Dear Anti-GMO Activists, Keep Your Stupid Labels Off My Food (VIDEO)

gmololI’ve often said that the opposition to genetically modified food ingredients is the left’s version of climate change denialism. This year both in Oregon and Hawaii (two pretty solidly liberal states) – as well as Colorado – there are measures on the ballot that fly in the face of science, and head straight on down the road to the wacky world of conspiracies and food scaremongering that is a rich market for grifters like Dr. Oz, Mike Adams from Natural News, or Vani Hari, AKA Food Babe.


The usual response from the anti-GMO crowd when I call out their denial of overwhelming evidence and compare it to the fundamentalist Christian push to teach creationism in schools is fairly predictable. It usually involves calling me a paid shill (I wouldn’t be driving a beat up 22-year-old truck if that was the case), calling me a “sheep” and saying “you need to do your research” (I have), or making the same old statement “people have the right to know what’s in their food,” followed by some rant about how Monsanto wants to poison the world. Listen, I’ve heard every single one of the arguments for the outright ban on GE farming in Hawaii or the labeling laws in Oregon and Colorado, and they just don’t make any scientific or business sense.

First of all, if we are going to mock conservatives for denying climate change or creationists for believing the world is only a few thousand years old despite overwhelming evidence to refute their claims, then we need to be consistent when we’re addressing issues that involve science as well. While the use of pesticides and other farming practices that are used both with GE and conventional crops are worth addressing, banning a type of crop based on hysterical science denial is ridiculous. Furthermore, laws and moratoriums based on emotion instead of logic and science tend to do more harm than good, as the Star Advertiser points out:

The growth of the genetically modified organism (GMO) seed development industry in Hawaii has generated a great deal of community anxiety, and the community has responded with efforts to curtail the activity. On Kauai, an ordinance was passed to impose restrictions, a law ultimately struck down for overstepping the county’s authority. On Maui, opponents of what’s also called genetic engineering (GE) have put a measure on the ballot that seeks to stop GE farming.

In both cases, the impulse to rein in the agribusinesses falters because the focus has been too broad. The proposed Maui charter amendment for a “temporary moratorium” in particular represents a blunt instrument, one that could do more harm than good as it is now configured. (Source)

As for the question of the label laws that are being pushed by “Right To Know Colorado” and other anti-GE technology scare artists, there’s already a bunch of companies that label their food as “non-GMO.” There’s actually a cereal bar on my desk right now with a label that proudly proclaims it is “all natural NON GMO,” and if companies want to voluntarily do that, that’s entirely up to them and the people who buy their products. So kindly stop pretending (like Wendy Culverwell from the Portland Business Journal) that because companies are spending money on defeating your asinine laws, that somehow means they have something to hide about the quality or safety of their products. By the same logic they’re using, why would anybody accused of a crime hire a lawyer if they were actually innocent? Surely then by spending money on a lawyer to defend yourself, you must have something to hide.


But not to worry, labeling law supporters; I have come up with a solution that gives you a label after all. I’ve visualized a cool label that these companies that use GE technology can put on their food since you insist on passing laws forcing them to put a label on their own products despite any scientific evidence to back you up. It can look like a superhero logo with the words “includes genetically-enhanced ingredients,” and we can put it right next to the kosher symbol that is on thousands of food packages. You wanted a label? There you go.

Oh what’s that? That isn’t good enough for you? You wanted a label so what’s wrong with that? Or perhaps now you can drop your “right to know” shtick and admit what this is really about – demonizing a technology regardless of the fact that there are thousands of scientific studies proving that it is safe. The label isn’t about informing the public, it’s about your relentless scaremongering and wanting to forcibly require a label to falsely legitimize your blatant falsehoods and appeal to nature fallacies. It’s about getting people to buy your product, due not to superior quality, but out of fear and ignorance. That’s all it ever was about.

Chris Byrne sums the labeling law issue up here:

“I have no problem with it voluntarily but am against it as a regulatory mandate…. and I’m against it in general as a lover of science and truth; because anti-GMO hysteria is pandering to the stupid, the ignorant, the anti-science, and to those who would manipulate them for their own personal agenda and benefit.” (Source)

And finally, a word from James over at The Political Garbage Chute. Take it away, James.




Comments

Facebook comments

  • Gurrett William Beigle

    this is excellent.

  • Spencer

    I don’t really know the science behind it, but… if GMOs are so safe and beneficial, shouldn’t the big food corporations be *proud* of their work?

    Wouldn’t they be prominently advertising the benefits of their advancements and touting it as a reason to buy their food?

    Perhaps it shouldn’t be mandatory, no, but I would’ve expected to see a lot more voluntary GMO labeling (perhaps via a superhero logo with the words “includes genetically-enhanced ingredients”, as you say) if GMOs were such a Good Thing™.

    Anyway, please take the above as a Devil’s Advocate argument, as it were. One way or the other, I don’t really know the facts of the situation too well. The only thing I do know is that, as a liberal, I’ve heard a lot of anti-GMO rhetoric that I’m otherwise predisposed to listen to (for better or for worse) because in other areas there definitely are corporations out there doing harm to the world (because we allow it to be legal and profitable for them to do so).

    • Khowgirl

      Well said.

    • Jeff Holiday

      Here’s the problem:

      When you read a book do you care whether it was written with a typewriter or a computer? Of course not. ‘GMO’ is not an ingredient, it’s a breeding method. That’s it. Bang, flat-out. We have never had a standard for labeling breeding methods. Why start now?

      Also, Measure 92 in Oregon is not asking for an informative label. If they were it would be put in with the ingredients.

      Instead it’s required to be ‘conspicuous’.

      • Dissenter13a

        GMOs are MODIFIED versions of the original. Just tell us that you did it, and let us make the choice.

      • Holiday

        So are organic hybrids and grafts. So?

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really.

      • Ripshed

        Oh? How are the other techniques of developing favorable traits in plants not a form of “modification”?

      • Steve Brains

        ‘GENETIC’ is the key word. It happens @ the cellular level, not as a blending of traits over time into a type, like with Beefsteak Tomatoes.

      • Ripshed

        Genes and cells aren’t the same thing. Both methods affect the genetic code of the plant, only that one method is imprecise and affects thousands or more genes, whereas genetic “engineering” affects a few or less (since they are specifically targeted). Both methods are, by definition, modifications of genes.

      • Steve Brains

        if you KNEW better to start with, WHY did you waste My time. But*fuc*?

      • Ripshed

        Stay classy, Mr. “Brains”.

