Mike Adams, Monsanto, Nazis, and a Very Disturbing Article

By Keith Kloor | July 22, 2014 5:05 pm

I really thought Mike Adams couldn’t write anything more possibly deranged than he already has at his Natural News website. (Readers of this blog have seen a freaky side of Adams.) Jon Entine has the scoop on his editorial output and alt-med empire. Entine’s piece, which Forbes cravenly took down (after Adams threatened to sue), asked if Adams was the “most ‘dangerous’ anti-science GMO critic?”

That was meant as a rhetorical question, since Adams spouts all manner of outrageous misinformation on GMOs. But after reading the latest piece on GMOs by Adams, I have to wonder if he is literally dangerous. Here’s the title of his piece:

Biotech genocide, Monsanto collaborators and the Nazi legacy of ‘science’ as justification for murder

Here’s how it starts:

(NaturalNews) Monsanto is widely recognized as the most hated and most evil corporation on the planet. Even so, several internet-based media websites are now marching to Monsanto’s orders, promoting GMOs and pursuing defamatory character assassination tactics against anyone who opposes GMOs, hoping to silence their important voices.

These Monsanto collaborator sites tend to be “leftist” publications but also include at least one prominent business and finance publisher on the political right. All of them are Monsanto collaborators who have signed on to accelerate heinous crimes being committed against humanity under the false promise of “feeding the world” with toxic GMOs.

This is the mind of a person who Dr. Oz proudly brought on his show earlier in the year. Here’s the sentence from above I want you to keep in mind as you keep reading: “All of them are Monsanto collaborators who have signed on to accelerate heinous crimes being committed against humanity…”

Here’s what follows:

Monsanto is called the IG Farben of modern world [by Adams of course, if you click on the link] because its actions reflect the kind of crimes against humanity that remind me of those pursued by IG Farben, the chemical conglomerate run by Nazi collaborators during the Adolf Hitler regime. IG Farben used Jewish prisoners as human guinea pigs in horrific medical experiments, and the company pioneered so-called “science-based breakthroughs” for the development of psychiatric drugs, chemical pesticides, chemotherapy agents and gas chamber death chemicals like Zyklon B.

He goes on to talk about Nazi collaborators and how this history has a modern-day parallel:

Today, a number of once-independent media sites are selling out to corporate interests and quickly becoming Monsanto collaborators. This is readily apparent by noticing which media sites attack Dr. Mercola, the Food Babe, Jeffrey Smith, the Health Ranger or anyone else fighting against the scourge of GMO genocide against humanity. These attacks all have one thing in common: they are orchestrated by paid biotech muckrakers — people I call “Monsanto collaborators.”

Trust me, it gets even crazier. But towards the end is where this rant turns really disturbing:

Interestingly, just yesterday German President Joachim Gauck celebrated the lives of those brave Nazi officers who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944. Their attempted Wolf’s Lair bombing failed, but it was an honorable attempt to rid the world of tremendous evil by killing one of the people responsible for it.

This official ceremony sends a message to the world, and that official message from the nation of Germany to the rest of the world says that it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity.

Adams bolded those words for emphasis. What do you think he’s suggesting there? Maybe Dr. Oz could ask him the next time he invites Adams on to his show.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: GMOs, Monsanto
  • mem_somerville

    This is not the first time he’s suggested that. He’s gone there before.
    http://www.donotlink.com/b5b

    I predict a future where — and for the record I DO NOT encourage this — shipments of GM seeds to farmers are raided and destroyed by activists. I predict Monsanto employees being publicly named and shamed on websites. I predict — but DO NOT CONDONE — scientists who conduct research for Monsanto being threatened, intimidated and even physically attacked. Again, for the record, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY condone such behavior, but I predict it will emerge as an inevitable reaction to the unfathomable evil being committed by the GMO industry and all its co-conspirators. The “Army of the 12 monkeys” may become reality.

    But I was roaring laughing about the sex traps. But…ewwww….

    • Kevin Folta

      And I condone, but DO NOT PREDICT, that science and reason will prevail at Natural News.

    • First Officer

      I hope they’re, “have a heart”, sex traps !

    • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

      He’s not even original with it. Sadly, this is exactly the same tactic used by the radical animal rights activists since the ’80′s, when they decided to try to ban all animal research.

      • mem_somerville

        There actually is real anti-tech violence going on out there already. A woman who does GMO research had her lab burned.

        But you never hear about this. Can you imagine if someone burned Michael Mann’s office? Response would be totally different.

        • First Officer

          And this is what Vandana Shiva has to say about similar acts, such as Marie Mason’s:

          http://vimeo.com/23099099

          • Sebastian Larsen

            Blood and Soil 2.0

        • Harry McNicholas

          Did you check to see if her lab simply caught fire?

    • Harry McNicholas

      No but you think it is ok that the U.S. government threatens other governments to allow Monsanto to sell their GMO products right? It is also fine that nobody can say anything against GMO by law right?

      • Matt B

        “nobody can say anything against GMO by law”…..well then criminals abound on the internet, including some right here on this very thread!

  • Kevin Folta

    When I saw that this morning I wept with joy. I may never convince a Natural News regular with facts and evidence, but Adams can sure steer them my way with some good ol’ batshit nazi craziness.

    • First Officer

      bat meets nazi ! If Mike Adams lost his hair? Mmmmmm.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHD_53UqBeA

    • mem_somerville

      Can you imagine if someone in the climate change chattering class had called for this for climate scientists? It would be tweeted up by all the science writer folks around.

      Plant science….ZZZzzzz…..

      • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Keith Kloor

        Yes, that was a thought I had as well, which prompted me to tweet:
        https://twitter.com/keithkloor/status/492003654929354753

        • Matthew Slyfield

          Plenty of climate alarmists have made calls for killing skeptics.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pressure_%28film%29

          • Harry McNicholas

            That is a lie Matthew.

          • Matthew Slyfield

            No, it’s not. While the video has been taken down, I saw it myself when they first released it.

            There are also far more examples that can be cited.

            Try doing a Google search for death penalty for climate deniers.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=death+penalty+for+climate+deniers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

          • Sam Harris

            Interesting. All of the links on the first page of returns refer to a claim from single person.

          • Harry McNicholas

            Just more BS. Climate change is real and backed by the majority of scientists on the planet. A top climate scientist was hired by the Koch Brothers to investigate climate change. The Koch Brothers who have made their billions in the oil industry were very anti climate change so they expected their scientist would determine that the issue was BS. However, he did have integrity. He spent considerable time researching the issue. His conclusion. Human caused climate change is real. So far they have not hired anymore scientists. The only people denying human caused climate change are political hacks and nitiwt

          • Matthew Slyfield

            Harry,

            Even if every thing you said was true, none of that either negates the fact that there have been well publicized call for executing skeptics nor justifies them.

          • Harry McNicholas

            There are all kinds of nut cases who call for executing just about everyone. Sorry I do not listen to them.

          • John Jennette

            you asked for examples/names and now when given you don’t listen to them.Sounds like don’t bother me with the facts.

          • Peculiar Person

            You seem very open to a discussion on the topic of “Climate Change” and it’s causes. Not.

          • Dawn

            Have you ever heard of Climategate?

          • Dawn

            Did you know those in charge of the Carbon Tax were pocketing billions from the Iraq Oil for Food program?

          • Dr. G

            . . . and besides political hacks and nitwits, the NASA climate data that shows there has been no global warming for 18 years must also be nut-job work, right Harry? Can’t forget that stuff. No, I too believe the fraudulent tree ring data brought forth by Grant Funded whores and ground based sensors placed strategically right at HVAC expulsion vents on top of skyscrapers and on hot airport tarmacs. Uber Global Warming!

          • acronymous

            So if there has been no warming for 18 years? That leaves us on an unnaturally high temperature plateau. And even that won’t last forever. The earth has, all along, been receiving a tad more energy from the sun than it’s been returning to space. The energy hasn’t, for the time being, concentrated in the atmosphere, but instead, has been drawn under into the deep Atlantic by a climate oscillation that’s recently been discovered. 40 year cycle, roughly, and it’s been going for centuries. Masked by random events and our previous inability to systematically put together the data.

          • Harry McNicholas

            That does not account for the continuous rise in temperature of the Pacific but nice try.

          • Dr. G

            Actually, from viewing TRUE climate history, the earth has been unusually cool for the last 750 years or so. But even if the entire time that bipeds have been around, that is but a blink in geospatial time. For hundreds of millions of years during the epoch of the dinosaurs the earth was much, much warmer than it is now. OUR time has been the anomaly.

          • Harry McNicholas

            The cooling stopped about 150 years ago in the atmosphere and varies from warming up to staying as is. The Oceans are something different. They have continued to warm up. That is why the Arctic ocean is now almost ice free allowing ships to pass through. The first time in history.

          • Dr. G

            Yes, it is called load balancing. Which, by the way, is coincidental to the amount of distance that the moon has been losing orbital integrity. Give the moon long enough, and it will be so far away from earth as to make the average Bonzi Pipeline surf on the North Shore of Oahu about 5 feet high. Soon after that (relatively, as these things go) the affects of Jupiter will pry the moon away.

            The affects of solar warming on the oceans will wreck havoc, though, as then only temperature variations will cause currents as cold lower waters are cycled to the top. Would make a nice dissertation for someone in the hard sciences.

          • Dr. G

            Ever heard of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991? It spewed forth more CO and PCB’s than the – and get this – WHOLE HISTORY OF MAN. That’s right, this one event eclipsed everything man has done since he walked upright. The result? A temporary hole in the ozone layer. Folks out there, every thing you have done in your entire life, every hardship you have had to endure from crappy little cars to getting tunnel carpel from spritzer hair spray pumps was completely undone.

            These type of events occur all the time.

          • Harry McNicholas

            Another boob who understands nothing. Most of the heat of the earth is in the oceans. It is the oceans that continue to warm. The heating is continuous. Do some studying of the science behind global heating before making a comment. This is why the Arctic sea ice has been melting. Your cohorts in N.Carolina had a answer for rising tides on their coast, They made a law against it.

          • Dr. G

            Hmmm . . . “most of the heat of the earth is in the oceans”. So what? THAT heat is the accumulation of sun spot activity and orbital mechanics! This still has nothing to due with outright lies and deliberately fraudulent global warming data. You know, there is a place called Greenland. But why is it called Greenland when it is not green, but white? Because back when it was named, they used to grow grapes there! Yes, Virginia (and Harry) climate change is real, but mankind has little to do with it.

          • http://YouOnlyWish.com alf1955

            Really?! Really?! Let’s see – Upper Mantle = 700-1300°C, Lower Mantle = 1800-2300°C, Outer Core = 3200°C, Inner Core = 4500°C, AVERAGE GLOBAL SEA TEMPERATURE = 16.16°C. Tell me, oh intellectual giant of the Universe, does it get lonely for you in that dark, moist, and smelly place where you evidently keep your head all the time….

          • Francisco Machado

            Humans have coped with the climate changes for thousands of years, – and it’s been changing for thousands of years. We got through the ice age of the seventies. The current climate irregularity is a paucity of major storms and that the climate hasn’t changed for a couple decades, which is probably a mere climate anomaly. Manhattan has handled being covered with twenty inches of water as if it weren’t there. Science uses available data, endeavors to determine cause and effect, to separate it from simultaneity, and projects a model of what should happen when the experiment is conducted. If the results differ from expectations, they look for the reasons and create a new hypothesis. The AGW experiment has failed spectacularly to produce results predicted by the hypothesis, it’s expensive, and its acolytes are a nuisance. The consensus of scientific opinion was once that the Sun orbited around the Earth, although Copernican mathematics demonstrated otherwise. I suspect those scientists wanted to keep their government grants coming in, proof be damned.

          • Case222

            Harry, you are the one falling for BS. Name one empirical study that supports “climate change”. There is NO repeat NO empirical data to support it. In fact it is all based on the prediction of “computer models”. You do know what those are, right? With computer models you create the models evironment to get the desired results.

          • Harry McNicholas

            Case you are an idiot. Name one? How about hundreds. Sorry to argue with a nitwit is a waste of time. Do you even understand the basics of science?

          • John Jennette

            How about references/ sources of original data/statements..When I taught in college I always told my students on day 1…do not believe anything the text reports,or anyone says including me.Go to original sources and judge for yourself….see what the facts are and come to your own conclusions.

          • p a

            Climate deniers are killing people. Why not advocate killing the deniers?

          • acronymous

            Why not? Is this not obvious? Because you give everybody reason to hate us, fear us, and not trust us. Anyhow, climate deniers aren’t killing people. They’re just obstructing our political path to policies we think would be better. And here, it’s not even automatic that our policies will do the job. Policy isn’t science. A policy of cap and trade might not, for instance, work as well as a policy of accelerated construction of nuclear reactors.

          • Dr. G

            Nice bumper sticker.

          • janetstrausbaugh

            No it’s not a lie…happened to me!

          • Inti

            That is hardly comparable. While No Pressure was in poor taste, it was more a crude attempt at dark British humour than a psychotic, godwinesque call for murder.

          • Matthew Slyfield

            Bull, it was a death threat.

          • Inti

            Yeah sure, it threatens to push buttons to make people explode :D

          • Dawn

            Just saw it on youtube. I used to be a green and yes they are convinced that death of as many people and by any means possible is the only way to save the planet. They seem to have this in common with terrorists.

          • Harry McNicholas

            So nitwit you saw something on youtube and are convinced it is right. You must also believe that the Academy of Science is out to whack you.

          • Dr. G

            Unfortunately, the Academy of Science is not behind manmade global warming. Sorry.

          • Harry McNicholas

            No? Sorry Dr. G. but saying something that is not true is still BS. The Academy is very much behind man made global warming.

          • Dr. G

            Climate change, yes. Man made? No.

      • John Jennette

        Mem, unfortunately a number of highly placed people,among the climate change crowd,, have advocated locking up” those climate change deniers”.There have also been statements wanting deniers tried in the world court for crimes against humanity. A few more wanted deniers put in psychiatric hospitals because they “are insane”….that’s exactly what the soviets did with dissidents… they locked them up and fed them psych meds for years until “cured”.Guess what….just realized the communists were considered on the left….maybe an attitude commonality with the modern left?
        This guy,I’m only guessing of course,is a little on the left. He just motivated many to join his opposition…..maybe a psychiatric eval might be useful for him?

        • Dr. G

          Climate Change Nazi Nutjobs.

          • John Jennette

            Yep!!

        • Harry McNicholas

          So tell us who are these people John?

          • John Jennette

            Harry et al—Follow this link for one….http://lastresistance.com/5070/university-professor-climate-change-deniers-jailed/
            Do the research.You might note some of the more extreme comments above too.”Science” is not based on a democratic consensus….its based on observed facts examined through the Scientific method>I see a lot of generalized statements from the warming types but no data….give me hard data…not just math models that don’t even agree with each other.By the way why has the term global warming been changed to climate change.That covers any change including an ice age.Please give a good definition of both terms.This whole thing sounds like the middle ages arguments on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin….all conjecture no hard data.Just a bunch of social engineers trying to control the population.

    • Michael Fest

      Rather than a rational rebuttal of John Entine’s criticisms to Mike Adams practices, Mr Adams abuses the legal system to silence dissension. Now this? It wreaks of moral vacancy and derangement.

      • Harry McNicholas

        What is wrong with using the legal system? Corporations use it everyday.

        • Michael Fest

          Abusing the legal system is wrong no matter who does it. Adams used it to impose a financial burden on a critic while admitting he didn’t have a leg to stand on.

          • Harry McNicholas

            Just as corporations do.

    • Reelife11

      I’m not for or against Adams, I barely know who he is. HOWEVER, I DO know that when things are taken out of context, you can manipulate them any way you want to further your agenda. I would like to see Adam’s ENTIRE article, “as written” and see what comes AFTER that quote above. It could completely change the meaning. Never take anyone’s word for what someone else quoted on the internet, 80% of everything is probably misquoted or false anyway. Do your research first. That’s what I plan to do!

      • bdcorvette

        Good comment. The left has a habit of selective quoting that skews the writer’s words to reflect their selfish desires.

