Ugandan Civil Society Groups Reject Pro-GMOs Law

View Comments

• It is sad so much false information fills the internet about GE crops and derived foods. This article show how junk science has been used to generate fear. "Not all science created equal: the genetically engineered crop story" and this massive 2013 report from the European Academies Science Advisory Council- "Planting the Future" is very clear about the safety and utility of GE crops.

  Please have a look as both are free on-line.

  cheers

  • Oh Wager! Aren't you getting tired OF spewing the same falsehoods and nonsense on every comment section of every article that's GMO related? I certainly am, so please stop! It's been explained to you that your 2013 report from the EASA is biased and full of conflicts of interests.

    • Yes. This report was done by a bunch of scientists whose careers depend on the increased use GMOs. There is no balancing information from public health experts and no safety studies to back up their claims.

    • Care to point out what part of his post was false and why?

      • Don't bother debating this Monsanto operative.

        • That's wise. You'll just end up making yourself look foolish.

        • Like you do, eh.

        • Like I debate myself? I'm not sure you really thought that one through too well.

        • You are not debating anyone. You are trolling like you always do, Jason.

        • Right...I'm not debating anyone. Now do you see why your comment didn't make any sense?

        • They make sense to smart people who see exactly what you are doing. Industry PR bots need to post, no matter how inane, to make their pay per post dollars. You are a sad example of someone who trades his self respect for the pittance they pay common trolls to do the industry dirty work.

        • I like how you change accounts and carry on the conversation as if there had been no change at all. Would entirely separate people do that? I'm sure you'll trot out some other scripted nonsense to "explain" it. But ya... "smart people" get it.

        • You should see a shrink. Everyone knows that you are an industry shill. Now you trot out your delusional conspiracy theory, right on cue. You have become more of a joke than a serious participant in a respectful fact based conversation.

        • You're ignoring the question again. Would two entirely different people carry on a single conversation that way?

        • Nobody cares what you think. Are you trying to make enough posts to move up to box wine instead your your usual wild irish rose. Sad sot.

        • I didn't say anything about what I think. I asked you to answer the question.

        • GFU!

        • GFU? Are you a George Fox University grad?

        • You are a troll.

        • No... I think a troll would be someone who posts baseless claims and unfounded accusations about people and then resorts to name calling when pressed on the issues.

          Let's see if we can find someone who fits that description.....hmmmmmmm.....

        • Troll, flagged

      • I and others have repeated this endless times and I am sure you've seen it that many times too. But, just in case you've missed it, here it is a gazzilionst time again.
        If you take a look at the authors in the report, there's a conflict of interest, no doubt.

        Reidunn Aalen - has a patent on plant gene for use in genetic engineering.
        Ervin Balazs - "former founding general director of the Agricultural Biotechnology Center Gödöll,, lead a unit on molecular virology and genetic engineering of crops"
        Ralph Bock - "Director of the Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology of Plants",
        Ian Crute : "has had a 40 year career in crop research"
        Michel Delseny : Laboratoire Génome et Développement des Plantes
        Torbjörn Fagerström : President of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
        etc.

        So Wager has referenced yet again, the same old biased report written by people who have a conflict of interest since they are involved in genetic engineering of plants and appear to have no real health or environmental background.

        • I didn't ask about the professions of the report authors. I asked what was false. Please show clearly what part is the lie that you accused him of.

        • That's the first thing you and your shill buddies should be looking at. Do you know what a conflict of interest means? Get a clue!

          EDIT: This forum doesn't accept links so here's a copy and paste clue put into simple words for you.

          "A conflict of interest is anything that impedes or might be perceived to impede an individual's or firm's ability to act impartially and in the best interest of a client.
          A conflict of interest can cast doubt on your integrity; it can also have a damaging effect on your firm and the profession as a whole. A conflict of interest may occur where you or your firm:
          Are acting for another person with competing interests at the same time (e.g. advising both the seller and buyer of a single commercial property simultaneously)
          Have other obligations or pressures that detract from or affect your relationship with the client (e.g. acting as an expert witness where you/your firm has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings)
          Are faced with conflicting duties owed to different clients (e.g. acting for two or more parties competing for an opportunity")

        • You seem like you're trying really hard to avoid the question. You accused someone of lying. In order to for that to be a true accusation, they must have said something untrue. What was that?

        • And you seem to NOT GET IT! Dunce!

        • No...I get it. You call people liars and then when called out on it, you have nothing. Sound about right to you?

        • So you're obviously okay with these industries having conflicts of interests. This explains why you are so in love with them besides the fact that you get paid for doing their dirty work. Keep trolling Jason. Anybody smart can see right through all of this.

        • Why are you so reluctant to answer the question? If you call someone a liar, shouldn't you know what they supposedly lied about? And if you have no idea if they lied, why are you calling them a liar?

        • You sound like a broken record. I have. I've explained that the so called studies written by the authors Wager keeps going on about, have their best interest at heart. I've explained what a conflict of interest means, just in case you didn't understand it. The whole thing is corrupt and full of lies in which Wager continuously shares in these forums. But of course you still don't get it or you do and are in on the lies and deceit yourself in which we already know you are. Go pound salt if you still don't get it!

        • You've claimed there's a conflict. So if that conflict has had any effect, there must be something in the report that is innacurate. Right?

          So.... what is it?

  • It IS sad so much false information on GMOs is filling the internet. Problem is, you're one of the culprits spreading it. You've been a pro-GMO spokesperson and advocate for at least 10 years now, trolling social media for articles on GMOs in order to promote and defend the agrochemical industry. You have zero credibility and even less integrity.

    • As always Rob please bring forward evidence of anything in my article (or anything I have ever written) that you feel is incorrect and we can examine your claim. Thats how science works.

      • Don't bother debating this Monsanto operative, failed phd candidate and lab grunt.

      • Pointless endeavour, Wager, as you know full well. You ignore actual science and spread misinformation and pseudoscience on behalf of the agrochemical industry. No point in debating a troll, right? You have no right identifying yourself as a scientist or as pro-science. You are a hypocrite and charlatan. You spread only pseudoscience and corporate propaganda. You have no credibility, and even less integrity.

        Suggest you read the latest reports from the law firm suing Monsanto. Half your talking points are listed in those FOIA acquired e-mails. You industry shills are going to have some serious explaining to do.

        • So no you cannot. Thanks for that.

        • Anybody who is smart can see your falsehoods.

        • Smart people expose the industry operative propaganda and ignore the dialog with well know industry PR bot liars.

  • That is a self serving report that doesn't look at health and safety issues that was written by a bunch of scientists whose careers depend on the continued use of GMOs. The report carries a disclaimer that says it is represents the views of the authors and not the European Academies Science. It is junk pseudo-science...

  • Yes, it is sad that a life-saving technology faces so many roadblocks from the forces of fear and superstition. Genetic engineering is the most most important technology of the 21st century, offering the promise to revolutionize food and medicine and to advance health and well-being to new frontiers. GE is to food as Information & Communications Technology (ICT) is to communication and education.

    We faced a lot of similar obstacles when we created personal computers, digital networks, the Internet and the smartphone. Fear is a powerful driver, and the prospect of upending the status quo in favor of a new order always creates a backlash.

    So we push ahead, knowing the truth and justice are on the side of progress. And along the way we can be amused by the silly Internet sock puppets and their pathetic personal attacks and desperate clawing for attention.

• And right on que the anti-GMO spokespeople arrive and attack me and the experts who wrote the EASAC report. Funny how theses critics cannot bring forward any evidence to counter the "Planting the Future report.