Richard Strohman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley —
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, PhD
Recognizing the many hazards of GMOs doesn’t make people that support labeling law bills “anti-science”, and raises the question, how exactly is it “anti-science” to advocate for honesty in labeling? Big biotech and associates, in their dirty approach to defeat labeling laws, are claiming that those of us who advocate for proper labeling laws are a bunch of ignorant “anti-science nuts”, a dirty tactic to discredit us.
The above quote from scientist, Dr. Richard Strohman, PhD, from Safe Food News 2000, proves that credible scientists, not on big biotech’s payroll, are concerned about the unknown long term effects of GMOs. So, unless scientists are “anti-science”, big biotech’s accusations have no basis whatsoever, except to prove that they will resort to name calling and lies to try to stop our right to know what is in our food! Learn more about what this scientist and others have to say: Say No To GMOs! – Scientists Speak
Weighing the GMO arguments: Weighing the GMO arguments
Scientists concerned about the hazards of GMOs: World Scientists Statement
The plain and simple truth is that Monsanto and the other biotech corporations exploit the science of gene technology in order to make a profit by patenting their mutated seeds that have been genetically engineered for the sole purpose of withstanding saturation of their poisonous warfare chemicals, and monopolizing the farming industry with their mono-crops that are rendering the soil infertile and destroying our pollinators, all at the expense of our health and future sustainability! If that isn’t a crime against humanity, what is?!
Thank you to all Californians who supported Prop 37. Millions of dollars were spent by purveyors of GMOs to defeat it and it lost, however, it opened the door for other States to propose similar bills to LABEL GMOS. Don’t we have a right to know what’s in our food? The backers of the campaign against Prop 37 spent big bucks to fight honest labeling, what exactly are they hiding? Agriculture giants and biotech companies spend big to defeat Prop. 37