  • Tom Scharf

    Wow. That is nuts. I pretty much stop reading anything once the word Nazi is used, a very weak argument usually follows with a very strong appeal to emotion.

    I suspect he is just like any self made celebrity. When he senses people are ignoring him, he does something outrageous for attention. Mission accomplished.

    • Neil

      So you stopped after the 6th word in the title?!

      Shoulda read the comment section. There were people saying that the comparison of Monsanto to Nazis was unfair because there is no way the Nazis killed that many people….

  • docscience

    You scratch a shiny green progressive and underneath there is a dark totalitarian.

    ALWAYS.

    • DavidAppell

      Words almost as outrageous as Adams’.

    • foxnewslieseveryday

      Says a committed supporter of Corporate Socialism.

      And I can prove it by having you try to answer no more than two simple yes or no questions.

      Your history shows you to be a drive by poster seemingly not wanting to ever engage with fellow posters in discussion.

      Want to try something a little more intellectually stimulating?

      • Matthew Slyfield

        That was only one yes or no question. :-)

    • Sam Harris

      Such insight. Such clarity of thought.

    • Nick

      Umm, Mike Adams is extremely conservative.

  • First Officer

    Mike Adams may claim he disavows violence but i believe the law takes the position that you can call almost anything, anything you like but if it quacks like a duck, a duck it is under the law. He’s basically calling for hit lists to be compiled and i wonder if this can be legally interpreted as fomenting the very violence he claims he does not condone.

    • Loren Eaton

      ‘fomenting the very violence he claims he does not condone.’ And there is the problem. Adams himself won’t do anything (ala bin Ladin). But don’t try to make me believe he hasn’t thought about how this language and rhetoric plays with someone like, say,
      Rodney Coronado.

      • Harry McNicholas

        So Loren you have this special capacity to be able to read minds. You and Adams are two peas out of the same pod.

        • Loren Eaton

          Hardly. Unlike Adams, I’ve been making GMO’s for almost 30 years. He needs to stay away from that mass spec instrument, he might hurt himself.

          ‘you have this special capacity to be able to read minds.’ How do you know, read my mind?
          I’ll rephrase. I’d be really surprised if Mikey isn’t fully aware that his rhetoric serves as ‘red meat’ for the more violent subset of his environmentalist lemmings. Better now?

          • Harry McNicholas

            So if you have been making GMOS for years you hardly have an unbiased view of them since you have a vested interest. That Adams might be a nut is nothing new but that GMOS are perfectly safe is also questionable since scientists in Europe and other countries would argue the point with you. The only people who have gained from GMOs are Monsanto and the people, like yourself, who makes them. You are the one suggesting you can read minds. Are you an environmental biologist? I am not but I question whether you are qualified to discuss any environmental issue. I tend to believe environmental biologists and not someone who works for Monsanto. Also, Monsanto is not like other corporations in that they are involved in the food I eat. Apple only makes the Ipad I use.

          • Loren Eaton

            ‘So if you have been making GMOS for years you hardly have an unbiased view…’ I never claimed to be unbiased, I do however claim to be informed and possess real world experience with them. And I’m not a liar, which is your implication, is it not?
            ‘…GMOS are perfectly safe is also questionable since scientists in Europe and other countries would argue the point with you.’ Strawman! The ones on the market meet the safety standards set by MANY governments, even those in Europe. Virtually every EU Scientific National Academy agrees with the US National Academy and the AMA, etc. etc. that they are as safe as any other food.
            Who said anything about environmental scientists? I said environmentalist lemmings (read activists).

          • gcaus

            There does have to be a balanced debate, and comparisons to Nazis is ridiculous. Also, having the hubris to think one understands the plant genome you are tinkering with and releasing it for all of us to test it for you with our bodies requires some chutzpah. I don’t want to be part of the experiment. Just label the food, then I’m happy.

          • Loren Eaton

            What exactly are you planning on eating? GMOs are not tinkering with the entire genome. Classical breeding and mutation breeding (which are NOT regulated at all) rearrange the genome far more than GMOs….and we’ve all been eating that food for decades.

          • gcaus

            I don’t consider traditional breeding the same as injecting genetic information from bacteria or other species. I don’t think it is relevant at all if classical breeding and mutation breeding (are you referring to radiation?) are regulated. Maybe the argument should be said that they should be tested. I believe I have enough of an education to make my own decision if I want my child to eat GMO food. I don’t believe the anti-GMO movement are all fanatics. Some are, and there are reasonable concerns. It’s convenient to label someone extremist, isn’t it? You don’t know how the plant genome works. Period. You are guessing. And, yet, the claim is usually that the food is the same… Let me choose.

          • Loren Eaton

            ‘I don’t think it is relevant at all if classical breeding and mutation breeding (are you referring to radiation?) are regulated.’ Then you’re the one with a lack of understanding, not me. The disruption, if you will, of the genome is far greater with classical breeding and especially mutation breeding (which includes chemical mutagenesis). If you’re concerned about changes to the genome, you should be more concerned with these methods, not less.

            ‘You don’t know how the plant genome works. Period. You are guessing.’ I’m a tissue culture and transformation guy, genomics isn’t my area. But you need to read some journal articles there, pal. There are some real smart folks working on genome sequencing and architecture, proteomics and metabolomics. NO ONE IS JUST GUESSING. The knowledge in these areas is growing rapidly, mostly because of advances in IT and sequencing ability.

          • gcaus

            Loren, thanks for taking the time to respond. I realize it is frustrating when being told there is a serious limit to our knowledge of genomics at the moment. I am not anti-GMO. I am anti-hubris, and this thread is full of hubris and is condescending to those that are simply more cautious. It’s marketing hype when stating that the safety of GMOs has been established. It’s the same tactic used with pharmaceutical companies. Lots of studies, which are manipulated to show efficacy and safety, and only after real-world experience do doctors discover the real side-effects and potential dangers. And, that’s after double blind clinical trials. GMO don’t have human testing for obvious reasons. We don’t have the knowledge to even release a well targeted drug without creating all kinds of unintended side-effects “in nature”. And, yet GMO companies release their products with no potential for a recall, obviously.

            I’m not arguing the dangers of traditionally bred technology. If you are a scientist then you know that’s not logical. Keep to the topic. I can debate the differences between how GMOs are created and the dangers unique to them not associated with other breeding methods. But, I’m not falling for that logic trap. That’s a valid question, and I believe there is plenty of valid concern that GMOs pose a risk not associated with other breeding methods. Label GMO’s, I know more than you do about the subject, apparently, and I want my wife, I, and others to be able to choose.

            There is plenty of new evidence that organic is safer, has more beneficial nutrients, and as you know organic is defined to avoid GMO.

            Please stop spouting corporate marketing propaganda and shrouding it in “scientific” validity. It gives science a bad name.

            So, again, arguing that traditional breeding methods are more dangerous, is not answering the question – do GMOs pose a unique threat. Stick to the topic.

          • gcaus

            Loren, and “just guessing” was harsh. I feel I should have stated that the models being used are rough approximations of reality at this stage, and there is so much to learn that in 10 years we will look back at the models and admit that what we knew was extremely limited. And, that’s the difference of opinion. I believe we should know more before experimenting on the general population.

          • Archduke Leopold

            I do understand that when a person’s salary depends on “not understanding what’s wrong”, then no matter how much anyone tells you, you won’t be able to admit it.
            I can easily see that certain crops are engineered to produce certain proteins that are poisonous to insects and weeds.
            So far, there have not been any “independent” studies that show that these poisons are not harmful to humans. We (and when I say we, I am using the plural majestatis), we just cannot simply take your word for it.

            Studies arranged by the producers of these “crop systems” that show that “there is no possible harm, and just trust us” are not good enough.

          • Archduke Leopold

            When certain quoted organisations such as the EU Scientific National Academy agree with the the US National Academy and the AMA, that GMO’s are as safe as any other food, then they must have been presented with GMO crops grown under lab condition green houses without the application of glyphosate (i.e. Roundup).

            But in the real world, glyphosate is used liberally. So then, one should add here that the rejection of various GMO crops in several European countries came about as follows:

            The so-called “Roundup Ready” crops are engineered to be highly tolerant to large quantities of glyphosate, aka “Roundup”.

            It was the high content of leftover glyphosate on these crops that prompted the European countries to reject that particular GMO crop as unsafe for human consumption. (You can look this up.)
            In the USA, where Monsanto lobbies, pays, influences and sends ex-employees to act as FDA officials, there is “apparently” no “unsafe for human consumption” quantity of glyphosate residue possible. Anything Monsanto wants approved, it will get approved in the US.

            So, that’s what it is about: “Corruption in high places for the sake of making more dollars, at the cost of digestive problems and possibly cancer for millions of people”

            Monsanto will never admit it. Farmers shut up, because it makes them money, and they can turn a blind eye. It’s like a war, where you accept a certain number of casualties.

            All anyone can ever say is: “Have you, sirs, at long last, lost all sense of decency?” I don’t know at what point people might wake up to this, but I figure that as soon as the wives and babies and children of Monsanto executives will vomit into their cereal bowls day in and day out, then may be somebody might figure out that something has gone wrong.

          • Loren Eaton

            ‘they must have been presented with GMO crops grown under lab condition green houses without the application of glyphosate (i.e. Roundup).’ Uhh, no. All the organizations are presented and analyze field trial data.

            ‘It’s like a war, where you accept a certain number of casualties.’ When you obtain some casualty figures, let me know.

            ‘All anyone can ever say is: “Have you, sirs, at long last, lost all sense of decency?”‘ Wow!! After the behavior of Adams you have the temerity to direct a statement made to JOE MCCARTHY at anyone else.

          • windskisong

            Which ironically was directed at Joe McCarthy in response to his nasty accusations which… were mostly true and proven to be so by the Venona cables.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            I’ll listen to these guys who say they’re safe:

          • Loren Eaton

            They’re bought and paid for, Foster! BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, I SAY!! ;-0

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            lol

          • Harry McNicholas

            Sorry but your list is bogus. If the list was accurate, then how come so many countries have banned GMO? If GMOs were perfectly safe, then why would the manufacturers worry about labeling GMO on a product be a problem?
            s
            s
            e

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            You’re working from outdated info, Mr. McNicholas. No country bans them except for third world nations scared into it by the morons at Greenpeace.

            Google those organisations names in Chrome (it’ll automatically translate for you), and run searches. Let them tell you so.

            And, manufacturers already label their products. Do a Google image search for GMO labels. You’ll see thousands of images.

          • Archduke Leopold

            Foster, you are wrong. The following “third world nations”, as you call them, have bans on GMO’s in place: Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece, Spain, UK, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Philippines, Egypt, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, plus a few “really” 3rd world countries like Paraguay, Algeria. These bans did not come about via “morons at Greenpeace”, but rather from the “scientists in these countries”, who decided what is and what is not safe for human consumption. One of the main reasons for bans was the “way out of proportion high residue of glyphosate” on many of these crops.
            Sorry if these countries don’t want to eat your poisons. We simply have come to the conclusion that Monsanto does not care who and how many people it harms, and we have researched and looked at what they have done, how they have faked their results, or skipped research altogether.

            (see – among other sources, http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/countrieswithbans.cfm

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news for ya: With the exception of France, those are all second & third world nations that you mentioned.

            Also, France, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the rest of the EU countries are all developing their own GMOs. http://doccamiryan.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/20140314-142748.jpg

          • Loren Eaton

            And let’s not forget about China. As much press as their rejection of US corn shipments have gotten (read protectionism), one must remember that they are more than capable of a robust program of GMO production. In fact, MANY of the scientists either trained or were educated here in the states or Canada or the EU.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            Speaking of China, a couple Chinese citizens were arrested for stealing GM seeds. Hmmm. I wonder why they’d want to steal them if they really think they’re unsafe…

          • Robin

            Goverments throw around bans for the heck of it.

            That argument is a rubbish appeal to authority (which is a logical fallacy).

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news for ya: Most of the countries you claim are against GMOs have banned homosexuality. Still think it wise to associate with them?

          • Archduke Leopold

            How do you know they aren’t all paid off ?

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            1) No one has that much money.

            2) The most powerful man in the world, the POTUS (President of the United States) had an affair. It came out. The biggest spy agency in the US, the NSA, was spying on the American people. It came out.

          • gcaus

            Thanks for the list. Not new information. Many on that list also feel that CT scans at hospitals are generally safe. (Obviously those on the list that are also relevant.) For years there have been some stating that there appears to be a profit motive with CT scans and that they aren’t as safe as they appear to be due to their frequency of use.

            Patients that were informed asked to limit their exposure and are now better off. This year in particular, after years of delays, hospitals are beginning to track CT scan usage because the evidence is now out that the “alarmists” were correct, cancer rates are higher in those that were repeatedly exposed to CT scans.

            The relevance to the GMO debate? LABEL GMO! I know when I am getting a CT scan. I opted out just 3 years ago. I am an informed patient. (Of course, one isn’t a big deal…but why have an unnecessary scan?) I want to be an informed consumer. I’m not waiting for new studies in 10 years to further refine the recommendation on GMO exposure.

            I’ll eat my GMO Doritos once in a while, but I still want it easy to know what foods contain them instead of hiding the fact by using the word “natural” etc in labels.

            Again, revelance: It’s undeniable that CT scans are amazing, save lives, even, right? But profit created a situation where the potential dangers were ignored. Those “health nuts” only worried about it. Now the epidemiologists found the patterns and we are changing our standard of care at hospitals.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            CT scans are safe.

            If you want to know what foods are GMOs, look for the ones without the USDA Certified Organic label. How hard is that?

          • gcaus

            Do you just make up your answers? One of my projects is working with epidemiologists to predict the lifetime occurrence of CT scans using “big data” analysis based on diagnosis codes and medical history. As I stated, we now know that cancer is being caused by too many CT scans. That’s a fact, not conjecture. Thanks for proving my point. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to wonder if that is the case in any event since CT scans expose a person to a significant level of radiation. FYI, the type of scan is important to take into consideration.

            Seriously? Not everything not organic contains GMOs! They may just not be certified or pesticides were used.

            You are very misinformed!

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            I was going to ask you to cite your sources, and to present your evidence, but since basic reading comprehension seems to have escaped you, I’m willing to bet money you have neither.

            But, maybe someone else, reading these comments does, so here’s another link for them: http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm

          • gcaus

            You are wrong about CT scans. You say they are safe. People are getting cancer from them right now. Is the New England Journal of Medicine good enough for you as a source? How does this relate to GMO? People like you think the science is settled, when it isn’t. Just like you are wrong about CT scans being safe, you may be wrong about GMO. Too early to tell, but the science is not as conclusive as you think. In the future, 2 percent of cancer may be caused by CT scan exposure! That is really a big number
            http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/drlensblog/post/2007/11/29/how-dangerous-are-ct-scans.aspx

            The good news is hospitals are doing something about it.

            Thank you for the link. I am very aware of the position of various institutions on GMO. And, I know enough about the “research” to be very skeptical of the results.

            I gave you an example of research that is supposed to be very stringent and even vetted by the FDA, pharmaceutical research, which no one can argue is much more stringent than required by the GMO industry.

            The real world proves repeatedly that new drugs do not act in nature, patients, as they did in the studies. If you want to get a laugh, tell a doctor that the drug studies can be trusted, and that the pharm reps tell the truth!

            It’s easy for companies to manipulate research. As I stated, things that you were told to be safe turn out not to be. And, that’s the problem, the industry has no credibility.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            I clicked your link. It was to a seven year old article, which also linked to a seven year old study. I’ve not found anything newer which means, either A) Nothing more was found, or B) Their worry was unfounded.

            There’s not even metadata to be found. This usually means no other studies were done. Looks like your fears are baseless. That’s okay.

            Drug studies are one thing. Everything in there is tightly controlled. That’s why they do epistemological studies. This means they keep an eye on the drugs when they hit the market. Because when you talk about Joe & Jane Average, well, folks don’t always obey their doctors, do they? But, that’s outside the realm of this discussion. We’re talking about the safety of GMOs.