      • Steve Brains

        Sassy it is

      • Charles Vincent

        GMO is on a genetic scale like cloning, the other is selective breeding, you can see this by comparing the Mendelian method and the current method of GMO.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=2mBF1OOPdTo

      • Charles Vincent

        What do you make of this?
        http://www DOT scribd DOT com/doc/245057730/Hollis-v-Holder-Complaint

      • poppaDavid

        No. GM are gene spliced in a laboratory with materials that may never have been in the gene pool for that species. Breeding involves sexual reproduction. Very different processes.

    • PS

      Personally, I’m not worried about health issues from ingesting GMOs; I’m worried about what GMO crops do to the environment, and I’m worried about Monsanto et al’s history of aggressively stifling research into this question. As reported in Scientific American, “For a decade [the firms’] user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.” Some studies have been published, but “only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

      Clearly this situation isn’t analogous to climate change science at all. The scientific consensus re climate change is based on a vast and substantial body of _independent_ research; the GMO “consensus” is based on nothing of the kind. It’s based instead on (1) quoting scientists who say there’s no harm in eating GMOs, and (2) pretending that’s all there is to the issue.

      I support labelling of GMOs out of concern for the effects of the crops, and out of a desire to avoid supporting companies like Monsanto to the fullest extent possible.

      • PS

        SHORTER: Monsanto systematically stifles research into GMO crops—and I’M the one who’s anti-science?!

      • Asher Frost

        Ok, but by the same token, if I am worried that Ford is acting unethically, I don’t try to ban all automobiles. If your biggest issue is with Monsanto, then fight them, don’t fight every other company that is involved in agriculture research as well because you don’t like one company, that’s counterproductive.

      • PS

        “Ban all automobiles”? Uh…this is about labels not bans.

      • Asher Frost

        Right, because once the labels are on, everyone will be totally satisfied? You know multiple countries have already banned GMO crops, right? and that there is a growing movement in the US to do the same?

      • PS

        “Right, because once the labels are on, everyone will be totally satisfied? You know multiple countries have already banned GMO crops, right?”

        Wow, the old Slippery Slope argument! Some trick unpacking that old warhorse; I thought it was only used by Red State senators obsessed with, like, bestiality. You “progressives” have quite a playbook.

      • Asher Frost

        Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the Netherlands have all banned GMO crops already. It’s not a slippery slope when it is already happening around the world.

      • PS

        1) Unless those countries started with labels and moved on to bans later, your argument isn’t relevant.

        2) It’s amazing how all these nations are run by climate change denialists and backward anti-science loons. The Netherlands must be just like Mississippi! (Wait, what? It’s the best-educated population in the world? Well my goodness.)

      • Asher Frost

        to be fair, the countries that have banned GMO crops come from all over the spectrum when it comes to scientific education, but you knew that before you picked what you decided was the smartest of the group. What you are doing here? It’s still not providing any actual evidence. You seem to just be making the claim that the Netherlands seems to have their shit together, so obviously they are right… That’s an appeal to authority, and a lazy one at that.

        Please provide some scientific studies that have not been discredited, that show, without question, a harmful link between GMO Crops currently on the market, and ANY health issues.

      • PS

        But that’s just my point. The research isn’t there because the industry has stifled it.

        Listen to Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell, describe the way the seed industry blocks publication of studies it doesn’t like: “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.” In the words of the _Scientific American_, “experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.”

        _SA_ goes on to report that Shields’ group, a cadre of insect scientists most of whom “have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals.” _SA_ goes on:

        “It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.”

        This is nothing like the climate change debate. This is a case of business stifling research.

        It’s as if Big Tobacco had been able to gag Richard Doll in 1960—and you & Manny Schewitz & all these clowns who call themselves “skeptics” are fighting for the cause of Big Tobacco. You’re as pro-science as Philip Morris.

      • Asher Frost

        So the evil seed company is stopping any and all scientific studies that don’t agree with them from going through? And they are managing to do this perfectly and seamlessly, so that no peer-reviewed science can get by, something that has never been accomplished nearly as well by either Tobacco or Alcohol groups?

        See, that’s what makes us so skeptical, the claim that somehow this is the perfect conspiracy, that even in the age of more information than ever, somehow the seed industry is capable of doing something that the Tobacco, Alcohol, Fast Food, and even Automotive industries could only try and fail to get. The Perfect Conspiracy, where absolutely no proof that anything is happening can be found anywhere in the world.

      • PS

        If you think _Scientific American_’s reportage is false or erroneous, you should take it up with them.

      • PS

        If you think the _Scientific American_’s reportage was false or flawed, you should take it up with them.

        Because “the evil seed company is stopping any and all scientific studies that don’t agree with them from going through?” Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what was claimed and backed up by _SA_. (And, to my knowledge, never even challenged by any of the named culpable parties.)

      • Steve Brains

        Monasnato, through RELENTLESS LAWSUITS and $100 BILLION in legal fees over time have GENERALIZED ALL intellectual rights over GMO seeds. FOR THE INDUSTRY, as a precedent.

      • Asher Frost

        So the third largest seed retailer owns the patents for all GMO seeds ever? That’s gonna take some serious proving.

      • PS

        The _Scientific American_ article specified “Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta” but suggested others were involved too.

        I said “Monsanto et al” in my post because Monsanto’s the best known. Anyway, according to the ETC Group Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta are the 3 largest seed companies in the world and their combined market share comprises the majority of world seed sales.

        But nice try selling the “one bad apple” scenario.

      • Steve Brains

        Dismissed!

      • reggie

        THIS PERSON HAS EATEN TOO MUCH GMO FOOD .GO WATCH THE VIDEO ON LINE CALLED SEEDS OF DEATH ,YOU WILL NEVER EAT ANOTHER GMO IN YOUR LIFE TIME AFTER YOU SEE THIS VIDEO .HOW IS IT GOOD FOR YOU TO EAT FOOD DRENCHED IN BUG SPRAY .HOW IS IT GOOD THAT ALL THE BEES DIE BECAUSE OF THIS BUG SPRAY ,NO MORE CROSS POLLINATION WHEN ALL THE BEES DIE AND WHEN THEY DIE NO MORE FOOD .

      • Asher Frost

        All caps and an order to watch some random video online rather than producing any actual peer-reviewed science to back up your point of view? You’re an old-school troll, aren’t you?

      • Ken

        Monsanto is protecting their hard earned very expensive to produce, patented product. Free enterprise is founded on the developer being rewarded. Without that practice, there would be little to NO innovation. Would you spend years and billions to develop something and then say “okay all, it’s yours?” Sure you would. Nope, I don’t work for them.

      • PS

        “Free enterprise is founded on the developer being rewarded.”

