and the argument that we used to do things is not enough nor valid. I want to decide what I eat. And, GMO people actually want to patent food like veggies of the world, and that is new, and only a godless atheist would do that. They want to infect all the food with their seeds, then claim ownership of all that grows.
commented 2015-09-30 12:01:28 -0400
“they try to redesign the natural food supply that they force into others.”
Hate to break it to you, Russell, but human beings have been doing that since the invention of agriculture.
commented 2015-09-30 11:58:52 -0400
Sounds like someone is very worried about us looking closer at GMO! Perhaps there is a hockey stick in the theory. And what kind of big egos are people, so full of themselves, that they try to redesign the natural food supply that they force into others. And, they actually then try to claim patents on the world’s food.
commented 2015-09-30 11:56:41 -0400
Russell Turner – the starvation is in third world countries, where GMO’s are saving lives.
commented 2015-09-30 11:54:13 -0400
Kelvin Grabowsky – I saw the movie “Soylent Green” many years ago, and it still haunts me to this day! It’s creepy, to think that it just may be coming true, right before our eyes. What with the SCOC forcing our federal government, to implement a law to assist those who want to opt out of life early, for whatever frivolous reason. I think human life is worth more than this. If we are just going to be killed off anyway, who cares what’s in our food, as long as we have some.
commented 2015-09-30 11:49:08 -0400
When you start seeing 4 legged chickens, it’s too late to start to worry! We label foods already, and that has benefited humans, so why this one exception and why this attempt to hide. And why this attempt to force everyone to accept the science is settled, and don’t ask questions? My right to know will not deprive you of the right to choice or any other rights. And if cost is the criteria for decisions, then let’s take all labeling off all food products, and off everything else including safety testing and standards as they just add costs, but we don’t and such arguments are nonsense.
commented 2015-09-30 11:34:32 -0400
I agree with Colin, when you start seeing 4 legged chickens and 6 legged cows I’ll start to worry. If you start labelling food stuffs it will drive the price up, just like the organic movement. Which btw should be cheaper because you have used less energy to produce said products. No when the commies start talking about food I instantly think of soylent green………..
commented 2015-09-30 11:07:52 -0400
Labeling of food products for contents is standard and expected, so why is it being hidden in this case. And what is in water bottles is also labeled, especially if it is not plain water. And yes, what goes into the animal bodies does go into the food chain, and eventually into us. Drugs fatten up the animals, and then we get the drugs second hand, and that fattens us up too. You want me to accept that the “science is settled”, which makes you like the climate change gang? But fundamental rights and freedoms do not change by the side we are on. It is important to defend the rights and freedoms of others, even allowing them to have different choices than yours. Food that is GMO should be labeled, and that should be so simple, if it is only a few, as you say, that need the label. And, I don’t see people starving in Canada, because of the lack of GMO products, and elsewhere, it is due more to politics, education, medical, lack of prosperity. And, if products are labeled, you can still choose to buy them, so you are not denied any rights, and not oppressed.
commented 2015-09-30 10:00:27 -0400
For some unrealistic reason, these three letters G – M – O have struck a deep, dark nerve in the general public’s eye. GMO’s are only present in EIGHT, let me pause and say that again for added effect….EIGHT items allowed on the market. Majority of genetically modified crops are fed to livestock; because they have to eat too. Hardly any of your produce you see in the grocery store is the big scary GMO word. Here’s the list: Corn, Soybeans, Canola, Alfalfa, Cotton, Squash, Sugar Beets, and Papaya. That is all. While I’m ranting, why would us in Non-GMO world label our stuff as Non-GMO? Do you see water bottles labeled “Non-Soda”? No, you are educated on the fact that it’s not soda. Most GMO’s are found in packaged foods. Eat healthy fresh produce and kill two birds with one stone if that makes you feel better. But stop driving daggers and death threats into the heart, soul, and lives of those farmers who are killing themselves to find answers to feeding our starving population.

commented 2015-09-30 09:32:51 -0400
People have a right to know and a right to decide for themselves what to eat. Let’s not forcibly drug people. Let people decide what they choose to eat and put in their own bodies. Let the market decide. Don’t support the established industry that are running scared and want a state enforced monopoly and want to keep the new products out. I will not interfere with or stop your free choice, and I would like it if you don’t stop me from have my thoughts. I want the right to decide for myself and to have that right, I need to have the hidden information. Do not give me this: big brother has decided in secret and knows what is best for you. Give us Freedom! Label the product! Give me the info! Give me my rights! What are you afraid of? What are you hiding?
commented 2015-09-30 08:35:09 -0400
I don’t have any issue with GMO food, but I absolutely believe people have a right to know what they are eating regardless of why they want to know it.
commented 2015-09-30 07:12:33 -0400
To my surprise, I find myself agreeing with the Rebel. Any evidence I’ve ever read suggesting that GMOs represent an actual, or even potential danger, to human health has been astonishingly bad science. I’m no expert, but my wife holds a Doctorate in Biology, and worked as a scientist with the Natural Health Products division of Health Canada, and feels the same way.
commented 2015-09-30 01:00:53 -0400
Finally some GMO labeling – Don’t get me wrong Rebels as I have no trouble eating GMO products. I appreciate industries working with farmers making a hardy safe crop for human consumption. Not entirely sold on those costly organics that tends to be overpriced and never fresh in my neighborhood organic non GMO grocery stores.

This was the last anti GMO rally I covered in Edmonton on youtube
I stopped covering these rallies when the INFOWAR conspiracy theorists started taking over the anti GMO rallies…
I asked myself what does fluoride in drinking water, New World Order and chem trail conspiracies have to do with GMO?