            You’re right. Research can be manipulated. However, it’s found out quickly. Not only that, but it is impossible for that many different science organizations to all be “in cahoots.” Someone would say something. Especially with all the money on the line.

            Consider: Monsanto, Du Pont, Dow, and Syergenta are all rivals and competitors. If Monsanto were doing something shady, and it were discovered, the others would be all over it, trumpeting it to the stars. Monsanto’s stock would go down, and their competitors’ would go up, and vice versa.

            If the industry had no credibility, do you think anyone would do business with them?

          • gcaus

            More recent article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-ct-scans-increase-risk-cancer/?page=1

            Pubmed May 2014: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24628509

            No, it hasn’t gone away. Studies like the one from NEJM don’t suddenly become invalid because 7 years go by… people pay attention and follow up.

            I’m a “Big data” analyst, we are currently working with one of the largest hospital systems in the USA, finishing a predictive model using nearest neighbor algorithms to help warn doctors if a particular patient is likely to receive many CT scans in a lifetime.

            FDA approval is much more stringent than the studies touted by Monsanto et. al. I brought it up because it’s not just anti-GMO fanatics that are concerned. Many, like me, just don’t trust the industry or the science. It’s too soon.

            Specifically, I’m more concerned about exposure to children. My wife is a physician, she used to not worry about GMO. Our son was born, suddenly, we went organic. And, it’s not as easy as you think. Avoiding GMO isn’t just looking for Organic. Labeling GMO let’s us decide. Please don’t think you know more than someone that went through medical school, learning plenty about how to read the science….

            My staff includes several data scientists that have specialized in genomics. I posted elsewhere that “we no nothing” about the genome, plant or human. Harsh, but what we know pales in comparison to what we don’t know. that’s a fact coming from experts in that area.

            Nearly everyone works with the cigarette companies despite knowing they sell poison.
            I have good friends that work at Monsanto. I don’t want to bash Monsanto. Notice I didn’t mention them… But, don’t be naive.

            So go ahead and think CT scans are safe. When they aren’t… because you think you would be warned, right?

            And, go ahead and eat GMO, too. But, some of us can make our own decisions and have the full education to do so, as you do. So, label properly so we can decide for ourselves.

            Good luck!

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            30 years worth of studies of GMO safety isn’t enough, huh? And 50 years of biochemistry isn’t enough, either?

            Well, how much time do you think is enough?

            Oh, and one more thing: The FDA is one of six U.S. government agencies that regulate GMOs. All of them say they’re safe.

          • gcaus

            I explained why I want labeling. I gave you an example of another technology that you believe is safe, CT scans, but which is abused by industry for profit. It is a simpler example, and you thought it was safe. You still argue it is safe. You clearly ignore facts.

            It is a fact the drugs require very thorough testing and we still don’t know the effects. You conveniently ignore that fact. The FDA has minimal involvement with GE foods, the industry has voluntary testing with the FDA.

            Feel free to be a lemming. I made my point, neither of us are going to change our minds. Feel free to continue the name calling.

            Just remember, before this chat you thought no one would hide the death of tens of thousands of people due to overexposure to radiation from CT scans, references to NEJM, no less. It’s not a conspiracy theory, and likewise GM foods may be unsafe, particularly for children. They may be safe.

            Parrot the industry line, that’s fine. Not everyone is as naive as you. Again, I’m not anti GMO, things will improve. The industry needs a laboratory, and unfortunately, the US population is it. I just think people should have a choice.

            Finally, I don’t agree. Organic foods go through the expense of labeling. GMO should do the same, particularly since the latest studies show organic is healthier, which means it is in the public’s interest.

            I’m going to call you, “Mr. CT scans are safe” from now on.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            smhl

  • First Officer

    I read Mike Adams actually purchased a mass spectrometer. I don’t know how, but i’m sure he’s going to poke somebody’s eye out with it !

  • First Officer

    Mike Adams says: You vill alle be put on zee list !

    http://youtu.be/0V3SqxUomwk

    • Cairenn Day

      I know that myself, as well as other folks that post science get nasty PMs that sometimes include death threats.

      When you threaten someone to try to ‘shut them up’, that is a form of terrorism.

      • First Officer

        I post the above (and like it) in the same vein as Mel Brooks. Who, to paraphrase, said something like if you can reduce your enemy with humor to a joke, then you’ll nullify him.

  • JH

    Is this an incitement to murder? Who gets to decide who’s committing crimes against humanity? Just Mikey, or can anyone make that call and act on it at will?

  • Karl Haro von Mogel

    I think a good first step in responding to this would be to get comments from major anti-GMO leaders, particularly those he linked to in his post as trustworthy sources of information – who will most likely universally condemn such a “hit-list” proposal, and distance themselves from his rhetoric. Might be a good story for you, Keith?

    • mem_somerville

      What an incredibly constructive way to handle this. Potentially very illuminating as well.

      • Karl Haro von Mogel

        Whatever the responses are, it will be telling. If they don’t condemn it, then they associate themselves with it. If they do, then it will compel people who are sympathetic to his views to question what he is saying. Even if they say no comments, they might send him an email going WTF?

    • First Officer

      I wonder who won’t distance themselves from this. That might be most telling of all. The comments at his website under this aren’t pretty.

    • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Keith Kloor

      I have mixed feelings about this idea. I see why you might find that of value. But to me, it smacks of gotcha journalism. There are lots of crazy people in the world who might latch on to someone else’s work (which also may well be dubious), but I don’t think it’s fair to make the association.

      You know, as in Hitler was a vegetarian and Stalin was an atheist…you see what I mean?

      • First Officer

        “Hitler was a vegetarian” or an artist. Yes, very silly, but i can’t help think it when i see things like this , with it’s tacit implication that scientists are killing people.

        • Harry McNicholas

          Many scientists worked for the tobacco companies and yes they were contributing to the deaths of millions of people. Many scientists also worked on the development of the nuclear bomb and about 200,000 people died from their work.

          • Matt B

            Next, we get the murderers from the auto companies….except those nice folks who make the air bags…..well except the airbags that detonate at low impact, those bastards hurt people………

          • J. Go.

            [quote]about 200,000 people died from their work.[end-quote] Given. But, remember, estimates of casualties for a conventional invasion of Japan were in excess of 1,000,000- (one million) mostly Japanese. Therefore, it would more accurate, if less politically correct, to say their work SAVED more than 800,000.

          • Dr. G

            Forgeddaboudit, J. Go. Truth only confuses them.

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity.” The list of names would then be headed by Mike Adams, all religions, etc. The single greatest parasite upon all humanity is the baby. Are contraception vendors then good or evil?

  • bobito
    • Harry McNicholas

      I do not think the Secret Service is hire to protect Monsanto employees. If anyone threatens to kill someone, then it might be the job of the local police and in cases where it crosses the state line the FBI. If you threaten someone who works for Monsanto or threaten to do physical harm then it is a job for the police. Saying you hate Monsanto is not.

      • bobito

        My suggestion was based on the quote “actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity”.

        Since Obama singed the so called Monsonto Protection Act (see the link I provided), it would put him in Adams’ group of people that are committing “crimes against humanity”.

        Thus his call for “killing of those engaged” could be construed as a threat to kill the POTUS. Which, of course, is a crime that the Secret Service takes VERY seriously…

        Sorry for being vague in my initial comment…

        • Harry McNicholas

          Adams made no direct threat against the Pres. Your case would go nowhere in court. So why would Monsanto need any protection with their billions? The poor schmuck of a farmer might since that GMO seed that was suppose to eliminate the use of insecticides did not work and now the farmer must use more insecticide than he did before on normal seeds. Also, since it is a GMO plant, it produces no seeds that the farmer can use next year. He must buy new seeds from Monsanto. So who benefitted? Monsanto.

          • bobito

            Huh? I thought I spelled out my A to B to C case pretty well. But, you are correct, it has no more weight than any A to B to C logic case can get you…

            Just like your logic on insecticide use and not producing seeds. You go A to B to C and end up with “Monsonto is evil”. I don’t think your case would stand up either. As follows:

            If the farmer is not making more money using Monsanto seeds because they end up using more insecticides, then they can choose to use a different seed the next year.

            If the farmer isn’t happy with not being able to use seeds from the previous years crops they can choose to buy a different seed the next year.

            Nobody is forcing farmers to use GMO seeds, why do they keep buying them if it’s such bad business for them?

  • Completely Anonymous

    This invocation of Godwin’s Law is astounding. That’s all I can say considering a few brain cells stopped functioning when I read his quotes.

  • Loren Eaton

    “This is the most dangerous man in all of Germany…uhh Kansas!!’

  • Turtleman

    Adams appears to be referencing an article on AlterNet two days ago that ripped him a new one. He did mention a “leftist” website. http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/four-biggest-quacks-plaguing-america-their-bad-claims-about-science

  • Keith Lanfear

    how simple is your logic when you think that just because this guy is over the edge that makes you right or GMOs harmless??

    • Sebastian Larsen

      No one said that.

      • Harry McNicholas

        No but they certainly inferred it.

        • Sebastian Larsen

          Citation needed.

        • Allyson_et_al

          Do you mean infer or imply? I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to say.

          • Harry McNicholas

            Infer! I do not see they implied it.

    • Vm

      well in fairness, the anti GMO people always have as one of their core arguments that this one company is also over the edge or evil therefore all GMO’s are also evil.

    • Nick

      He is over the edge, GMos are harmless and I am right

  • First Officer

    As hard as it is to sue in the United Sates for libel and slander, this may meet the burden of proof to proceed. Also, the burden of proof in other countries, such as the UK, is not as high, i believe.

    http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html

  • Neil

    Holy f&*k. Have you seen the update? Go back and check out the link.

    Keith: you are a “A fraudulent blogger who invents fictional stories and plays them off as facts to entice readers.”

    Forbes is now apparently run by Chinese communists.

    The “Scientists” category is still under construction but I can bet on a few names that will make that list.

  • Sebastian Larsen

    You know who also used Jewish prisoners? http://usa.weleda.com/index.aspx

    • Harry McNicholas

      Ah an expert on Nazi history. Had you considered that you and Adams are the same kind of nitwits?

      • Sebastian Larsen

        How so?
        I am pro science he is not?

  • Harry McNicholas

    So your article is any different? Why would anyone support Monsanto? Adams may or may not be a nut case but I cannot see that you are any different.

    • Sullivan ThePoop

      Does knowing that GMOs are not toxic or unsafe equate to supporting Monsanto? Also, Monsanto is no different than any other large corporation in a free market society.

  • Jerry Murray

    Is his thinking that far from any truth? Without Jesus Christ’s guiding influence in a person’s life, anything evil is possible as seen in history. Case in fact: your Federal tax dollars in the amount of 1/2 billion dollars annually go to Planned Parenthood so they can slaughter by abortion 4000 babies each and every day in America. The people in America have a love affair with death; therefore, we will reap death as a consequence.

    • Paceride

      Blah di blah blah blah.

    • Nick

      Wrongedy wrong wrong wrooong

      • Jerry Murray

        Explain why?

  • Chad

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-snowden-doc-reveals-how-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml
    Wonder how many supporting commenters of this argument are being paid by the NSA? Seems like they are trying to destroy someone’s reputation…

    • bobito

      I can’t speak for all commenters, but it seems to me that the comments are about how Adams just destroyed his own reputation.

    • Ripshed

      Let’s see. When Mike Adams writes an article encouraging everyone to rise up and kill pro-biotech people and his own words are quoted and condemned online *we’re* the bad ones?

      We’re part of a government conspiracy? Can you explain how that works and what sinister aim would be behind quoting people’s own words?

      • Chad

        Just face the facts….. NSA is steering comments with TAXPAYER $

        • Ripshed

          Maybe you’re getting paid by the NSA and we’re the victims.

      • Chad

        That discredits every comment on here – you never know who’s interest are at stake….

    • Sebastian Larsen
      • Chad

        More like I read an article on how the NSA is paying commenters to steer the conversation on important science blogs….. Uhhhhhh, THAT IS SCARY!!!!

        • Ripshed

          I went to the link you gave and nowhere are science blogs or science websites mentioned. You’re just making crap up now.

          • Paceride

            It’s just along the typical conspiritard lines “if you disagree with me you must be PAID by the ebil gubmint.

  • BoGardiner

    Surely publicly calling for the murder of science journalists is incitement to violence and an imprisonable offense???

    I’m a long-time environmental activist who has gone up against many a corporation, but the rhetoric against any journalist who tries to bring some science and sanity to the GMO discussion is terrifying.

    I hope you’re physically safe, Keith.

  • Florida Farmer

    Sounds just like the nutter prolife/forced birth people justifying crimes against those who provide abortion services.

    • Vm

      extremists of all kinds from these guys to religious extremists tend to be similar

    • windskisong

      Sounds just like when that wingnut NAACP group was still respected and they posted a list of “hate groups” that incited one of their crazy fans to shoot up a non-profit, then justified the crime because they disagreed with the non-profit’s political views.

  • Paceride

    “These Monsanto collaborator sites tend to be “leftist” publications ”

    And here I would think that most people against GMOs would be more tree hugger hippie natural food types.

    • conspiracygirl

      You’re right. They are. Adams is very mistaken — as he is on almost everything.

      • Harry McNicholas

        Adams is a self promoting nut. He is simply one of thousands who will do anything or take any side of an issue to promote themselves. Al Gore did more to hurt the climate change situation than any righwinger did. He is not a scientist and simply used the issue to promote himself. Yes, there are scientists and farmers who are against GMO. However, it is very hard to fight companies with influence such as Monsanto. Monsanto does not have the same clout in other countries as it does the in the U.S. Two issues none of you have brought up. When you use a Monsanto GMO seed, you are using a patented product. That means you cannot collect the seeds from your planted crop to use yourself or sell to your neighbor. You must buy next years seeds from Monsanto. Also, Monsanto promised with their GMO that the requirement for insecticide would be eliminated. A few generations and the insects adapted. Today people using the seeds must use more insecticides than they used with the normal seeds. The problem is that there is not enough independent study on GMOs to see the long term effects. As to health issues, those issues still are not settled but the cost to farmers who must buy seeds every year and the requirement of heavy use of pesticides is. Sorry there is no free lunch. Mono culture may be the most economic method for raising crops but there is a price and that price is in the heavy use of pesticides. GMO may also offer higher crop yields but again you are stuck paying whatever Monsanto wants to charge you for their seeds and to purchase and use lots of more pesticides. Also, scientists work for a corporation and their job is to come up with products that will make more money for the corporation. They are not farmers and feel they are not responsible as to the long term effects to health. to the environment or to the financial conditions of the farmer. Adams is a nut case, as is Gore, Limbaugh, Beck and all the rest. They are self promoters, no different than the Kardashians. Every country on the planet is going to take a look at GMO and decide if they want them or not. Some are going to while others are not. However, it should not be the job or the U.S. government to fight with those who refuse to take the GMO products.

  • conspiracygirl

    I used to think Mike Adams was just deranged. Now I see that he is a psychopath. I used to think his supporters were just gullible, half-witted conspiracy theorists, who, other than wanting to dumb the world down and live like cavemen, were mostly harmless. Now I see that Mike Adams is counting on them being his jack-booted thugs.

    • Harry McNicholas

      So you think the farmers who got stuck with GMO finding out they had to buy seeds from Monsanto each year are involved are just gullible? That they were told they would never need to use pesticide again to control insects only to find out they need to use more insecticide are gullible? If anyone decides to purchase a GMO product, fine let them purchase it. Label the product as GMO as many chain stores do now and let people decide they want to buy it. All of you seem to be great Capitalists to let them market decide. If people in Europe do not want to buy them, why should the U.S. government force them to buy GMO?

      • Chris Preston

        Farmers can choose to buy whatever seeds they like. Most farmers in the US buy new seed of the major crops every year, because they plant hybrid varieties for higher yield.

        Farmers who use Bt crops get to spray less insecticide. On cotton, this can amount to as many as 80% fewer insecticide applications.

  • CH Shannon

    OMG The comments on the NN piece practically burned my eyes out. The were other anti-GMOers that said, “Whoa dude, GMOs are bad but this piece goes way too far!” but then there were Holocaust deniers, anti-semites, white-supremisists, and other crazies arguing over who has their “facts” wrong. I think I need to lie down for a while now.