        No, free enterprise is founded on the developer taking a risk. There are no guarantees. That’s supposed to be the justification for winner-take-all exploitative capitalism, anyway. But man, I love these “progressive” blogs where everyone who agrees with the host argues like Mitt Romney.

      • Christian Abel

        Independant climate research? What are you smoking?

        Historical climate data is censored.

    • Mike Bittner

      I don’t really care what this idiot (read: far-left idiot) thinks! He’s wrong about just about everything!

    • James White

      true

    • Ze’ev Aniyah

      The difference is that the big companies aren’t making it an issue to begin with. It is paranoid retards like you who turn it into an issue because you don’t understand science and genetics and prefer to believe an “au naturel food website” than a scientific study. All you do is make excuses while trying to impose your cause on others. It is like religion, your fear makes you believe something that is not true. As a result, you try to force this belief on others, even through the state. You are just an ignorant, authoritarian fuck.

  • ritualdevice

    Great article. I wouldn’t have linked to Vani Hari’s page though. She gets too many clicks as is.

  • Bruce Veasey

    As I’ve said before, my only beef with GMO foods is the legal ramification of cross pollination, and the resulting copyright lawsuits. If we simply pass a law freeing people from liability, should their own crops become cross contaminated by a GMO “designer” plant, then I’m fine with it.

    • Steve Brains

      Let’s look at it as if I used the information in YOUR book, in My book, but footnoted it. YOu do NOT get a royalty for being a source. But Monsanto managed to get “intellectual Property Rights” in a 2008-9 suit against a Farmer and is now pounding people using it as “The only allowable precedent”.

      • Dissenter13a

        Laws need to be changed, but corporate bribery prevents it. If another state court or circuit rules otherwise, we could have a sane standard.

      • Steve Brains

        I agree with THAT!!!

    • Steve Brains

      This is PERFECT. If I breed GMO puppies to have long tongues and short tails, and you BUY one to please your wife on your anniversary… and I make you sign a contract that says all long tongued, short tailed offspring from YOUR DOG are MY “intellectual property rights”…

      Doesthat mean ALL those puppies are mine and YOU have to PAY ME for having them?

      Even if they are cross bred with a diminishing breed?

  • Lisa Carey Higdon

    I’m surprised the food corporations are fighting so hard on this issue. Put the darn label on the package, charge 20% more, and deny claims that GMO slows the aging process. They won’t be able to meet the demand.

  • Laurel Sayler

    Sorry, but inserting genes into plants so they resist Round-up or make insect’s stomachs explode is not something I want to eat. These frankenfoods aren’t solving the hunger crisis in Africa, because crop yields aren’t improved over non-GMO crops. Studies are linking leaky gut and other gastrointestinal illnesses to GMO foods. GMOs are causing problems with the environment by creating super weeds that are immune to Round-up, which then leads to stronger chemicals and all of this crap winds up in the water, the air, and our food.

    • Simply Amazed…

      Where in the heck are you getting all this? If you are going to tout this sort of fear-mongering propaganda you really need to back it up with solid links in your post. Otherwise all we hear is “Oh Yeah?!”

      • Jeff Holiday

        See those nice blue bits of text? Those are called links. Inside those links are websites. It’s pretty amazing.

        And Manny is not the one on the fear-mongering side.

      • Dissenter13a

        And if you are not looking in the right place, you aren’t going to find what you are looking for.

        Explain the massive and documented increase in gluten sensitivity. The only known variable is the use of GMOs. Common sense suggests that we start there.

      • Holiday

        Gluten sensitivity is not real, it’s a fad.

      • Steve Brains

        AIDS was a fad too. Is EBOLA the NEW avante` garde` designer virus f 2015?

      • Steve Brains

        Funny how you INSIT on documentation, but can NEVER manage even a vague source of your own.

    • Andrew Lea

      Nothing you said is true. GMO yeilds are incresibly higer. GMOs have never been linked to any gastrointestinal issues. GMOs certianly dont modift the genes of weeds planted nearby. You are a gullible moron.p

      • Dissenter13a

        Explain the vast and documented increase in incidents of gluten sensitivity. The presumptive culprit is GMOs, as that is the only variable that has changed.

      • Holiday

        Gluten sensitivity isn’t real.

      • MichaelMartin

        LOL – I want you to come over to my house in a small closed room and wait about 30 minutes after I eat a couple pieces of standard bread or anything with gluten in it … been tested for celiac and I don’t have it – and if i remove anything with gluten in it i don’t have gas so bad you can taste it, burns your eyes and causes light headedness if confined in a car with the windows cracked for a couple hours on a bitterly cold day … so until I see Phd behind your name, keep your OPINIONS to yourself – because you have no idea what you’re taking about

      • Asher Frost

        Anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing more than your own desire to believe. Perhaps the issue is not Gluten (A substance I doubt you fully understand) and rather with your own daily nutritional intake. It’s a large mix we put in our bodies everyday, and it is very, very difficult to tell exactly what combination may not work with what person.

        As far as your last sentence? Considering you already went to a doctor and have clearly ignored his evidence-based diagnosis that you are in fact, not sensitive to Gluten, why on earth would anyone believe you would listen to Holiday if he was a Doctor? (Or were you just going for the “Doc Holiday” Joke, because that would have been good.

      • Exadyne

        “vast and documented increase in incidents of gluten sensitivity” – you can’t explain something that doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as gluten sensitivity.
        There is actual celiac disease, which if you have it, is very horrible and you’ll know you have it. Gluten sensitivity is a made up disease to sell fad diets.

      • Steve Brains

        Guys like you are only PARTIALLY MENTALLY ILL. So WHY can’t someone have partial reactivity to Celiac’s?

        Not all cancers are stage 4 and many never get there.

        The only thing you are doing here is fermenting garbage and trying to call it Cognac.

      • Micheline Hellwege

        Who’s footing the bill for this research that doesn’t link GMOs to gastrointestinal issue, or any issue for that matter? Is it Monsanto?

      • Asher Frost

        Which one? there have been literally thousands of studies done, in countries all over the world, by hundreds of research organizations. Now I suppose it’s possible that Monsanto could have bought all of those out, bribed, threatened or otherwise managed to silence hundreds of different groups (despite not even being able to reach the top of their own industry, btw) however I believe it would be equally possible that every single one of the thousands of papers on Climate Change could also have been bought out by one guy/company, let’s say, George Soros (You see where I am going with this, right?)