    • First Officer

      All jokes aside, there is now a good possibility that someone’s going to get hurt. I know some have called for using Mike Adams as an example of anti-gmo extremity, and i tend to agree, but the hit list site has to come down.

      • CH Shannon

        Absolutely! Remember a few years ago when Glen Beck was popular? He used to go on about Tides organization (not the detergent – it’s a non-profit org) and one of his crazy fans was caught driving cross country to go in and shoot up everyone there. These lists are really dangerous and I hope the site comes down soon!

        • windskisong

          Or remember way back when NAACP was still respected and they posted a list of “hate groups” that incited one of their crazy fans to shoot up a non-profit.
          These lists are really dangerous – I agree.

      • FederalReserve Brown

        look at the health of your walking waterbed nation,,, people have been seriously injured already!!! massively.

        • Nick

          No they haven’t

  • CH Shannon

    Can’t wait for his fluoride list to come out…

  • Bob Hamilton

    You know what is sad? That this whole article centers around discrediting Adams, instead of telling the truth. Over 60 countries have banned GMOs bc of adverse affects. If you google GMO STUDIES the first result is http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/ anyone denying that GMOs are harmful is down right naive or just plane ignorant.

    • First Officer

      Only a couple have total bans. a couple dozen ban cultivation but import lots. The rest of that 64 only have restrictions and labeling. That leaves 132 countries with no labeling and no restrictions. This also compares to the over 80 countries banning homosexuality. And there are many countries with religious restrictions as well. So, what’s your point? Monkey see, monkey do?

      • Bob Hamilton

        Homosexuality and genetically engineered food aren’t even the same thing. I can’t believe you would even try to bait me with that trash. The fact that you are trying to compare the two tells me you really don’t understand the implications of what all of these foods are going to have on humanity in the next decade. Denying it now won’t make it better latter. Homosexuality doesn’t cause cancer, birth defects, ect…horizontal gene transfer isn’t natural and it allows the consumer to take on plant DNA, there is no getting around that. No matter how much you scream and yell. I put my life on the fact that eventually it will all be banned. Why do you think Monsanto is spending so much money on scientists and news corps to sway opinion. It’s because they are slowly being discredited and scientists are coming clean that it just isn’t safe!

        • windskisong

          Actually that’s a fairly good comparison. Homosexual men in western cultures live 10-15 years less than heterosexual men in similar cultures. So maybe those cultures with laws against homosexual behaviors are acting in defense of their citizens like the countries banning GMO foods?

      • windskisong

        Actually that’s a fairly good comparison. Homosexual men in advanced western cultures live 10-15 years shorter than heterosexual men in similar cultures. So maybe those cultures banning homosexual behaviors are acting in defense of their citizens?

  • Bob Hamilton

    Oh yea lets not forget at least 113 studies based on GMOs being safe have or are going to be retracted because of bad science or significance errors. Monsanto is one of the strongest companies in the world, and instead of being truthful they just tried to buy scientist and news companies opinions and science. Now the wound is starting to bleed. All of you GMO supporters are one by one going to be discredited. If you want to understand why they are so dangerous look up horizontal and vertical gene transfer, in GMO plants.

    • Vm

      \Monsanto is one of the strongest companies in the world, and instead of
      being truthful they just tried to buy scientist and news companies\

      Monsanto Market Cap $59.83 B

      As of May 2014
      http://www.forbes.com/companies/monsanto/

      Royal Dutch Shell

      Market Cap $234.06 B

      As of May 2014
      http://www.forbes.com/companies/royal-dutch-shell/

      Exxon Mobil Market Cap $422.32 B
      As of May 2014
      http://www.forbes.com/companies/exxon-mobil/

      interesting how the oil industry is much bigger and yet they could not buy off the scientific establishment and the media re climate change

      • Bob Hamilton

        Being bigger still doesn’t negate the fact that they are one of the biggest corporations

        • Vm

          monsanto is only #334 on the forbes global 2000 list as of 2014. royal dutch shell is #11. Exxon is #6

    • Loren Eaton

      ‘Oh yea lets not forget at least 113 studies based on GMOs being safe have or are going to be retracted because of bad science or significance errors.’ Citation, please.

      • Bob Hamilton
        • Loren Eaton

          You gotta do better than that. Did you actually READ about the papers that were retracted? Those were articles on basic research, not GMOs or their safety. Latham and Mercola cynically tried to extrapolate the flaws in those papers to GM technology as a whole because she is a vocal supporter of GMOs.

        • Chris Preston

          113??

          That article mentioned only 2 retractions.

        • Nick

          Mercola is nothing but lies and quackery. Not even joking here, what’s on that site is a complete lie.

  • Freemy

    I suppose if anyone was carrying out heinous crimes against humanity they would deserve to be executed if anyone would.

    • First Officer

      But no such crimes have been committed here. It’s pure hate and fear mongering.

      • FederalReserve Brown

        Starlink corn says you are grossly uninformed ( probably intentionally).

        • First Officer

          Accidental release of a harmless strain is cause to kill people? An increasingly common anti-gmo trait, as we are learning

          • FederalReserve Brown

            wrong, creating a deadly strain of “corn” was the crime deserving of a death penalty,,, making a mockery of everyone who fought in WW II for informed consent laws in the process.

          • Nick

            Not at all deadly, and completely accidental. Try being less hysterical, it makes things much easier.

          • FederalReserve Brown

            it isn’t accidental and it is not harmless.

  • Bob Hamilton

    Discover magazine censors views they don’t like gents…two of my comments from last night have been erased. Tight, last time I use this nazi site. Any website that censors dissenting views especially on GMOs must be in MONSANTOS Pocket just like MIKE ADAMS SAID!

    • Rob Bairos

      Lighten up Francis.

    • Nick

      I do hope you’re being sarcastic

  • Bob Hamilton

    I could care less about mike Adams nor do I know anything about him or his website, but I do care about GMOs.

  • willows921

    They were not Mike Adams words!

    • Nick

      They totally were

  • Boxman

    I’m not familiar with Mike Adams and we all know greenies can be rediculous in some of their stances… but anyone that knows anything about Monsanto would have to agree they are a complete piece of sh*t company. Is nobody on this site aware of Monsanto’s never-ending campaign of lawsuits and intimidation against independent farmers and seed growers? They’ve got to be one of the most evil corporations out there.

    Is this hit piece nothing more than another attempt to steer the discussion away from legitimate concerns with Monsanto’s behavior? Let’s distract everyone with a character assassination of some idiot greenie that even most greenies don’t take seriously.

    • Chris Preston

      Are you saying that because you don’t like the activities of Monsanto, that calling for people be killed for suggesting GM foods are safe is a good thing?

      • Chad

        go collect your pay check from the NSA, sellout…. OR go blow yourself with some condensed air

        “it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity.” – Quote by Mike Adams

        Unless it is inherent that Monsanto is engaged in heinous crimes against humanity – how is he making death threats?????? And if Monsanto is engaged in heinous crimes against humanity – What would you purpose we do about it?

        • Nick

          They aren’t and you’re hysterical.

    • Nick

      I took the time to learn about GM crops and Monsanto, and I’ve found that there really is no endless campaign of lawsuits. It was a very small number of lawsuits in fact.

  • Curt Hannah

    I can’t wait to see the scientists on his Monsanto Collaborator list!! (Am I good enough?)

  • http://www.isitorganic.ca/ Mischa Popoff

    Please have a look at the page I posted in response to having my name on this deplorable “Monsanto Collaborators” website: http://www.isitorganic.ca/biotech_collaborator

  • FederalReserve Brown

    I see nothing wrong with the above and find it quite accurate, Monsanto is worse than anything the nazis could ever have imagined.

  • slawea

    You are deranged. Don’t you know France banned GMO’s and a great part of Europe says GMO’s have to be labeled from all the birth defects and death?

    • Nick

      No they didn’t, because GM crops don’t cause that. They banned it to prop up their own agriculture, had nothing to do with health risks at all.

  • Jim Marcum

    I agree with what the dude says here.

  • Malakie

    Wow is the author of this article out of touch… Monsanto has proven itself to be nothing but walking over the little guy, stealing land and filling our food with chemicals and engineered food.

    • Nick

      We started engineering food the day after we discovered agriculture.

      • Malakie

        No, we did not start ‘engineering’ food. We started engineering the way we grow, plant and harvest it.

        Engineering the actual food began later by these companies. While there is nothing wrong with a natural way of change, we are not talking about that here.

        What we ARE talking about is DNA manipulation. We are talking about the very structure of what we are eating being altered at the molecular level by these monster companies. Alterations that are NOT natural, that use and contain strains, chemical processes and splicing nature never intended nor designed to have happen to the FOOD we eat to survive.

        We ALL know that over time things evolve. Well think about this… Monsanto has no problem throwing out all these bio engineered seeds onto the ground as we know.. It is fact they then STEAL anyone’s land where those seeds might get blown too by the wind.

        But even more than that… those seeds are now MIXING with the natural elements out there.. plants, animals etc. Who knows what those seeds are going to do in the long term?

        What do I mean? Well we all know they create HYBRID seeds that do NOT germinate, i.e. they do not breed and create a new seed crop for the next year. They do this to force you, me and the farmers into being forced to BUY brand new batches EVERY YEAR instead of being able to just turn over new seeds from the previous crop.

        What happens when evolution causes all the plants and animals these bio engineered food stuffs become sterile themselves?

        What happens when even those plants and animals that were not bio engineered end up changing because they were infected or contaminated with the bio engineered stuff and they no longer produce viable new crops each year NATURALLY as intended?

        You see, some people do not think about that… they just think about one thing… HOW MUCH PROFIT; HOW MUCH MONEY CAN WE SUCK OUT OF EVERYONE FOR THE BOTTOM LINE.. who cares what it does to the future…

  • https://twitter.com/VolunteerMins VolunteerMinisters

    He sounds as insane as Tom Cruise, as insane as any Scientology loon.

    • gcaus

      Yes, and yet it turned out that they were correct when it comes to antidepressants. They now carry a warning. They claimed suicides went up due to SSRI’s and they were right. I do NOT agree with Scientology, but it doesn’t mean they are wrong all the time. Same with the GMO debate.

  • Ferdinand Marcos 2.0

    Pathetic. Journalism at it’s worse. Get over yourself Keith.

  • Robert Mackey

    its true Monsanto is killing us and our children and sterilizing them and causing tumors and cancers with the gmo crops they made its about depopulation money over life,he is right on the money, Monsanto is in league/ just like ww 2 nazies,
    ,now matter how they try to hide it there guilty of crimes against humanity, for money,agenda 21

    • Jason

      hmmm… so, despite the fact that populations have grown and cancer rates have declined the ENTIRE time that GMOs have been in our food supply, THIS is the angle you’re taking??
      Good luck with that.

    • NRGuest

      Ah yes, Monsanto wants to kill us all so it can make more money, and obviously the best way to make money is to kill all the people who use your product.

      Seriously, did you even think about that before you wrote it?

    • Nick

      Not at all true, completely false in fact

  • Chris

    Nobody would be having these arguments at all if everyone just stick with how nature intended it to be. Man always thinking he’s better than God’s creation… Grow naturally. Don’t need GMO. Really!

    • Jason

      But god made genes interchangeable and gave us bacteria that facilitate these changes naturally. On top of that he gave us the ability to understand and make these changes… clearly he meant for us to do this!

      • Chad

        God also gave us a brain, and a conscience that allows us to realize that we have gone a little far. I can give you hundreds If not thousands of instances where popular science was completely wrong. Phillip Morris buying ads in the American Medical Association Journal of Medicine would be one… Please use that noggin!!! Don’t just repeat what some so called expert says is true…

        • Jason

          Phillip Morris buying adds doesn’t mean the science was wrong. The science has always said smoking was harmful. It took some time to prove it without question, but there was never a time where science said otherwise. There was only a time where we just hadn’t studied it. That certainly doesn’t fit this situation.

          Obviously the potential to be wrong always exists, but the evidence, now, is so strong that you’d be foolish to ignore it.

          • tstev

            That is inaccurate. Cigarette companies would buy scientists to lie for them and they still do where the regulation had not caught up.

            “”The release of internal tobacco industry documents through litigation in the United States allows us to gain further insight into the influence of the tobacco industry in Germany. Two 1998 legal settlements led to the public release of an estimated 40 million pages of previously confidential, internal tobacco industry documents.12,13 Previous document-based research has shown how the tobacco industry has established and funded a number of research organizations and networks of consulting scientists that purport to fund or undertake independent research.14–16 Their true purpose, however, has been to produce data favorable to the industry that could be used to refute the scientific consensus on smoking’s impact on health, and to influence public opinion, legislation, and litigation.1″”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470431/

          • Jason

            Internal tobacco industry documents is not science. The dangers of smoking had been known back into the 50s. The first govt warning came out in the 60s. I imagine the tobacco industry was trying to find science to show that their product didn’t kill. That’s something they wouldn’t need if there weren’t already data showing otherwise. Clearly, the science on smoking has never been favorable. As for paid scientists…. that’s exactly why we have peer review and reproducible results. If others can’t reproduce your results, then your data is of no use.

          • tstev

            No you being dishonest I quote it again. What it say is that they had sponsored scientist to produce research document that would support cigarette industry and they were successful in hacking it for years because they would push those hacked studies to the front lines.

            .”"funded a number of research organizations and networks of consulting scientists that purport to fund or undertake independent research.14–16 Their true purpose, however, has been to produce data favorable to the industry that could be used to refute the scientific consensus on smoking’s impact on health”"
            .
            The global warming denial circus also funded scientist to produce hacked rants and they push these these hacked rants to the front line to obfuscate the facts.

          • Jason

            You go ahead & believe what ever little conspiracy theories you want to believe.

          • tstev

            You are lying and therefore you are conspiring to distort facts just the same.
            .
            The documented facts show that cigarette companies hired scientist to produce hacked studies and that is fact. The question is why is it that “you” are lying?
            .
            Do you work for Monsanto by any chance?

          • Jason

            If that’s what helps it all fit into your conspiratorial world view, then you go right ahead & believe all of that. And while you’re at it… have a good day!

          • tstev

            The conspiracy by cigarette companies is a proven deal. You did not say whether you work or Monsanto or not. I can gather that you are from the avoidance.

          • Jason

            You believe what ever it is that you want to believe.

          • tstev

            It is matter or record, they were charged with criminal conspiracy and they had pay fines in billions of dollars.
            .
            “”Government case exposed conspiracy of US tobacco giants”"
            .

            .
            “”According to the government filing before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, in the case of United States of America vs. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., the defendants engaged in a criminal conspiracy that sought to cover up the dangers of smoking; mislead the public on the dangers of secondhand smoke; cover up the addictiveness of nicotine; deceptively market “light” cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes; deliberately target young people to recruit new smokers; and deliberately refrain from producing safer, less addictive cigarettes.”"

            http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/06/tob2-j13.html

          • Jason

            You’re illustrating my point. You don’t cover up and deny science that agrees withb you. A cover up and a denial doesn’t mean the science was wrong. On the contrary, it looks like it was spot on!

          • tstev

            I am not illustrating any of any of your points. You simply lied and denied that cigarette companies were involved in criminal conspiracy.

            .

            What science was spot on? Their junk science!!?

            .

            “”Tobacco industry documents reveal that Philip Morris executives conceived of the “Whitecoat Project” in the 1980s as a response to emerging scientific data on the harmfulness of second-hand smoke.[13] The goal of the Whitecoat Project, as conceived by Philip Morris and other tobacco companies, was to use ostensibly independent “scientific consultants” to spread doubt in the public mind about scientific data through invoking concepts like junk science.[13] According to epidemiologist David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health in the Clinton Administration, the tobacco industry invented the “sound science” movement in the 1980s as part of their campaign against the regulation of second-hand smoke”"

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

          • Jason

            You believe what ever it is that you want to believe. Again… Good day, sir.

      • Chris Headley

        That’s just the ego of man talking. He can’t do better than nature. Impossible. The difference is nature doesn’t force changes in a lab. You can sugar cost it all you want but it only comes down to money and control plain and simple. You tem me what is wrong with the tomatoes nature created. Is it not good enough any more? A plant by nature that doesn’t produce it’s own toxin against insects but altered genetically and now it does, you believe is good for consumption

        • Jason

          I’ll tell you what’s wrong with the tomatoes nature created. They’re a poisonous, inedible weed called nightshade. It wasn’t until man came along and bred that out of them that we actual had tomatoes….or corn, or soybeans or any other major crop for that matter. They’re all man made plants that don’t exist in nature… Plain & simple. I’d call that a pretty damn good improvement.

          • Chris Headley

            I would call that self polluting.

          • Jason

            Because we were so much healthier when we hunted and gathered and lived to be 40….?

          • Chris Headley

            Oh really. So you have studies that show proof that all native Americans before your GMO never lived past the ripe old age of 40

          • Jason

            Don’t be silly. Obviously we have no lifespan statistics from Native American times. However, we do have statistics from well over a century ago. The US life expectancy in 1900, for example was 46 for males and 48 for females. Do you have any reason to believe it was higher for a people without access to modern medicine? Where’s your data on that?

            Also, native Americans were cultivating man made crops just like modern Americans are. Don’t forget that corn and tomatoes were bred into existence my mesoamericans. It was native Americans that introduced Europeans to both crops.

            I’m afraid your argument just doesn’t hold any water.

        • NRGuest

          You really think we can’t do better than nature? If that’s the case I assume you consume no electricity, live in a naturally formed cave, and refuse to eat cooked food, use medicine, travel by any method other than walking, and wear no clothing.

          If you enjoy any of these unnatural things, you are already admitting that we’ve done “better than nature”.

          • Chris Headley

            All created by nature or did man create all the elements in the universe?

          • NRGuest

            What’s your point? I didn’t claim that man created the elements, only that we’ve improved on the natural state.

  • Grant D Sweet

    why is it that when someone calls these assholes out on there bullshit, they want to debunk em and call em a terroist? when they start talking about depopulating the planet, they should start with them self!~

  • Robert Mackey

    u need to recheck the numbers for cancers and tumors rates from Monsanto’s seed crops,,,even Monsanto fired there own scientists out of Cambridge when they came back with ,data that showed in fact there seed crops were dangerous and the fact that the world is now, refusing to use them is a clear sign what’s up, you must work for Monsanto in damage control,because ive seen the real medicial evidence and, cancers and tumor rates have increases over time not decreased

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

      Citation needed.

  • Robert Mackey

    so you must be a spin doctor

  • jeff

    Monsanto, playing God and sucking at it.

  • bloggulator

    GMOs are a scam at best – and potentially incredibly dangerous at worst. This is according to all the rigorous, independent, peer-reviewed SCIENCE out there (as opposed to the dry-labbed nonsense sponsored by big agribusiness). The real science is barely read by anyone outside the industry itself, and largely unpublished on the internet. Since the US mindset is at the mercy of the mainstream media and its pro-corporate propaganda machine, very few laypersons are aware of the vast amount of material which conclude that GMOs are dangerous in a multitude of ways.

    Love or hate Mike Adams, it is appropriate that there is at least someone out there to counter the extraordinary, disproportionate amount of power exhibited by the biotech industry, and the extreme degree of malice they employ to insure profit maximization, and their invocation of the “justice” system and armies of corrupt lawyers to destroy the livelihoods of farmers who know about the proper stewardship of the land.

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

      Try using google scholar. Your head might explode.

      • bloggulator

        And how about quit trying to defend the indefensible, troll.

        • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

          So threatening to kill those who disagrees with mike Adam’s lies is defensible but asking you to start reading science papers because everything you said was demonstrably wrong is indefensible? Bravo.

          • bloggulator

            I read and take notice of science – real science that is, not the politicized and profit-driven, cherry-picked, dry-labbed drivel financed and sponsored by the biotech industry, masquerading as science.

  • tunafacialistic

    GMO BAD…MARIJUANA GOOD….BELIEVE IT?

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

      Oh, the irony.

  • Robert Mackey

    indeed I do its a fact on what Monsanto is doing world wide,you go ahead and eat gmos,i don’t care,its showing now it produces massive cancers and tumors, in rats and ,tests used with it,thts why countries world wide are banning them ,wake up,or don’t and die as for me ill stick to organic and heirloom seeds,ive seen the studies that have been coming in Monsanto would rather go with there seeds after investing billions, they don’t want to lose there investments and would rather keep selling them than admit a mistake, its killing bee populations across the globe its why the bee population is crashing and now other species are crashing from it,and its causing cancers in humans now to and tumors.all over the globe.. do some research b4 talking smak

    • Nick

      You are seriously in need of help.

  • Robert Mackey

    Anti-Monsanto shared a link.
    July 27
    Harvard demuestra que pesticidas de Bayer están matando abejas
    http://www.ecoportal.net
    Dos pesticidas neocotinoides prohibidos ya en Europa están matando a las abejas de Estados Unidos en el período invernal, informó la Escuela de Salud Pública de Harvard el 9 de mayo de 2014. El estudio viene a confirmar uno del mismo grupo…

  • Robert Mackey

    Bees fight back

    Soil Association

    Bee swarm at Downing Street today to campaign against Syngenta’s bid to lift the ban on bee-killing neonicotinoids.

    Last year, the European Commission banned ne…onicotinoids, the dangerous pesticides known to damage bee populations. But now pesticide company Syngenta has just asked the UK government for an exemption to the ban in the UK. They want to get neonicotinoids back on a staggering 186,000 hectares, representing almost a third of the UK’s oilseed rape crop.

    David Cameron and his cabinet are meeting to decide whether to give Syngenta an exemption today, and there is still time to sign the petition if you haven’t already:

    http://www.soilassociation.org/news/newsstory/articleid/6916/government-urged-to-reject-syngentas-bid-to-use-banned-pesticide

    We will keep you posted when we find out more about the PMs decision, so watch this space!See More

  • Robert Mackey

    http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/05/27/biotech-companies-set-given-legal-right-decisions-ban-gm-crops-eu/#.U4dpvNS9KSO
    Biotech Companies Set to Be Given Legal Right in Decisions to Ban GM Crops in EU
    A new GM law being discussed in Brussels this week could grant biotech…
    sustainablepulse.com

  • Robert Mackey

    http://thatcheroftheleft.me.uk/2014/05/24/completely-illogical-and-unscientific-arguments-of-gm-lobby-join-marchagainstmonsanto-today-gmo-monsanto

    Completely illogical and unscientific arguments of GM lobby – join #MarchAgainstMonsanto today…

    I am a scientist, but some would undoubtedly argue that my degrees, in computer science, don’t make me…

    thatcheroftheleft.me.uk

  • Robert Mackey

    The Global GMO Free Coalition has launched on Tuesday, bringing together GMO Free groups across 6 continents with a partner membership of over 4.5 Million people.

    Source: http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/05/20/global-gmo-free-coalition-brings-together-4-5-million-people-fight-biotech-industry-propaganda

    The Global GMO Free Coalition, with over 60 partner organizations, is the first globally coordinated network to take on the genetically modified (GM) food and crop industry he…Continue Reading

    Global GMO Free Coalition Brings Together 4.5 Million People to Fight Biotech Industry Propaganda

    The Global GMO Free Coalition has launched

  • Robert Mackey

    GMO Scandal – The Long-Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans

    Posted by: TLB Staff

    advertise here

    Published January 31, 2013, filed under HEALTH

    By: F. William Engdahl

    One of the great mysteries surrounding the spread of GMO plants around the world since the first commercial crops were released in the early 1990’s in the USA and Argentina has been the absence of independent scientific studies of possible long-term effects of a diet of GMO plants on humans or even rats. Now it has come to light the real reason. The GMO agribusiness companies like Monsanto, BASF, Pioneer, Syngenta and others prohibit independent research.

    An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests!

    That’s right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans.

    The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms.

    The entire process by which GMO seeds have been approved in the United States, beginning with the proclamation by then President George H.W. Bush in 1992, on request of Monsanto, that no special Government tests of safety for GMO seeds would be conducted because they were deemed by the President to be “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO seeds, has been riddled with special interest corruption. Former attorneys for Monsanto were appointed responsible in EPA and FDA for rules governing GMO seeds as but one example and no Government tests of GMO seed safety to date have been carried out. All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto. Little wonder that GMO sounds to positive and that Monsanto and others can falsely claim GMO is the “solution to world hunger.”

    In the United States a group of twenty four leading university corn insect scientists have written to the US Government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding the EPA force a change to the company censorship practice. It is as if Chevrolet or Tata Motors or Fiat tried to censor comparative crash tests of their cars in Consumer Reports or a comparable consumer publication because they did not like the test results. Only this deals with the human and animal food chain. The scientists rightly argue to EPA that food safety and environment protection “depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny.” We should think twice before we eat that next box of American breakfast cereal if the corn used is GMO .

    F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be contacted via his website at http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

    Read original here: http://truththeory.com/2013/01/23/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

  • Robert Mackey

    Monsanto Named 2013′s ‘Most Evil Corporation’ In New Poll

    By Connor Adams Sheets@ConnorASheetsc.sheets@ibtimes.com
    on June 10 2013 10:37 PM

    It’s official: Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON) has been deemed the “most evil corporation” of 2013 in a new poll that has the biotech giant beating out rivals like McDonald’s and the Federal Reserve by a wide margin.

    A protester holds up a poster during a March Against Monsanto — and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs — in New York in May. Reuters

    The company, which has weathered a seemingly endless litany of bad publicity over the past year, got a whopping 51 percent of the vote in the nonscientific poll by the website NaturalNews, which asked participants to identify what they believed was the “most evil corporation” in the world this year.

    The Federal Reserve — which is a unique public/private entity, not really a corporation but also not a government agency — came in second place in the survey, garnering 20 percent of the vote.

    Here’s the vote breakdown:

    Monsanto 51%

    Federal Reserve 20%

    British Petroleum 9%
    Halliburton 5%
    McDonald’s 3%
    Pfizer 2%
    Merck 2%
    Wal-Mart 2%
    Nestle 1%
    Other 7%

    It’s a collection of corporate behemoths, a number of which have been widely hated for years. But Monsanto, headquartered in Creve Coeur, Mo., has them all beat.

    The survey, which saw 16,000 readers cast their votes for the worst of the worst in the corporate world, represents a group of self-selected participants, many of whom are already militantly opposed to companies like Monsanto that are producing genetically modified organisms and other controversial endeavors.

    But it is striking to note the singular, if not surprising, extent to which Monsanto is held to account for its GMO activities, as many other companies like DuPont, Syngeta AG and the Dow Chemical Company also create and sell genetically modified and genetically engineered products, some of which end up in the food supply.

    The difference is that Monsanto has become the hated public face of the GMO industry. Ever since the 2008 documentary “Food Inc.” chose to focus on Monsanto as the central antagonist in a war on food, there has been little love for Monsanto from educated eaters, health-conscious citizens, environmentalists and food advocates.

    As NaturalNews editor Mike Adams wrote, Monsanto’s high showing in the poll, released Monday, is largely a reflection of its bad image among the populace.

    “The answer, I suspect, is that Monsanto behaves like an evil corporation that pretends to be angelic,” Adams wrote. “The Monsanto website is an orgy of touchy-feely corporate spin that tries to position the company as the savior of life on planet Earth.”

    The past few months have been particularly traumatic for the brand. March brought the massive backlash over the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” a measure written in cooperation with Monsanto lobbyists and slipped into a continuing resolution passed by Congress in order to keep the government funded that limits the options of federal regulators if new health concerns about GMOs come to light.

    Then came an amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill that many food advocates and other observers believe was inserted last month for the express purpose of blocking states’ abilities to pass their own GMO-labeling laws. Monsanto vehemently opposes GMO labeling and has spent millions of dollars to stop such bills from being passed in states including California, where the company lobbied successfully to defeat such a proposal.

    In what may have been the biggest public shame in the company’s recent history, in late May as many as 2 million people around the world took to the streets in the “March Against Monsanto,” in an attempt to discredit the company and draw attention to some of its most controversial practices.

    And at the end of May, Japan and South Korea stopped importing American wheat after unapproved Monsanto GMO wheat was found growing on an Oregon farm, adding more fuel to the anti-Monsanto campaign.

    That brings us to Monday, when Monsanto was named the “most evil corporation” in the world in a NaturalNews poll. It’s no wonder the company earned that dubious distinction given the year it’s had so far.

  • Robert Mackey

    The evil of Monsanto and GMOs: Bad technology, endless greed & the destruction of humanity

    8761393

    Mike Adams
    Natural News
    September 23, 2012

    (NaturalNews) By now, nearly all informed people recognize that Monsanto is widely regarded as the most evil corporation on our planet. But what, exactly, makes Monsanto so evil? Why is Monsanto worse than a pharmaceutical company, a pesticide company or even a weapons manufacturer?

    The answer to this question is found in probing the virtue of the corporation in question. As virtuous people, we expect corporations to act with a sense of fundamental human decency. We expect them to behave within the boundaries of respecting human life, honest business practices and reliable science. We (naively) wish that corporations would act like decent human beings.

    But they don’t. In their quest for profit at any cost, they violate the basic tenants of virtue. They betray humanity. They destroy life. They malign Mother Nature herself, and in doing so, they threaten the very future of sustainable life on our planet.

    Here, I unravel the fundamental “violations of virtue” that Monsanto practices on a daily basis. It is these things, I think you’ll agree, that make Monsanto a despicable corporate entity and a threat to all humankind.

    Corporate greed over service to humanity

    Monsanto’s actions are designed to maximize its corporate profits, not to serve the people. Its entire seed-and-herbicide business model is designed to trap farmers in a system of economic dependence… to turn farmers into indentured servants who can never return to traditional farming after their soil has been destroyed with Roundup.

    Death over life

    Monsanto’s products cause death. They compromise and violate life. Monsanto’s GM corn grown a toxic chemical right inside each and every corn kernel. This corn is what is subsequently eaten by humans.

    Rats fed this corn grew horrifying cancer tumors as shown here:

    In a recent scientific study, a shocking 70 percent of female rats died prematurely when fed GMOs. Fifty percent of males died early. Almost all of them died from cancer tumors.

    Read more about the link between GMOs and cancer tumors at:
    http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damag…

    Secrecy over transparency

    Monsanto is spending millions of dollars to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California — a bill which would simply require GMOs to be indicated on food labels.

    But Monsanto and other companies such as those that own Larabar, Silk and Kashi do not want consumers to know the truth about GMOs in the foods they buy. (See the GMO boycott infographic here.) They’re also spending huge sums of money to try to defeat Proposition 37 so that the food companies can keep GMOs a dirty little secret about the poison in your food.

    Plainly stated, these companies do not want you to know what you’re eating. And why? Because you’re eating poison!

    Domination of technology rather than sharing of wisdom

    Monsanto does not create technology and then share wisdom with farmers; instead the company patents its GE seeds and thereby claims monopolistic ownership over them. This patent is used to punish farmers!

    When Monsanto’s GMO seeds blow into the fields of farmers who are trying to avoid growing GMOs, Monsanto uses its patent “rights” to sue the farmers and claim they “stole” Monsanto property!

    This is an example of the kind of pure evil Monsanto engages in on a regular basis. From the top company executives to the bottom of the corporate ladder, people who work for Monsanto are engaged in promoting a sickening, unprecedented evil that’s spreading across our planet like a black slimy cancer tumor.

    That’s no coincidence, either, considering that eating GMOs causes massive cancer tumors.

    Artificial manipulation of nature rather than honoring of nature

    Instead of working with the beauty, the genius and the abundance that has already been engineered into nature, Monsanto seeks to violate nature, overriding healthy plant genes with poison genes that generate insecticides right inside the crops.

    Instead of honoring the natural ability of seeds to reproduce generation after generation, Monsanto develops “terminator seed” technology that causes seeds to self-terminate after one generation. This, by itself, is a heinous crime against nature, humankind and planet Earth. It is a crime worse than the Nazi holocaust, for terminator seeds threaten ALL human life on our planet… billions of lives are threatened by the behavior of Monsanto.