        If your immediate reaction to hearing that thousands of studies contradict your belief is to start assuming that a company you are against must be behind it, you are no longer acting from a place of rational science-based thought. The simple fact is, even if Monsanto was just as evil as they are made out to be, they don’t have that kind of money (Even Bill Gates doesn’t have that kind of money)

      • Steve Brains

        Say hi to Santa, the Easter Bunny, Peter Pan, the Tooth Fairy and GLENDA when you get to OZ man.

        And STOP wasting a post to Me. You will get oink1234567890 — Zippo.

      • Steve Brains

        ALL research done by Monsanto that REFUTES their sales literature, even if it PROVES their GMO corn is CARCINOGENIC, is their ‘property’ and they are under NO obligation to divulge it. No matter how many people DIE.

        Same for the OIL industry and FRACK fluid components.
        Same for ALL Pharmaceuticals.

        SAME for tobacco.

    • strayaway

      The EPA regulates GMO food as pesticides because it contains built in pesticides. Nothing wrong with feeding the kiddies some pesticide laced Cocoa-Puffs is there? Monsanto’s Round-up is for sissies. Dow in introducing genetically engineered new generations of GMO corn and soybean varieties that are able to withstand spraying of 2,4-D. Yummie. “2,4-D is the third-most-popular herbicide in the United States, and farmers already are using it to fight Roundup-resistant weeds. The USDA estimates that use of 2,4-D will increase by 75 percent in the next six years if the (Dow) crops are not approved. If the Enlist corn and soy are approved, the USDA estimates that the amount of 2,4-D used by farmers will increase further by two to six times.” Honey bees will love this.

      • Steve Brains

        They are down 50% in the miswest because Bayer Pesticide , that goes into some products un labeled because it’s used in such small trace quantities, has been BANNED in Europe where Laetrile is a viable treatment for cancer. It’s the other way round in America.

      • Jeff Holiday

        “The EPA regulates GMO food as pesticides because it contains built in pesticides.”

        Not all GMOs have ‘pesticides’ ‘built in’. And if you think they do you need to stop trying to educate people before getting further education on the matter.

        BTW, you are aware honey bees are not native to North America, right? Just sayin…

      • strayaway

        Yeah, so? It isn’t about educating. It is about regulating. I never mentioned education. Nor did I claim ‘all’ GMO’s had built in pesticides to feed our kids. My point with honey bees was that there are suggestions that pesticides kill honey bees.

      • Dissenter13a

        And they are not friendly to milk thistle. Remember the Monarch butterfly?

      • Holiday

        Organic crops use pesticides as well.

        We are not regulating GMOs. That isn’t the issue, nor was it the point of the article. It’s about labeling.

      • strayaway

        Organic crops don’t use 2,4-D. But if you don’t want to talk about the EPA regulating GMO’s as pesticides because they contain pesticides, then let’s talk about labeling. Much of the food I already buy has labels on it letting me know ho much sodium, protein, fat, etc., is found in that food as well as things like sodium phosphate. If sodium phosphate has to be labeled, what is so special about GMO’s that they are exempt from labeling? This really sounds more like the tobacco companies that went on and on about how tobacco was a safe product and fought successfully for years to keep health warnings off their products.

      • Steve Brains

        I use Home Made Pepper spray for bugs (PESTICIDE) and 20% Commercial Vinegar for Herbicide (WEEDS)

      • Steve Brains

        It’s abut IMAGINARY PROPERTY RIGHTS bought and paid for in REPUBLICAN courts by CORPORATE political contributors.

      • Dissenter13a

        Once you get pesticides onto the food, getting them off is problematic, and therein lies the problem.

      • Micheline Hellwege

        Jeff, it’s not just Honey Bees, it’s all pollinators. (Other pollinators did actually exist in North America before European settlers. Just sayin….)

      • Steve Brains

        Butterflies, moths, humming birds and fingers!!!

    • Steve Brains

      Isn’t EBOLA a breakdown of the organs INTO leaky gut? Is Ebola CASUED by GMO testing on unsuspecting indigenous populations in Africa?

      • Nemisis

        Two separate issues.

      • FuzzyBunnyFeet

        No issues are separate to the dedicated conspiracy theorist.

      • Steve Brains

        Oh. I am a Free Lance CO-conspiracy Theoretic Theorist.

      • Steve Brains

        Then it must be live human testing of the Ft Detrick by products.

    • Ripshed

      The chemical that makes insect stomachs explode has been used for decades and is approved for use in organic farming (because it’s natural). It’s called Bt (or more specifically the Bt cry protein).

  • LisaLou

    Watch the movie Food, Inc. And you will get an idea of what’s happening with GMOs. It’s about corporate money. I don’t buy into conspiracy theories of Monsanto taking over the world, but I do believe that they don’t give a damn about my health/only care about their bottom line. They develop a food product seeds, such as corn or wheat (genetically modified using e. Coli), which is resistant to pesticides but is sterile/ cannot reproduce so that farmers are forced to buy new seeds for every crop season. They pull funding from studies that begin to show that their GE foods are not as healthy as natural foods. Why do you think they spend billions to avoid having to label? I’m not *afraid* to eat GMOs, I already do daily. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be allowed a choice.

    • Andrew Lea

      You know that farmers almost always buy new seeds every year because it is a hell of a lot easier, and monsanto cant force people to buy their seeds seeing as they are not the biggest or even secobd biggest company that sells seeds to farmers. It is also litetally impossible for monsanto to prevent others from studying GM foods, and there has never been a study to shownthat they are harmful. In other words, everything you said is bullshit. Doccumentaries with political agendas are usually full of shit.

      Also, terminator seeds where made because people worry about cross contamination. Everyone thought gm plants would take over the enviroment, wackjobs like you thought this. So term seeds where invented, and wack jobs like you found something new to complain about.

      • Steve Brains

        Actually, monsanto is FAMOUS for suing farmers for keeping their seed. they have also been documented “SALTING” innocent farmers with their GMO dosed product to invent a reason to sue. They have contacts throughout the third world DENYING the purchase of ANY seed that is not a Monsanto product id you buy their product once.

        They area malignant and malicious organization and I have divested of all stock I owned. I can make better money on whore houses and gambling halls than on Chemicals and poisons.

      • Andrew Lea

        Has to be a poe post

      • Exadyne

        They have sued farmers that have re-used seeds because that is a contract violation. It doesn’t even have to do with GMOs – people have been able to patent seeds going back to the 1930s, and going back to then, seed sellers have always put in contracts when selling that seed saving is not allowed by contract.
        Monsanto has not “salted” anyone or sued people that have been contaminated by accident. Their own webpage actually says that they will pay to remove any GMO cross pollination that occurs to a farmer’s crop at Monsanto’s own expense. What they have sued over is a few people that have deliberated bred seeds to have Roundup Ready genes in them. The famous case in Canad that anti-GMOs go on about involved a person who’s crops had become 70% Roundup Ready – something that can’t happen by accident. He purposefully took seeds that he saw resisted roundup in a section of his field, and continuously bred those ones so that he could use the roundup ready gene without paying for it.