    Environmental destruction over environmental stewardship

    Roundup herbicide devastates soils, rendering them contaminated and unable to produce healthy crops using traditional (or organic) farming methods. Once a farm plot is destroyed with Roundup, that farmer is forever enslaved to a chemical-based farming protocol. It’s unhealthy, it’s a disaster to the environment, and the actual crop yields are LOWER than with organic farming, over a period of five years or more.

    By encouraging farmers to spray literally millions of acres of farmland with Roundup, Monsanto is engaged in a conspiracy to destroy our agricultural heritage and turn us all into “food slaves” that must pay tribute to Monsatan.

    Scientific deception over scientific truth

    The so-called “science” coming out of Monsanto is some of the most inane, malicious and brutally deceptive junk science ever fabricated by corporate science sellouts. Instead of testing GMOs for long durations on animals, Monsanto-funded scientists test GMOs for a mere 90 days and then adamantly declare the food to be “safe” for a lifetime of consumption by humans.

    It’s no wonder they didn’t run long-term tests: The real acceleration in cancer tumors only emerged after the 90-day milestone in rats.

    Even if Monsanto-funded scientists found GMOs to be safe in a “lifetime” feeding study, you couldn’t trust those results anyway: Any scientist, politician or media group with financial ties to Monsanto must now be assumed to be compromised and lacking any credibility whatsoever. Monsanto has bought off countless scientists, experts, media writers and politicians. But paying them off doesn’t alter reality. Poison in the corn is still poison in the corn, even if you pay a group of sellout scientists to foolishly declare otherwise.

    The CHANGE we really need: Corporations with virtue

    Something is terribly, terribly wrong with corporate behavior in America, and Monsanto is just one of thousands of corporations which demonstrate highly irresponsible, extreme, destructive behavior.

    The very design of corporations is missing something: HUMANITY. Sure, corporations are great at generating profits, streamlining logistics, manufacturing, marketing and so on. But where’s the humanity in all that?

    It’s nowhere to be found. Corporations don’t care WHO they harm, WHAT they destroy, HOW they behavior or even HOW FAR they have to go to make another buck.

    Here at NaturalNews.com, we’ve documented corporations engaging in the most despicable, anti-human behavior imaginable, including using little children as vaccine guinea pigs, secretly testing diseases on prisoners, routinely falsifying evidence, bribing physicians, lying to regulators, engaging in efforts to deny consumers access to more affordable products, inventing fictitious diseases (“disease mongering”) to market toxic drugs, and even hiring P.R. firms to spread lies and disinformation online through social networks and websites.

    And that’s just the pharmaceutical industry. Think about the evils perpetrated by the agricultural giants, weapons manufacturers and globalist banks. There is no end to their destruction.

    A corporation is like a cancer tumor. It wants to tap into more and more resources, growing larger and larger until it kills everything. That’s the innate drive of nearly every large corporation you’ve ever heard of: Get big, destroy the competition and DOMINATE! Even if it means killing our future.

    When corporations become so powerful that they practically run the government — as they do now — the correct descriptive term for that arrangement is Fascism.

    How do you stop Fascism? With a revolution, of course. And a peaceful one would be far preferable.

    The revolution we need is a revolution against the corporation

    As we see our present-day society being utterly destroyed by corporations — banking, agriculture, pharmaceutical, etc. — we must get serious about what needs to happen to change the structure of corporations so that they serve humanity rather than destroying humanity.

    Here are some suggestions worth considering:

    #1) Strip away corporate personhood protections.

    #2) Deny all patents on seeds, genes and medicines. Such things should belong to everyone, not to a monopolistic few. This would also take the profit out of medicine, meaning drug companies would no longer have a financial incentive to fabricate and promote fictitious diseases.

    #3) Ban all corporate lobbying and campaign contributions. No corporation should have access to lawmakers, period. Lawmakers should serve the people who elected them and no one else.

    #4) Disband all corporations that currently function as a danger to humanity. This would include, of course, Monsanto, Merck and many others. Who decides this? Whoever wins the revolution, of course. (Isn’t that always the case?)

    #5) Nationalize the Federal Reserve and make it “America’s bank” so that Fed money is owned by the People and benefits the People instead of globalist banks.

    #6) Halt the “revolving door” where government regulators take high-paying jobs at the very corporations they’ve been regulating. Once a person works in an influential position for a government regulator, they should be forever restricted from working for the industry they once regulated.

    #7) End “Free Speech rights” for corporations. Corporations are not people. They have no God-given rights. By ending this fabricated “right,” we could institute strict advertising limits that would prevent corporations from advertising harmful products to children and adults.

    Stop supporting evil

    The ultimate solution, of course, is a consumer solution: Stop purchasing products from evil corporations! This means you need to stop buying non-organic corn products such as breakfast cereals, corn tortillas, and corn snack chips.

    Stop buying lawn pesticide chemicals. Stop buying medications. Stop buying toxic perfumes, cosmetics and personal care products. Stop buying soda pop and aspartame!

    YOU help shift the world in a more positive direction by shifting your own personal purchasing habits. And that’s something you can control right now, today, starting with the very next dollar you spend at the store.

    BUY ORGANIC, non-GMO products wherever possible. You’ll be changing the world one purchase at a time. That’s a genuine, practical way to diminish the power of evil corporations starting right now.

  • Robert Mackey

    How Bad Is Monsanto?

    12/17/2009 10:53:23 AM

    By Barbara Pleasant

    Tags: Monsanto, Barbara Pleasant

    Recently I spent several evenings reading The Year of the Flood, the newest novel by award-winning Canadian writer Margaret Atwood. In this visionary fiction story of societal and environmental breakdown caused by gene splicing free-for-alls run by the Corporations, the world is populated by strange animals including wild pigs with superior intelligence, and sheep with human hair. Don’t ask where the meat in the burgers comes from, and watch your back when you’re outside a Corporate compound. An extremist cult, God’s Gardeners, welcomes outcasts as long as they are willing to go along with the religion that goes with growing your own food. It’s a cool religion that honors folks like Saint Euell (Gibbons) for his wisdom of useful wild plants

    Considering my recent immersion in Atwood’s nightmarish post-gene-stacking world, I had to read the recent investigative report on Monsanto’s growing list of misdeeds (by award-winning Associated Press writer Christopher Leonard) three times before it sunk in. It’s really happening. In 2006 Monsanto bought Delta and Pineland, a leading producer of cotton seed, so that it now controls a huge share of the cotton seed market. Monsanto’s genes are in about 95 percent of commercial soybeans and 80 percent of commercial corn, and people like the attorney generals of Iowa and Texas are concerned that Monsanto’s business practices violate federal antitrust laws that protect free competition. When it comes to licensing agreements, Monsanto is reportedly a big time bully.

    Either or both accusations may prove to be true, and while I do care about these things, I also feel like I’m watching dangerous games being played by the mean kids at the other end of the playground. I can mind my own business, grow most of my own food using traditionally-bred organic seeds, and what Monsanto or Dow or Sygenta do shouldn’t be my problem.

    But it is my problem. Monsanto is constantly adding new food plants to its ensemble of “Roundup Ready” varieties that resist herbicide damage, and Dow has soybeans that survive being sprayed with 2-4D. That’s my planet, my water we’re talking about. There is so much Bt corn pollen out there that no garden is safe from it, and rotting residue from Bt plants is messing with the life cycles of stream-dwelling insects. With Monsanto and other companies polluting the world with genetically modified pollen and plants, Bayer killing off honeybees with imidicloprid, and Dow turning horse manure into killer compost, maybe we should worry about big Corporations. A lot.

    But what really makes me mad is the way Monsanto is trying to hijack the concept of sustainability. According to the M Company video (which depicts happy, remarkably clean third world farmers), sustainability is about three things: Increased production to meet everyone’s needs, thus improving the lives of everyone; more effective use of natural resources, and improving the quality of life for farmers and their families. It does not mention all the hidden costs of reliance on pesticides, nor does it acknowledge the steady increases in seed prices, with a very small number of companies setting those prices, cartel style. This is where federal antitrust laws come into play, at least theoretically.

    And here I was thinking that sustainable agriculture was about using Nature’s patterns and human intelligence and resourcefulness to create systems that run themselves with minimal outside inputs, while creating strong local food economies and a cleaner, more honest food supply. At least that’s how we play at my end of the playground.

    As for Atwood’s book, I won’t tell you how it ends, but it will make you feel good about knowing how to grow and store your own food. Maybe it will help you think more clearly about where genetic engineering is headed, and help you make better guesses as to how long we are likely to survive. At this point, I’m betting on the pigs.

    Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/monsanto-buying-seed-companies.aspx#ixzz38umfeZ2V

  • Robert Mackey

    New Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup to Cancer
    PRESS RELEASE – 22 JUNE

    A recent study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael
    Eriksson of Sweden [1], has revealed clear links between one of the
    world’s biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate, to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form
    of cancer [2].

    In the study published in the 15 March 1999 Journal of American Cancer
    Society, the researchers also maintain that exposure to glyphosate
    ‘yielded increased risks for NHL.’ They stress that with the rapidly increasing use
    of glyphosate since the time the study was carried out, ‘glyphosate
    deserves further epidemiologic studies.’

    Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is the world’s most widely used
    herbicide. It is estimated that for 1998, over a 112,000 tonnes of
    glyphosate was used world-wide. It indiscriminately kills off a wide
    variety of weeds after application and is primarily used to control annual
    and perennial plants.

    71% of genetically engineered crops planted in 1998 are designed to be
    resistant to herbicides such as glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as
    Roundup. Companies developing herbicide resistant crops are also
    increasing
    their production capacity for the herbicides such as glyphosate, and also
    requesting permits for higher residues of these chemicals in genetically
    engineered food. For example, Monsanto have already received permits for a
    threefold increase in herbicide residues on genetically engineered
    soybeans
    in Europe and the U.S., up from 6 parts per million (PPM) to 20 PPM.

    According to Sadhbh O’ Neill of Genetic Concern, ‘this study reinforces
    concerns by environmentalists and health professionals that far from
    reducing herbicide use, glyphosate resistant crops may result in increased
    residues to which we as consumers will be exposed in our food.’

    ‘Increased residues of glyphosate and its metabolites are already on sale
    via genetically engineered soya, common in processed foods. However no
    studies of the effects of GE soya sprayed with Roundup on health have been
    carried out either on animals or humans to date,’ she continued.

    The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics from 1997
    show that expanded plantings of Roundup Ready soybeans (i.e. soybeans
    genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide) resulted in a 72%
    increase in the use of glyphosate. According to the Pesticides Action
    Network, scientists estimate that plants genetically engineered to be
    herbicide resistant will actually triple the amount of herbicides used.
    Farmers, knowing that their crop can tolerate or resist being killed off
    by
    the herbicides, will tend to use them more liberally.

    O’ Neill concluded: ‘The EPA when authorising Monsanto’s field trials for
    Roundup-ready sugar beet did not consider the issue of glyphosate. They
    considered this to be the remit of the Pesticides Control Service of the
    Department of Agriculture. Thus nobody has included the effects of
    increasing the use of glyphosate in the risk/benefit analysis carried out.
    It is yet another example of how regulatory authorities supposedly
    protecting public health have failed to implement the ‘precautionary
    principle’ with respect to GMOs.’

    ENDS

    Further information: Sadhbh O’ Neill at 01-4760360 or 087-2258599 or
    (home) 01-6774052
    Notes

    [1] Lennart Hardell, M.D., PhD. Department of Oncology, Orebro Medical
    Centre, Orebro, Sweden and Miikael Eriksson, M.D., PhD, Department of
    Oncology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, ‘A Case-Control Study of
    Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides’, Cancer, March 15, 1999/
    Volume 85/ Number 6.

    The findings are based on a population-based case-control study conducted
    in Sweden between 1987 – 1990. The necessary data was ascertained by a
    series of comprehensive questionnaires and follow-up telephone interviews.
    Dr. Hardell and Dr. Eriksson found that ‘exposure to herbicides and
    fungicides resulted in significantly increased risks for NHL’.

    [2] Lymphoma is a form of cancer that afflicts the lymphatic system. It
    can occur at virtually any part of the body but the initial symptoms are
    usually seen as swellings around the lymph nodes at the base of the neck.
    There are basically two main kinds of lymphoma, i.e. Hodgkin’s disease and
    non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

    The incidence of NHL has increased rapidly in most Western countries over
    the last few decades. According to the American Cancer Society, there has
    been an alarming 80% increase in incidences of NHL since the early 1970′s.
    ——————————
    Flock and Family Guardian Network
    The Comprehensive Livestock Guardian Dog Resource
    http://www.flockguard.org

  • Robert Mackey

    Home / Grow Contentious Issues • Monsanto GMO / Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO WhitewashCancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash

    Because of the power vested in the EU Commission in Brussels, Belgium, with command over a space encompassing 27 nations with more than 500 million citizens and the largest nominal world gross domestic product (GDP) of 18 trillion US dollars, it’s perhaps no surprise in this era of moral promiscuity that powerful private lobby groups such as the tobacco industry, the drug lobby, the agribusiness lobby and countless others spend enormous sums of money and other favors—legal and sometimes illegal—to influence policy decisions of the EU Commission.

    This revolving door of corrupt ties between powerful private industry lobby groups and the EU Commission was in full view recently with the ruling of the European Food Safety Administration (EFSA) trying to discredit serious scientific tests about the deadly effects of a variety of Monsanto GMO corn.

    Cancer of Corruption

    In September 2012, Food and Chemical Toxicology, a serious international scientific journal, released a study by a team of scientists at France’s Caen University led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. Before publication the Seralini study had been reviewed over a four-month period by a qualified group of scientific peers for its methodology and was deemed publishable.

    It was no amateur undertaking. The scientists at Caen made carefully-documented results of tests on a group of 200 rats over a two-year life span, basically with one group of non-GMO fed rats, a so-called control group, and the other a group of GMO-fed rats.

    Significantly, following a long but finally successful legal battle to force Monsanto to release the details of its own study of the safety of its own NK603 maize (corn), Seralini and colleagues reproduced a 2004 Monsanto study published in the same journal and used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its 2009 positive evaluation of NK603.

    Seralini’s group based their experiment on the same protocol as the Monsanto study but, critically, were testing more parameters more frequently. And the rats were studied for much longer—their full two year average life-time instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long time span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared 4 to7 months into the study. In industry’s earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike. It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.

    The study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a standard GMO diet study. They tested also “for the first time 3 doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.”

    Their findings were more than alarming. The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs…Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…”

    Four times meant four hundred percent more large tumors in GMO fed rats than in normally fed ones of the control group. Because rats are mammals, their systems should react to chemicals or, in this case GMO corn treated with Monsanto Roundup chemical herbicide, in a similar way to those of a human test subject.

    In their study the Seralini group further reported, “By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls [non-GMO-fed—w.e.] were affected. The Roundup treatment groups showed the greatest rates of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3 tumors for one female, in each group.”

    Such alarming results had not yet become evident in the first 90 days, the length of most all Monsanto and agrichemical industry tests to date, a clear demonstration of how important it was to conduct longer-term tests and apparently why the industry avoided the longer tests.

    Seralini and associates continued to document their alarming findings: “We observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R (Roundup) alone, a major formulated pesticide, even at the very lowest dose administered. R has been shown to disrupt aromatase which synthesizes estrogens (Richard et al., 2005), but to also interfere with estrogen and androgen receptors in cells (Gasnier et al., 2009). In addition, R appears to be a sex endocrine disruptor in vivo, also in males (Romano et al., 2010). Sex steroids are also modified in treated rats. These hormone-dependent phenomena are confirmed by enhanced pituitary dysfunction in treated females.”

    Roundup herbicide, by terms of the license contract with Monsanto, must be used on Monsanto GMO seeds. The seeds are in fact genetically “modified” only to resist the weed-killing effect of Monsanto’s own Roundup, the world’s largest-selling weed-killer.