      • Steve Brains

        Ok. But that means the ENTIRE CROP resulting form using the seed IS the property of the SEED COMPANY, because they have”ownership Right’s” in the produce of the product. it wasn’t until 2009 (i think) that Monsanto won “intellectual property rights” on the GMO formulation and genetic content of Farmer “A’s” second, third, fifth and 25th generation seed.

      • Exadyne

        I’m not sure I even understand what you mean. Seed sellers and buyers sign a contract that says seeds may not be retained for replanting by the farmer, they don’t sign contracts that say they own the resulting crop. No farmer would sign that contract.
        Seeds have been patent-able since the 1930s, whether conventional seeds, hybrid seeds, and when transgenic technology developed the same laws applied to transgenic varieties. Thus, since the 1930s, seed sellers have had the ability to require farmers not reuse seeds and it applies to all generations. The only court case I see for Monsanto in 2009 is about an injunction over Roundup Ready Alfalfa that some farmers sued Monsanto preemptively.

      • Steve Brains

        If Monsanto (or anyone) RETAINS the right’s to what I do with My seeds AFTER I PLANT THEM, then they OWN THOSE RIGHT’s. I NEVER got a “contract” with a sack of seeds, I just got a bill and an invoice. But … there are deals where the seeds are free and you just have to buy more in the future, but those are experimental and seed trial deals.

        I don’t know you from Jane or Tarzan friend, but I’m thinking you learned your Ag Degree milking bulls by hand in an Airport Men’s Room like Most of the GOP has.

        Show us one of these “contracts”. I’ll trust that you can cut and paste.

      • Exadyne

        You bought Monsanto seeds, but never got a contract? And yet you’re calling ME a Monsanto shill simply for stating facts?

      • Steve Brains

        NOpe. YOU are CLAIMING it is STANDARD PRACTICE in the seed industry and has been for 80 years. I owned Monsanto stock in an 401K at the last job I had in 1996.I sold it when they first started strongarming people. I bought a truck and drove as a contractor for Landstar for a decade, then sold the 5th replacement truck in 2008, and waited for the right time to close out the retirement accounts, get a second mortgage and buy the shit out of EURO short options for 2009.

      • Asher Frost

        Steve, do you have any documentation or proof to back up, well any of the claims you made here? You are making a lot of extraordinary claims here, but providing nothing to back them up. Help me out here.

      • Steve Brains

        Are you Exadyne too?

      • Asher Frost

        So that’s a no on the proof then? If you have no proof, just say so, you don’t have to waste time with pointless accusations when you can clearly click my profile, see my post history and tell from the sheer amount of profanity I display on other boards, and the varied opinions I hold, that I would make a terrible corporate shill, really for any corporation (Save the WWE, I could be a pro troll for them awesomely)

        I mean come on now man, use some basic critical thinking skills. Stop with the pointless BS deflections, and cough up the proof already.

      • Steve Brains

        Dismissed! [email protected]#$%^&*()_—

      • Asher Frost

        yep, absolutely a no. That’s ok, I’m sure you’ll be able to fit in with the infowars crowd just fine, they too love baseless conspiracy theories with no proof and coming up with crap to spew rather than actually back up any of the claims they make.
        Have a nice day.

      • Steve Brains

        Dismissed!!

      • Asher Frost

        Still running around angry and without being burdened by an overabundance of respect for truth, facts or reasonable debate I see? Is that just the largest word you are capable of spelling, or are you afraid that if you continue to make random claims without evidence, sooner or later it will be even more painfully apparent than it is now that you have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about?

      • Steve Brains

        oink—-

      • Asher Frost

        Good to see that you are indeed capable of recognizing when you are simply not able to effectively communicate on a human level and have to resort to animal noises, but the least you could have done was capitalize the O.

      • Steve Brains

        YOu don’t rate that.

      • Asher Frost

        Right, because of the two of us, I’m clearly the one throwing a tantrum instead of providing the proof asked for to back up his wild claims. Come on now child, it’s time to grow up.

      • Steve Brains

        WHERE’S the beef. I see whipped cream, but no substance.

      • Asher Frost

        and I see a pointless troll still repeating his pointless anti-GMO troll behavior, seemingly because he lacks anything at all better to do with his life.

      • Steve Brains

        BLAH BLAH BLAH

      • Steve Brains

        I put a smile on three girl’s faces, more than once today!! Your hand ever grin at you and ask for more?

      • Asher Frost

        only when I draw a little face on it.
        Why are you hanging out with girls anyway? seeking your intellectual level? Because I’m pretty sure for that you’d have to start hanging with harp seals… Did these girls parents know you were creeping around them?

      • Steve Brains

        HAHAHAHAAHA! use a sharpie, it’s last longer.

      • Steve Brains

        The STOP! Or admit you are a stalker. Without a purpose that is not purient in origin and perverted in nature. if you have nothing and know you wioll GET NOTHING but:

      • Asher Frost

        All I know is that when pressed for facts, you start name calling and using symbols. Not really a great way of persuading anyone to your cause.

      • Steve Brains

        I gave you three answers you weren’t adult enough to accept. Dismissed.

      • Asher Frost

        No, you made 3 claims without evidence, and then called me names when I asked you to provide said proof. In what world is that an adult response? If you are just here to be a troll, fine, but pretending to be more is just pathetic.

      • Steve Brains

        Not really.

      • Asher Frost

        So you provided evidence? Where? where is one single scrap of evidence? It’s been over a week now, and still nothing.

      • Steve Brains

        BLAH BLAH BLAH Do you even REMEMBER what you are stalking Me for?

      • Asher Frost

        I’m stalking you now? The wild claims keep coming. If you don’t like being pressed to provide some proof of any of the wild BS you make up day to day, why on earth do you keep coming back? And if you do like it, well then it’s not stalking.

      • Steve Brains

        Have been for 10 days.

      • Asher Frost

        11 days now.
        11 days of you coming back to comment on the same article you couldn’t provide any proof to back up your ridiculous claims in the first place on.
        I’ll give you credit for tenacity, but that’s about it. All you have managed to prove so far is that giving everyone access to the internet is probably a bad idea.

      • Steve Brains

        NOW I KNOW you are selling Monbullsancrapto propaganda. Sorry it took Me so long folks.

        Next you’re gonna tell us all that there never has been ANY damage to ANY land fracked in the US and that there are NO KNOWN CARCINOGENS in the 5 million GALLONS of fracking fluid pumped through the aquifer to get methane out of the ground.

      • Micheline Hellwege

        They have patented these seeds that produce sterile plants giving themselves a monopoly. Do you want any one corporation to have a monopoly on our food supply?

      • Exadyne

        Since the 1930s, most corn grown is of the hybdrid type that doesn’t reproduce on its own. Monsanto did not develop the concept of hybrid breeds. Monsanto did buy a company that has developed other kinds of so called terminator seeds that are sterile BUT Monsanto has willingly never sold them or used them outside of labs.
        If you are worried about a monopoly on our food supply, why are you worried about Monsanto? There are plenty of other commercial seed suppliers, some that are bigger companies than Monsanto.

      • Ken

        They DON’T have a MONOPOLY on our food supply. Farmers are free to buy seed from any other company, just as before. Even it there were a “monopoly” which there isn’t, it would run out in twenty years, which should be pretty soon.

      • Steve Brains

        NO!!!! Which is why I OPPOSE then at all opportunities!

  • poppaDavid

    One of the design features of GMO foods is the ability to resist herbicides, so that growers can apply higher levels of those materials during the growing cycle. If the grower is not applying the herbicides the GMO is redundant. Why do you want higher levels of poison applied to your food as it grows?

    Another design feature of GMO foods is the ability of the plant to create new toxins. Those chemicals are in the plant cells. Why do you need additional toxins in your food? People already have potentially fatal allergies to known foods, where is the testing of these new toxins?

    • Steve Brains

      Green farming does just fine for less money and better health.

    • Jeff Holiday

      None of what you said is true. Only a few specific GMOs have anything to do with pesticides.

      Please get your information from somewhere not YouTube or NaturalNews.

      • Dissenter13a

        Get it from the independent researchers at Monsanto.

      • strayaway

        I get my science from the FDA. President Barack Obama appointed former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner for the FDA — the board tasked with regulating Taylor’s industry. If someone is both a VP of Monsanto and our FDA boss, surely he must know what he’s talking about.What’s good for Monsanto profits must be good for our children!

      • poppaDavid

        Actually, 80% of the US corn (maize) crop is GM for herbicide resistance and/or to produce a toxin against the Corn Borer. 85% of the US soybean crop is GM for herbicide resistance. The GM beet is modified for herbicide resistance.

        What do you think GM is intended to do?

        Here’s the hint, if it is advertised as “Roundup Ready” that is a guarantee that it is GM for pesticides.

  • Keith Tyler

    Unfortunately, those “thousands of studies proving it’s safe” don’t do any such fucking thing. I mean, that’s just flat out untrue. Most of them don’t even ask the question, much less answer it.

    • Jeff Holiday

      Do you….. care to explain how exactly that is?

      Because here in reality you can’t point at a mountain of evidence done by thousands of researchers and say, “NU UH!” and it magically becomes irrelevant.

      • Dissenter13a

        And you work for which division of Monsanto? Public relations? Paid mole?

        While science is well-adapted to identifying direct and obvious causal links, it is not as adroit when the link from A to B is not direct. By way of example, we are only learning now that DDT exposure appears to be a proximate cause of Alzheimer’s. One must remain cognizant of the limitations of science.

        I studied Sagan’s thesis back in undergrad. The argument that I was using twenty years ago was that we should approach carbon emissions with caution; if we’re wrong, nothing is going to happen, but if we are right, some Very Bad Things are going to happen to the ecosystem. Unfortunately, I was right.

        The same argument holds for Keystone XL. Ignoring the carbon implications, there is the problem of what to do with the waste products. The Kalamazoo River is proof that we don’t have the technology to clean tar sludge spills, and the mountain of Koch brothers’ petcoke in Detroit (one is coming to Chicagoland, too) is a testament to the problems we haven’t solved. This is why I oppose XL.

        If you and Manny want to serve as Monsanto’s guinea pigs, by all means, knock yourselves out. As for me, I counsel caution. The benefits do not appear to be worth the risk.

      • Holiday

        Can you make an attempt at being coherent?

      • Charles Vincent

        He did you’re just too obtuse to recognize it.

      • Ripshed

        Calling people shill without evidence is hardly a worthy argument. The rest of the post has nothing to do with the article or argument responded to.

      • Charles Vincent

        Apparently you didn’t read his the conversation well enough his argument is clear and you can easily verify the things he spoke to.

      • Ripshed

        No, his argument was mindless conspiratorial gish gallop.

      • Charles Vincent

        Call it what you want, the facts are there and easily verifiable, you sadly choose to be willfully ignorant of them. That’s your problem not mine.

      • poppaDavid

        Safe? Without side effects? Just one recognized example, antibiotic resistance is breed into GM plants as an part of the GM creation process. What is the effect on humans who consume plant material containing antibiotic resistant gene sequences? What is the effect on fungi or bacteria that feed on the plant material and how does that impact humans who come in contact with the fungi or bacteria? The quick answer is that certain antibiotic markers have been outlawed as presenting a potentially serious hazard.

        Look at sites like GMO Compass org for a broad review of the topic.

  • Steve Brains

    The bill in Colorado is poorly written AND forces companies that makes cookies say, to INCLUDE GMO labeling IF some batches may be tainted with GMO or partial GMO batches of flour or any other ingredient. What it really does is raise the cost of packaging WITHOUT having the manufacturer tighten up their purchasing standards.

    I don’t know how Oregon’s law is written, but I believe the purpose of a label os to inform. Which is why I am against a Gold star on the coats of some children, but dunce caps on the heads of many of their parents in Red States.

    • Dissenter13a

      Hopefully, the patchwork quilt of state laws will force Congress to craft a uniform law. When Monsanto and Kellogg see that it is in their self-interest, they will write the checks that will get it done.

      • Steve Brains

        Either we are a UNITED states or a group of individual States.

        We need to choose. I think we should be regrouped by economics and taxed as a totality. Into maybe 6 provinces, with 13 senators each and 1 representative per 10,000 voters across the board.

        I think an Alternative Minimum CORPORATE Tax is a necessity and that income taxes for persons should be subdivided into Revenues (all dollars are equal) and Purchases. The more you make, the more you spend the more you pay. Wanna Tax break, INVEST.

        I think the Budget should be a 3 year deal mandated as the first order of business in each 3 year session of the House. Congress term limits are 3 -3 years terms with 1/3 being replaced in annual elections. The senate should be 2- 5 year terms and the President should have one 7 year term. All life time limits.