    In plain language, as another scientific study led by Prof. Seralini noted, “GMO plants have been modified to contain pesticides, either through herbicide tolerance or by producing insecticides, or both, and could therefore be considered as ‘pesticide plants’”

    Further, “Roundup Ready crops [such as Monsanto NK603 maize-w.e.] have been modified in order to become insensitive to glyphosate. This chemical, together with adjuvants in formulations, constitutes a potent herbicide. It has been used for many years as a weed killer…GMO plants exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup…can even accumulate Roundup residues throughout their life…Glyphosate and its main metabolite AMPA (with its own toxicity) are found in GMOs on a regular and regulatory basis. Therefore, such residues are absorbed by people eating most GMO plants (as around 80% of these plants are Roundup tolerant).”

    Suspiciously enough, Monsanto had repeatedly refused scientific requests to publish the exact chemicals used in its Roundup aside from one—glyphosate. They argued that it was a “trade secret.” Independent analyses by scientists indicated, however, that the combination of glyphosate with Monsanto’s “mystery” added chemicals created a highly toxic cocktail that was shown to toxically affect human embryo cells in doses far lower than used in agriculture.

    Mammary tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From the paper “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” published in Food and Chemical Toxicology.

    What was more than alarming in the context of Seralini’s first long-term independent study of the effects of a GMO diet on rats was that it took place some twenty years after US President George H.W. Bush gave the commercial release of GMO seeds the green light and mandated no government safety tests before release. Bush did so following a closed-door meeting with top officials of Monsanto Corporation, the world’s largest GMO concern.

    The US President decreed then that GMO seeds were to be permitted in the United States with not one single independent precautionary government test to determine if they were safe for human or animal consumption. It became known as the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence. The EU Commission dutifully aped the US Substantial Equivalence Doctrine of “hear no bad effects, see no bad effects…hear no evil, see no evil.”

    EFSA ‘science’ exposed

    What the Seralini study has set off has been the scientific equivalent of a thermonuclear explosion. It exposed the fact that the EU “scientific” controls on GMO were nothing other than accepting without question the tests given them by the GMO companies themselves. As far as the irresponsible bureaucrats of the EU Commission were concerned, when it came to GMO, the Monsanto fox could indeed “guard the hen house.”

    Suddenly, with worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, clearly the EU Commission and its EFSA was under fire as never in their history and how they reacted was worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder novel. Only it was no novel but a real-life conspiracy that evidently involved some form of collusion between Monsanto and the GMO agrichemical cartel, EU commissioners, the GMO panel members of EFSA, complacent major media and several member governments of the EU, including Spain and Holland.

    The Brussels EU scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under the gun from the damning results of the long-term Seralini study. EFSA had recommended approval of Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in 2009 without first conducting or insuring any independent testing. They admitted in their official journal that they relied on “information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto), the scientific comments submitted by Member States and the report of the Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission.” EFSA also admitted that the Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days. Seralini’s group noted that the massive toxic effects and deaths of GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, a reason why longer-term studied were obviously warranted.

    he Spanish report cited by EFSA was itself hardly convincing and was anything but independent. It stated, “according to the current state of scientific knowledge and after examining the existing information and data provided by the Monsanto Company, the Spanish Commission on Biosafety could give a favorable opinion to the commercialization in the EU of maize NK603…” And the scientific comments submitted by Member States seemed to include Spain and Holland which applied to license the Monsanto seed in the first place.

    The EFSA concluded at the time of its approval in 2009 that, “the molecular data provided [by Monsanto-w.e.] are sufficient and do not raise a safety concern.” The Brussels scientific panel further declared amid scientific-sounding verbiage that, “The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize NK603 is as safe as conventional maize. Maize NK603 and derived products are unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health in the context of the intended uses.”

    Now, in September 2012, three years after the commercial introduction of Monsanto GMO maize in the EU, Seralini showed, complete with ghastly photos, that Monsanto’s GMO maize demonstrably caused severe rates of cancerous tumors and early death in rats.

    The EU Commission in Brussels had guidelines that were as revealing for what they did not say as for what they did say about what precautions are taken to insure public health and safety from exposure to GMO plants and their paired toxic herbicides: “Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US. Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart…In recent years, biotech companies have tested their transgenic products (maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market on several different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects have not yet been observed.”

    Because of US Government arm-twisting and of the obviously powerful lobby power of the Monsanto-led GMO agrichemical lobby in the US and EU, as of the time of the Seralini study, no regulatory authority in the world had requested mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides. The only studies available were a tiny handful of 90 day rat feeding trials carried out by the biotech industry and no studies longer than that, apparently on the principle that conflict of interest in an area as important as the safety of food should not be taken as a serious matter.

    Revealingly, the EU stated publicly their seemingly reassuring policy: “GMO critics claim that feeding studies with authorized GMOs have revealed negative health effects. Such claims have not been based on peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted evaluations. If reliable, scientific studies were to indicate any type of health risk, the respective GMO would not receive authorization.”

    That was the EU official line until the 2012 Seralini bomb exploded in their faces.

    EU Commission deception, coverup

    The September 2012 Seralini study was peer-reviewed, and it was published in a highly respected international scientific journal after such review. What was the response of the EU Commission and the EFSA? Nothing short of fraudulent deception and coverup of their corruption by the Monsanto GMO lobby.

    On November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in Brussels issued a press release with the following conclusion: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.” Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.” Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

    At the very minimum, the precautionary principle in instances involving even the potential for grave damage to the human population would mandate that the EU Commission and its EFSA should order immediate further serious, independent long-term studies to prove or disprove the results of the Seralini tests. That refusal to re-examine its earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws might or might not have been in the Seralini study, suggested the EFSA might be trying to cover for the GMO agrichemical lobby at the very least.

    Instead of clarity, the EFSA statement once more fed EFSA critics who had long argued that the scientists on EFSA’s GMO Panel had blatant conflicts of interest with the very GMO lobby they were supposed to regulate. Corporate Europe Observer, an independent EU corporate watchdog group noted about the EFSA response, “EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.”

    More damaging for the shoddy EFSA coverup on behalf of Monsanto was the fact that over half of the scientists involved in the GMO panel which positively reviewed the Monsanto’s study for GMO maize in 2009, leading to its EU-wide authorization, had conflicts of interests with the biotech industry.

    A report by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) found that more than half of the GMO panel experts who signed the approval had conflicts of interest.

    The conflicts ranged from receiving research funding from the biotech industry, being a member or collaborator in a pro-biotech industry association, to writing or reviewing industry-sponsored publications. Some conflicts revealed a conflict of scientific interests, with some panel members involved in working on the creation of transgenic plants – including potatoes – with antibiotic-resistant marker genes – including nptII.

    Secondly, although none of EFSA’s GMO panel members were medical experts in the use of antibiotics in human medicine, they decided that neomycin and kanamycin were antibiotics with “no or only minor therapeutic relevance”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) classified these antibiotics as “critically important” in 2005.

    Dutch scientist Harry Kuiper, chair of the EFSA GMO panel who had close links to the biotech industry, played a key role in the framing of this disputed key scientific advice.

    Kuiper himself is an open advocate of less controls on GMO seed proliferation in the EU. He has led the EFSA GMO panel since 2003, during which time EFSA went from no GMO approvals to 38 GMO seeds approved for human consumption. The criteria for approval were developed by Kuiper for EFSA in cooperation with Monsanto and the GMO industry and a Monsanto pseudo-scientific front group called ILSI, the Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute, between 2001 and 2003. The board of the noble-sounding ILSI in 2011 was comprised of senior people from Monsanto, ADM (one of the world’s biggest purveyors of GMO soybeans and corn), Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods (major proponent of GMO in foods) and Nestle, another giant GMO food industry user.

    One critic of the blatant conflict of interest in having the top EU food safety regulator in bed with the industry whose practices he is mandated to objectively assess noted, “During that period, Harry Kuiper and Gijes Kleter (both members of the EFSA GMO Panel) were active within the ILSI Task Force as experts and as authors of the relevant scientific publications. It is a scandal that Kuiper has remained as Chair of EFSA’s GMO Panel since 2003, and that he is still Chair in spite of the massive criticism directed at the Panel from NGOs and even from the Commission and EU member states.”

    The brazen conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the agribusiness lobby and the EFSA went further. In May 2012 Professor Diána Bánáti was forced to resign as Chairman of the EFSA Management Board when it was learned she planned to take up a professional position at the Monsanto-backed International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) in Washington. The same Diána Bánáti had been forced to resign, not as EFSA chairman but as a simultaneous Board Member of ILSI in 2010. Public interest groups made calls for her to resign from EFSA but to no avail.

    At ILSI she will be able to use expertise and contacts gained from working for the EFSA to help GMO companies like Monsanto and other food industry companies influence policy across the world.

    In sum, it came as no surprise to those familiar with the notorious “revolving door” in Brussels between the GMO industry and the regulatory body entrusted with making independent decisions on the risks of GMO in the EU, that EFSA condemned the Seralini study results. Most telling however of the brazen pro-GMO industry bias of EFSA’s GMO Panel members was the fact that the final ruling statement by the EFSA GMO Panel reviewing Seralini’s results announced, “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”

    The EFSA is not the only source of blatant and reckless pro-GMO sentiment in Brussels. Some weeks before release of the embarrassing Seralini study, Anne Glover, chief scientific adviser of the EU Commission, said in an interview on 24 July, 2012, “There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.” She added that the precautionary principle also no longer applies, which means the EU should not err on the side of caution on the approval of GMOs.

    Were there any pretense of scientific responsibility in the clearly corrupt EFSA panel, or Professor Glover’s office, they would have immediately called for multiple, independent similar long-term rat studies to confirm or disprove the Seralini results. They and the Monsanto GMO lobby influencing them clearly had no desire to do anything but try to slander the Seralini group with vague accusations and hope the obedient international media would take the headline and close the embarrassing story. It was typical of the entire history of the spread of patented GMO seeds and paired toxic herbicides like Roundup.

  • Robert Mackey

    GMO Foods Knowingly Cause Cancer in Rats – Are You Eating it?

    October 05, 2011 | 219,965 views

    #div1
    {
    display: none;
    position: absolute;
    padding: 24px 26px 24px;
    }

    Please

    or

    to continue.

    Share

    Email this article to a friend

    td#pinIttd a { margin-top: 42px !important; }
    td#pinIttd a span {background-size: 100% !important;
    background: url(//media.mercola.com/themes/mercola/images/bg-pinterest.jpg) no-repeat !important;
    bottom: 20px !important;
    height: 36px !important;
    padding-top: 6px;}
    .widget-text {
    background: url(//media.mercola.com/themes/mercola/images/cssprites.png) no-repeat 0 -157px;
    width:137px;
    height:63px;
    font-size: 12px;
    line-height: 16px;
    padding: 7px 0 0 7px;
    color:white;
    }

    Spread the Word to
    Friends And Family
    By Sharing this Article.

    3,259

    8

    1.4k

    Email

    Print

    CAP THE GENE SPILL from NO GMO on Vimeo.

    Visit the Mercola Video Library

    By Dr. Mercola

    When it comes to products with the potential to devastate the planet, Monsanto takes the cake.

    This company has single-handedly created some of the most destructive products known to man, including polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin (Agent Orange). They are also the world leader in genetically modified (GM) seeds — and if we don’t take action soon, the entire planet could soon become contaminated with these toxic seeds, leading to the complete destruction of the natural food supply.

    United States Chooses to Ignore the Precautionary Principle, Embrace Monsanto’s GM Foods

    Dr. Philip Bereano has spent the last three decades looking into genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods, crops, animals, and humans—both nationally, here in the United States, and internationally. His work led him to participate in the negotiation of two international treaties under the United Nations that dealt with issues relating to GMOs.

    Dr. Mercola Recommends…

    Every “Like” Helps Support This Cause

    In my interview with him earlier this year, he shared his perspective on the safety of GM foods — or rather the lack thereof.

    “First of all, we need to understand what we mean by the word safe. Actually, in terms of the academic literature, “safe” refers to “an acceptable level of risk.” It doesn’t refer to situations where there is no risk. Most of us drive in cars all the time and consider it to be safe even though we know that people are killed and injured in automobiles frequently. We have to understand that safe equals acceptable risk.

    The problem with calling genetically engineered organisms safe is that there are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is no research, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of a genetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in the open peer-reviewed literature, or that isn’t proprietary. Corporations promoting these things claim that they have done research, but you can’t get any information on it because it’s all claimed to be proprietary.

    Under what is known now as the precautionary principle—which is what your grandparents used to teach you about “looking before you leap”—the only prudent course of action is to NOT proceed with something which has potential risks and only potential benefits until you know a little bit more about it.”

    The United States is one country, however, that has fully embraced GM foods on a regulatory level, and does not appear to have any intentions of following the precautionary principle. GM corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets have made their way into approximately 80 percent of current U.S. processed grocery store items, now that up to 90 percent of several U.S.grown crops are grown with genetically engineered seed.

    So if you live in the United States, you have most certainly already been exposed to GM foods — most likely a lot of them.

    Meanwhile, GM seeds are banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. These countries have chosen NOT to allow their land to be used as a testing ground in a massive uncontrollable experiment, which is essentially what the introduction of GM crops is.

    Not surprisingly, according to information from Wikileaks, there are also indications that the U.S. State Department has been active in defending Monsanto in other countries, particularly in response to the French documentary, “The World According to Monsanto,” which condemned Monsanto’s criminal behavior.

    Do You Know the Risks of GMOs?

    GM foods are, from my perception, one of the most significant threats that we have against the very sustainability of the human race. Why? In a nutshell, these toxins are being linked to a growing repertoire of assaults against human health and the environment – and they are already migrating into fetal blood, which means future generations are now at risk.

    Some GM crops, such as GM sugar beets and certain varieties of GM corn and soy, are engineered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. Other GM crops, such as Bt corn, are designed to produce their own pesticide internally.

    Earlier this year, Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from GM crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

    93 percent of blood samples of pregnant women

    80 percent of fetal blood samples

    69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

    According to Jeffrey Smith:

    “There’s already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.

    In government-sponsored research in Italy, mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses. Their elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, for example, are typically associated with allergies and infections. The mice had an increase in cytokines, which are associated with “allergic and inflammatory responses.”

    As you may know, chronic inflammation is at the root of many increasingly common diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. Food allergies are also skyrocketing, as is infertility, which could also be a potential side effect of GM foods, based on results from animal studies. Monsanto insists that GM foods are no different from conventionally grown varieties, but the research does NOT support this claim. Here is just a sampling of the unsavory findings associated with GM foods:GM pea protein caused lung damage in miceOffspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduceGM potatoes may cause cancer in ratsMale mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cellsBacteria in your gut can take up DNA from GM foodThe embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioningGM foods lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, specifically the kidney, liver, heart and spleenSeveral US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varietiesBt corn caused a wide variety of immune responses in mice, commonly associated with diseases such as arthritis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, osteoporosis, and inflammatory bowel diseaseInvestigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

    Have You Heard of rBGH?

    You may be aware that many corn and soy crops in the United States are GM, but it may surprise you to learn that a significant portion of U.S. milk is actually genetically engineered, again thanks to Monsanto. This milk, and the ice cream, cheese, and myriad of other dairy products made from it, contains genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, or rBGH.

    U.S. milk producers treat their dairy cattle with rBGH because it boosts milk production. But this artificial growth hormone also increases udder infections in cows, leading to pus in the milk along with excessive use of antibiotics in the cows, which is triggering the creation of antibiotic-resistant superbugs and leaving residues of antibiotics in your dairy. Worse still, milk treated with rBGH also contains higher levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), a hormone linked to breast, prostate and colon cancers in humans.

    Monsanto’s Environmental Damage Continues

    First came Agent Orange and PCBs, and now we have glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s nonselective broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup. Massive acreage of soybeans, cotton, and corn grown in the United States contain the GM Roundup Ready gene — and all of these crops receive numerous applications of Roundup each and every year.

    But Roundup is proving to be no match for Mother Nature. It’s estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant, and the superweeds are showing no signs of stopping. In fact, it’s getting progressively worse. Extremely hardy Roundup-resistant weeds are already boosting costs and cutting crop yields for U.S. farmers. And with world food stores already strained, diminished crop production is a serious problem.