        All political contributions over a basic 10% of the poverty level should be TAXED and all lobbying should be taxed @ 300% of that. SOLVING the problems are easy. FIXING the CAUSE is hard because NO drunk wants to get sober and no guy wants to give up his mistress.

        But america must change from the Hoover/Reagan Economy to something else/

  • Nemisis

    Mr. Schewitz, not a bad article. The only problem I have with it is this part.

    “It can look like a superhero logo with the words “includes genetically-enhanced ingredients,” and we can put it right next to the kosher symbol that is on thousands of food packages. ”

    Kosher is a reference to foods that are processed and handled in a very strict way according to very specific laws that belong to a very specific religion. Kosher food is also blessed food. Per that religion.
    It is not about the anti-gmo movement.

    Too label food that is gmo with the kosher symbol is wrong and misleading.
    GMO food can not be Kosher.
    To label non-gmo food as Kosher is wrong and misleading.
    Just because a food is not gmo does not make it kosher nor does it mean it could be made kosher by ritual blessing.

    While I support the rest of your article, that kosher food is lumped in with errant labeling is irresponsible or ignorant of what kosher is.

  • Nemisis

    What I see on the issue is there is a price gap.
    If gmo food or non-organic food is producing at the same levels as non-gmo or organic crops, why then are the prices for the non-gmo food or organic food so much more?

    The non-gmo and organic food has less done to it. No chemical fertilizer , no chemical pest control. So why so expensive?

    I see the entire battle as a propaganda machine to sell more expensive lower quality food.

    • Jeff Holiday

      Because they realized decades ago they could sell organic at a premium and make more money. Hence why this propaganda machine has been pushing a fear of chemicals.

      • Dissenter13a

        And of course, YOUR propaganda machine at Monsanto is on the side of the angels….

      • Holiday

        Monsanto doesn’t sell food.

        Nor do I work for them.

        Nor do I have any monetary interest in this. I’m a college student.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I’m a college student.”
        That explains it…

  • Pedro De Oliveira Verissimo

    My problem with GMO is not the science, but how it is applied in our capitalistic free-market society. Monsanto made a pesticide so poisonous it had to gengineer crops to resist it, that I would rather have out-lawed and the corporation punished. Meanwhile, the Golden Rice project, and similar projects who improve yield and quality of Third-Word foodstuff, move along at a crawl because lack of funding or sabotage by anti-GMO fundamentalists.

  • Kelly Lape

    Free Market. Let’s start with agribusiness vs. farmers. For organic farmers to compete with agribusiness without legitimate labeling puts the small farmer at too large of a disadvantage to successfully compete. Let the free market decide with labels.

    • Jeff Holiday

      Except small farmers grow GMOs too. And huge corporations grow organic. This is not a David versus Goliath issue.

      • Dissenter13a

        Fine. All we are asking is that we be able to make an informed choice. In Europe and Japan, the choice is made by government.

      • Ripshed

        You already have this choice. You can buy food that carries the “Organic” label or carries a “Non-GMO Verified” label. If food doesn’t carry either of these labels you can just assume it is GMO.

  • Dissenter13a

    Manny must have been out sick the day they taught science in science class.

    First, with respect to vaccines, the government admits that only about 1 of 100 adverse incidents are reported to VAERS. The scientist’s conclusion is only as good as the data, and any conclusion based on VAERS data is useless.

    Second, with respect to GMOs, you have to look at the big picture. The main advantage of GMOs is that they are pesticide-resistant, which is why they can use pesticides with abandon. And guess where all those pesticides go? Into us. And we are not genetically engineered to be pesticide-resistant.

    In addition, our bodies are not well adapted to eating FrankenFoods, and they do not process them particularly well. Many people react quite well to a Paleo diet — losing massive amounts of weight without dieting — because it is closer to what we are designed to eat. Though emerging, the science appears clear.

    Finally, if GMOs are so good for us, why not admit that they are in your food? Why doesn’t BigAg want to ‘fess up? What happened to letting consumers make their own informed choices? Oh, that’s right: Manny believes that the Government knows what is best for you, and you aren’t intelligent enough to make your own choices.

    Manny is the idiot socialist rightards make fun of.

    The science behind AGW is incontrovertible. The science behind GMOs and vaccines, not so much. Some of us know enough to exercise discernment — but Manny is obsessed with telling others what to do.

    • Holiday

      Nothing you said is true, accurate or backed up by science. Not all GE crops are designed for pesticide resistance. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      • poppaDavid

        Never said “all”. For corn (maize) it is only 80%. For soybean it is 85%.

    • Charles Vincent

      Good to see you back in the echo chamber.

  • iseewhatyouredoing

    What i see here is a political movement that’s either been hijacked, or some within it hijacked a political name to demonize people who want to know what’s in our food. The remarks seen here and the “science” the pro-gmo folks are putting forth always comes back to gmo producers like Mobsanto, and there are countless studies, scientists, and farmers who’re coming out against gmos. The rest of the world is banning these products and labeling them, so what’s the problem here? Money. Plain and simple. Recent Harvard studies have linked mobsanto’s round-up ready crops to CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) in bees, and the links that shows the rise in obesity and other illnesses since the introduction of gmos into our food supply are hard to deny. The folks running the page that are now pro-gmo have either been bought and paid for, or are very uninformed about this issue. I’d bet on the former.

    Suddenly, as all this legislation comes out for labeling gmos, and the reports of bio-tech firms losing millions; we see these groups attempting to discredit anyone who wants supports right-to-know initiatives in the same ways, using the same tactics that tea party and conservative trolls use. There will be labeling. There will be voting. People have the right to know what’s in our food! Calling people who support gmo labeling “anti-science” is something that Fox does with people who’re against things they don’t like. Attempting to discredit peoples’ rights to know, or hindering the process to vote for these initiatives is disturbing, and is a tactic that we see in dictatorships and police states.

    Don’t be fooled by this pro-corporate “rhetoric” that’s being touted by a few on this page. The only concern that Mobsanto has is for feeding their pockets, not the world. The problem with food is there’s no money to be made in feeding the poor.

    • Ripshed

      Countless studies? Name a fraction of them.

      It’s a joke because I know they don’t exist except for a very small handful of discredited studies in low-tier journals.

  • Guest

    Personally, I’m not worried about health issues from ingesting GMOs; I’m worried about what GMO crops do to the environment, and I’m worried about Monsanto et al’s history of aggressively stifling research into this question. As reported in Scientific American, “For a decade [the firms’] user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.” Some studies have been published, but “only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

    Clearly this situation isn’t analogous to climate change science at all. The scientific consensus re climate change is based on a vast and substantial body of _independent_ research; the GMO “consensus” is based on nothing of the kind. It’s based instead on (1) quoting scientists who say there’s no harm in eating GMOs, and (2) pretending that’s all there is to the issue.

    I support labelling of GMOs out of concern for the effects of the crops, and out of a desire to avoid supporting companies like Monsanto to the fullest extent possible.

  • PS

    Personally, I’m not worried about health issues from ingesting GMOs; I’m worried about what GMO crops do to the environment, and I’m worried about Monsanto et al’s history of aggressively stifling research into this question. As reported in Scientific American, “For a decade [the firms’] user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.” Some studies have been published, but “only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

    Clearly this situation isn’t analogous to climate change science at all. The scientific consensus re climate change is based on a vast and substantial body of _independent_ research; the GMO “consensus” is based on nothing of the kind. It’s based instead on (1) quoting scientists who say there’s no harm in eating GMOs, and (2) pretending that’s all there is to the issue.

    I support labelling of GMOs out of concern for the effects of the crops, and out of a desire to avoid supporting companies like Monsanto to the fullest extent possible.

  • Roxane Murray

    China has the right idea–non-GMO foods can only be labeled if there is a GMO counterpart. Otherwise you have the same idiotic spectacle that we have with gluten, where everything from meat to soap to vegetables are labeled “gluten-free.”

    • strayaway

      Monsanto also took milk producers to court for labeling their dairy products “rBST free”. rBST is a growth hormone sold by Monsanto to improve milk production. rBST implants are implanted in the cow’s ear. Monsanto was not content to keep eBST off of labels. Monsanto struck our at companies claiming their products did not contain rBST.

  • TyrellCorp

    So here’s how I see it. I am not that concerned about eating GMO food although I want to know what every ingredient is, and there is already plenty of unhealthy chemical crap in every day foods like bread in the US that are banned in Europe and the rest of the civilized world.

    What I AM very concerned about is the patenting of seeds and the oppressive monopoly that companies like Monsanto and ADM are trying to establish over seeds, and the links to pesticide use (especially in Monsanto’s case). Furthermore, history shows that as you narrow genetic diversity, the more likely a disease is to have disastrous impacts on your crops. If you want to see a nightmarish vision of what the consequences could be of a world where Monsanto and ADM have accomplished their aims, check out the novels of Paolo Bacigalupi, especially The Windup Girl.

    The problem with all bioengineering is we don’t really understand what we are doing, and there are always large expanding ripples of unintended consequences (the same way global warming results from widespread fossil fuel production and use).

  • Ken

    Doesn’t look like scientific reason will sway the anti’s…at ALL. Ignorance is said to be bliss, and these people are sure in a blissful heaven.
    It’s really a waste of time and effort to try to dissuade them in any way. Present thousands of studies refuting their rants and they will say, but Monsanto paid for them and they haven’t been done long term. Always an off the wall “reason” to support their nor science viewpoint. The problem with all this is, GE foods are urgently needed to feed us and these people don’t give a damn at all that they are being destructive. Anything at all to keep deluding themselves and others. Despicable. Yeah,I know, I just wasted MY time and effort in a futile hope of change. Final word, I don’t work for Monsanto, “Big Food”, the FDA or even “Big Pharma”, not that I have any hope or care you’ll even believe that.

  • Johan Seed Launo

    Only dumb folks(sheeple) eat GMO’s… The actual people with concern for the future already knows what’s good and what’s not. The only problem is if the GMO-food doesn’t have to be labelled as it… And the same actual people also knows vaccines should be avoided if it’s for free and encouraged. Today that’s common sense for god’s sake.

  • Shane Patrick Irvine

    I’m not worried about the safety of GMOs so much as I’m concerned about Monsanto eventually owning the seed industry and eventually monopolizing the agricultural industry. They have already bankrupted family farming and I want to know if I’m supporting Monsanto by buying their products. BTW, Monsanto also told us agent orange was safe, too. Is anyone naïve enough to think they’ve become more honest since then?

  • jksteiner1974

    It’s incredible to see how brainwashed people can be by watching a documentary or two. It’s also amazing to see how far people will go to rationalize something they refuse to admit they’re wrong over – almost exactly like religious people do. There’s not a god damn thing wrong with GMO’s.

  • NOSNIMS WVS

    this Manny Sweltz guy is so full
    of shit… first of all, unlike climate change denying and young earth
    creationism, biotechnology is a complex and diverse topic. The
    “science” this person is referring to can only pertain to specific
    aspects of the argument. It’s not black and white, but even if you choose to
    believe your health is not at risk from the biocides GM crops are designed to
    withstand, the “truth” is that monoculture, the industrial farming
    method behind GMO, is not a sustainable form of agriculture, not to mention
    pests are evolving immunities to these chemicals, requiring the EPA to cut
    corners for their industry buddies, lowering safety standards. Then you have
    non-point pollution which is an increasingly huge ecological threat and can be
    read about in any Environmental Science text book. The video’s claim that
    “science has yet to discover any evidence that GMO pose a more dangerous
    threat to our lives and survival than non-GMO foods” is just laughable.
    It’s kinda like saying you can drink Round Up with your dinner instead of water
    because science hasn’t found anything dangerous about it yet.. this
    “forward progressives” page may need some vetting if they are posting
    this janky bs. 350,000 people are reading this adolescent garbage… “stupid
    labels”… ok? how proper food labeling could bother this “forward
    progressive” so much is beyond me.

  • NOSNIMS WVS

    By the way, Niel Degrassi, the High Priest of Holy Science, is a cosmic, quantifiable dork. If aliens discover evidence of our existence millennia from now, they will probably get a kick out of him in particular. playing the fiddle for us while we burn.

  • Guest

    By the way, Niel Degrassi, the High Priest of Holy Science, is a cosmic,
    quantifiable dork. If aliens discover evidence of our existence
    millennia from now, they will probably get a kick out of him in
    particular. …Playing the fiddle for us while we burn.

  • NOSNIMS WVS

    By the way, Niel Degrassi, the High Priest of Holy Science, is a cosmic,
    quantifiable dork. If aliens discover evidence of our existence
    millennia from now, they will probably get a kick out of him in
    particular. And maybe they’ll say, “DeGrassi-Tyson fiddled while Earth burned.” He’ll take a world full of sci-fi nerds out with him.

  • Aaron Jones

    If you think they are so good you should not be to tell us what is in them.

  • matt

    So the sudden death of bee’s isnt of a concern? What about the environment? Is it such a surprise local farmers that dont use monsanto products had no drop in bee population?