    According to an article in Scientific American:

    “An estimated 11 million acres are infested with “super weeds,” some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup… The problem’s gradual emergence has masked its growing menace.

    Now, however, it is becoming too big to ignore.

    … “I’m convinced that this is a big problem,” said Dave Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology at Penn State University, who has been helping lobby members of Congress about the implications of weed resistance. “Most of the public doesn’t know because the industry is calling the shots on how this should be spun,” Mortensen said.”

    But the environmental impact doesn’t end with the emergence of superweeds threatening our crops. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is also contaminating our soils and waterways, posing great risk to plant- and wildlife. A couple of years ago, a French court found Monsanto guilty of falsely advertising its herbicide as “biodegradable,” “environmentally friendly” and claiming it “left the soil clean.” The truth is that Roundup is anything BUT environmentally friendly. Monsanto’s own tests showed that only two percent of the herbicide broke down after 28 days, which means it readily persists in the environment! This chemical is now showing up in air and rain samples across the United States.

    Further, researchers have linked glyphosate to Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease, in many fields around the world. Numerous studies have shown that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but also to the outbreak of some 40 different plant and crop diseases! It weakens plants and promotes disease in a number of ways, including:

    Acting as a chelator of vital nutrients, depriving plants of the nutrients necessary for healthy plant function

    Destroying beneficial soil organisms that suppress disease-causing organisms and help plants absorb nutrients

    Interfering with photosynthesis, reducing water use efficiency, shortening root systems and causing plants to release sugars, which changes soil pH

    Stunting and weakening plant growth

    The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly; instead, it creates a unique “perfect storm” of conditions that activatesdisease-causing organisms in the soil, while at the same time wiping out plant defenses against those diseases. So the glyphosate not only weakens plants, it actually changes the makeup of the soil and boosts the number of disease-causing organisms, which is becoming a deadly recipe for crops around the globe.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally looking into the damaging effects of glyphosate on humans and the environment and plans to make a decision regarding its future by 2015. At that time, Roundup could either continue to be used as it is now, be required to have some modifications to its use or be banned from use entirely in the United States.

    Monsanto Forces Farmers to Buy New Seeds Every Year

    One of Monsanto’s biggest assaults to your food supply is what’s known as terminator technology—which they hope to deploy soon. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.

    The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.

    If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!

    As TakePart.com reported:

    “By peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world’s poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom,” says Emma Must of the World Development Movement. “Currently 80 percent of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-saved seed … Being unable to save seeds from sterile crops could mean the difference between surviving and going under.”"

    Monsanto’s History of Deception and Drive for Power

    There’s a reason why Monsanto has sponsored attractions with Disney … they need to do all they can to maintain a positive corporate image. But even a cursory look beneath the surface reveals why Monsanto is top on my hit list of evil corporations.

    Suing small farmers for patent infringement after Monsanto’s GM seeds spread wildly into surrounding farmers’ fields, contaminating their conventional crops

    Secretly discharging PCB-laden toxic waste into an Alabama creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills for decades after PCBs were banned in the US for being a possible carcinogen.

    Being found guilty of bribery to bypass Indonesian law requiring an environmental assessment review for its genetically engineered cotton.

    In 2007, the South African Advertising Standards Authority also found Monsanto guilty of lying when advertising that “no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported.”

    According to one EPA scientist, Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company’s behavior constituted “a long pattern of fraud.”

    How Can You Fight Back Against Monsanto’s Corruption?

    By boycotting all GM foods and instead supporting organic (and local) farmers who do not use Monsanto’s GM seeds, you are using your wallet to make your opinions known. This means abstaining from virtually all processed food products (most are loaded with GM ingredients) and sticking to fresh, locally grown, organic foodstuffs instead.

    There are currently eight genetically modified food crops on the market. In addition, GM alfalfa is now approved for use as animal feed.SoySugar from sugar beetsCornHawaiian papayaCottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)Some varieties of zucchiniCanola (canola oil)Crookneck squash

    Your Action Plan

    The simplest way to avoid GM foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed.

    You can also look for foods that are “non-GMO verified” by the Non-GMO Project.

    Fortunately, we now have a practical plan to end this disaster. By educating the public about the risks of GM foods through a massive education campaign, and launching a ballot initiative in California for 2012, which will require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients, our plan is to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and even the Environmental Working Group (who produced the Dining in the Dark video above) are getting actively involved. But we do need your help.

    Here’s how you can get involved during this GM Awareness week:

    If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) in early November for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California!

    Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort

    Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to have to label genetically engineered foods.

    Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

    For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

    You can also join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or Twitter

  • Robert Mackey

    I could go on with studys from Harvard and Cambridge

    • Nick

      I doubt that, but do try

  • Robert Mackey

    Longest-Running GMO Safety Study Finds Tumors in Rats Are GMOs dangerous? A new study shows that Monsanto’s genetically modified corn and Roundup herbicide cause negative health effects in rats, and is raising questions about the safety of GMOs.

    By Tom Philpott
    April/May 2013

    inShare

    Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready corn caused a host of negative health effects in rats, including tumors and premature death.

    Photo Courtesy AFP Photo/Criigen

    Slideshow

    .SlideShowC1Control .Left { width: 400px; float: left; text-align: center; }

    .SlideShowC1Control .Left .Image { text-align: center; }

    .SlideShowC1Control .Right { width: 230px; float: left; margin: 0 0 0 4px; }

    .SlideShowC1Control .Right .Caption { max-height: 200px; overflow: auto; padding: 18px 0 0; }

    .SlideShowC1Control .Right .Credit { margin: 8px 0 0; overflow: hidden; font-style: italic; }

    .SlideShowC1Control .Right .Button { margin: 25px 0 0; }

    .SlideShowC1Control .Right .Button a { background: url(‘/images/Bkg_Button.png’) no-repeat 0 0; padding: 11px 42px; color: #ffffff; text-shadow: #333333; letter-spacing: 1.7px; text-decoration: none; }

    .SlideShowC1Control .Right .Button a:hover { color: #c9d7d8; text-decoration: none; }

    Content Tools

    Print

    Close X

    Email

    Comments

    Related Content

    Gotta Have It! Skillet Cornbread

    Cornbread is an essential accompaniment to many good country meals. I think it’s best when cooked a…

    Organic Pioneers Urge Consumers to Get Mad–and Get Organized–About GMOs

    As organic industry leaders urge consumers to take action against GMOs–the biggest threat the indus…

    Unlabeled GMO Sugars in Common Foods

    FDA won’t require companies to specify whether or not they use GM sugars in food.

    GMO From A Layman Viewpoint Part II

    Are GMOs good or bad for civilization?

    More than two decades ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted GMOs “generally regarded as safe” status, meaning the industry had no obligation to conduct long-term safety studies. And while GMOs don’t have what scientists call “acute” effects, what about “chronic” effects — those that come on gradually and can’t easily be tied to one cause? The French study — the most comprehensive GMO safety assessment ever conducted — highlights that concern. It involved 200 rats and spanned two years, the life expectancy of the species of rat used. Previously, the longest study had lasted 240 days, says Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union and an expert on GMO research. Industry-funded studies typically last just 90 days.

    The researchers investigated how eating Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready corn (and any Roundup herbicide traces that may come with it) affected rats’ health. They separated rats into 10 groups: Three had part of their standard diet replaced at varying levels with Roundup-Ready corn that had been treated with Roundup in the field; three received the same feed protocol, but with untreated Roundup-Ready corn; three ate no GM corn but had tiny amounts of Roundup herbicide in their drinking water; and one control group ate two-thirds standard rat chow and one-third non-GM corn. Each group contained 10 females and 10 males.

    The researchers say their results show “severe adverse health effects, including mammary tumors and kidney and liver damage, leading to premature death” from Roundup-Ready corn and Roundup herbicide, whether they were consumed separately or together. Almost all of the ill effects manifested after 90 days. By the end of the study, 50 to 80 percent of the females had developed large tumors, compared with 30 percent developing tumors in the control group. In males, liver congestion and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group, and there were 1.3 to 2.3 times more instances of kidney disease. Overall, among the rats receiving GM corn and/or Roundup, up to 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.

    So does the study close the case? Are GMOs dangerous? Predictably, industry-aligned scientists are questioning the study, but even longtime critics of GMOs, including Hansen, have concerns. Hansen says that while the new study was longer and better designed than any of the industry GMO safety studies, the sample size — 10 males and 10 females per group — was too small to draw conclusions from.

    Hansen says, however, that while the individual comparisons may not be statistically significant because of sample size, the results still paint a troubling picture. The study made 54 comparisons between treated rats and control rats, and in all but four, the treated rats showed worse outcomes. “That’s suggestive that there’s something going on and that there should be further research,” Hansen says, adding that a possible reason the researchers didn’t use a greater number of rats to get more robust results is because multiyear rat studies are extremely expensive.

    Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx#ixzz38upgcC5V

  • Robert Mackey

    Global anti-GMO action: People unite against Monsanto dominance

    Published time: May 24, 2014 03:11
    Edited time: May 25, 2014 13:05

    Get short URL

    Image from Twitter/@AnarchoAnon

    6.3K

    FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponGoogle+Tumblr

    TagsFood, Health, Monsanto, Opposition, Protest, Rally

    Over 400 cities worldwide will see millions marching against the US chemical and agricultural company Monsanto in an effort to boycott the use of Genetically Modified Organizms in food production.

    Marches are planned in 52 countries in addition to some 47 US states that are jointing in the protest.

    Follow RT’s LIVE UPDATES on March Against Monsanto

    “MAM supports a sustainable food production system. We must act now to stop GMOs and harmful pesticides,” said Tami Monroe Canal, founder of March Against Monsanto (MAM) in a press release ahead of the global event.

    The movement was formed after the 2012 California Proposition 37 on mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food initiative failed, prompting activists to demand a boycott of the GMO in food production.

    “Monsanto’s predatory business and corporate agriculture practices threatens their generation’s health, fertility and longevity,” Canal said.

    The main aim of the activism is to organize global awareness for the need to protect food supply, local farms and environment. It seeks to promote organic solutions, while “exposing cronyism between big business and the government.”

    Activists claim that Monsanto spent hundreds of millions of dollars to “obstruct all labeling attempts” while suppressing all “research containing results not in their favor.”

    Birth defects, organ damage, infant mortality, sterility and increased cancer risks are just some of the side-effects GMO is believed to cause.

    “That is what the scientists have learned about, that the genetically modified foods will increase allergies that they are going to be less nutritious and that they can possibly or very contain toxins that can make us ill,” Organic Consumers Association’s political director Alexis Baden-Mayer told RT.

    GMOs have been partially banned in a number of countries, including Germany, Japan, and Russia but yet in most countries across the globe still feed GMOs to their animals.

    Citing the US example, Baden-Mayer told RT that “it is hard to distinguish the company Monsanto from the players in the US government.”

    “Most of the genetically modified crops grown in the US, almost all of them end up in factory farms, concentrated in animal feeding operations,” stating that US has enough grassland to pasture and raise “100 percent grass-fed beef” and produce even more grass fed beef than is raised on “modified corn and soy.”

    One year ago over 2 million people in 436 cities in 52 countries worldwide marched against the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds.

  • Robert Mackey

    How Monsanto and biotech companies violate the Nuremberg Code with inhumane experiments on humans

    Monday, July 28, 2014 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
    Tags: Monsanto, Nuremberg Code, agricultural experiments

    Most Viewed Articles

    Today | Week | Month | Year

    NASA sounds red alert over solar flare that nearly wiped out human civilization two summers ago

    Russia taking McDonald’s to court, threatens countrywide shutdown

    GMO pushers horrified at idea of being held responsible for their role in farmer suicides, crop failures and environmental devastation

    Type 2 diabetes is best left untreated in many cases, researchers say

    Suggested foods for diabetics: Top 10 list

    The top 15 healing actions of herbs

    Nearly 300,000 suicides in India so far from GMO crop failures

    Healthy vitamin D levels help relieve chronic pain

    Cancer is curable NOW: Watch the full free documentary here

    How Monsanto and biotech companies violate the Nuremberg Code with inhumane experiments on humans

    Scientific fraud? DuPont study deliberately hid toxic effects of GMOs fed to rats

    Improving stomach acid production enhances digestion and overall health

    Studies show that broccoli can treat cancer, respiratory diseases and more

    Calendula: Growing medicine

    The Agricultural Holocaust explained: the 10 worst ways GMOs threaten humanity and our natural world

    Double mastectomies offer almost no survival benefit for breast cancer patients, 20-year study proves

    Dangerous effects of vitamin A deficiency and what foods to eat to prevent it

    HuffPost: GMOs have never been proven safe

    Cancer is curable NOW: Watch the full free documentary here

    Russia taking McDonald’s to court, threatens countrywide shutdown

    HOAX confirmed: Michelle Obama ‘GMOs for children’ campaign a parody of modern agricultural politics

    ‘Tokyo should no longer be inhabited,’ Japanese doctor warns residents regarding radiation

    Type 2 diabetes is best left untreated in many cases, researchers say

    One third to die by plague or famine; one third will fall by the sword; one third to be scattered to every wind

    Nearly 300,000 suicides in India so far from GMO crop failures

    Deadly plague spreading in Colorado

    How to save loads of money while still eating organic, non-GMO foods

    Seven reasons why THC in cannabis is good medicine

    Three important articles you need to read on Monsanto, the plague wave, and the overthrow of America

    Apple engineered surveillance back door into 600 million iPhones

    The Agricultural Holocaust explained: the 10 worst ways GMOs threaten humanity and our natural world

    GMO pushers horrified at idea of being held responsible for their role in farmer suicides, crop failures and environmental devastation

    Michelle Obama GMO hoax explodes into public backlash against Monsanto

    Natural compounds to kill off yeast

    Optimal sulfur levels can reverse chronic disease

    Couple loses combined total of 280 pounds, says healthier eating habits helped with weight loss and led to current vegan lifestyle

    Near-conclusive evidence that Malaysia Airlines MH370 was hijacked: cockpit tampering deliberately hid plane from radar

    Top 5 foods to NOT eat to avoid belly fat

    Cancer is curable NOW: Watch the full free documentary here

    ‘Tokyo should no longer be inhabited,’ Japanese doctor warns residents regarding radiation

    Magnesium deficiency symptoms explained: Do you show any of these?

    MH17 conspiracy theories emerge: Fake passports, AIDS researchers, false flags and more

    Russia taking McDonald’s to court, threatens countrywide shutdown

    Work hours being cut in preparation for Obamacare employer mandate

    HOAX confirmed: Michelle Obama ‘GMOs for children’ campaign a parody of modern agricultural politics

    The lemon detox diet – a recipe that really works

    Whole Foods Market (WFM) continues to knowingly sell poison to its customers: Natural News seeks class action law firm to pursue legal action

    Type 2 diabetes is best left untreated in many cases, researchers say

    Four foods that truly deserve the title of ‘superfood’

    Millions of Americans installing ‘perfect spying device’ in their own living rooms: Amazon Fire TV monitors and records your conversations

    Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix and other cities headed for imminent water supply collapse; wave of drought refugees now inevitable

    10 health benefits of cucumbers

    Health Ranger reveals brush with poverty, financial survival and urgent warning for humanity’s future

    How to prepare yourself for the collapse of the age of human delusion (and the arrival of human spiritual awakening)

    Six important facts you’re not being told about lost Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

    The lemon detox diet – a recipe that really works

    Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 now clearly a government cover-up: All evidence contradicts official story

    McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets found to contain mysterious fibers, hair-like structures; Natural News Forensic Food Lab posts research photos, video

    10 health benefits of cucumbers

    Naked Juice class action settlement announced: Here’s how to claim $45 from PepsiCo even without proof of purchase

    Six signs you might have gluten sensitivity and not know it

    Why Walmart and Costco shrimp prices are so low – and why you should never buy from them again

    Top six alkaline foods to eat every day for vibrant health

    Vitamin D deficiency symptoms explained: the top 9 warning signs

    Does green tea have caffeine? Seven things you need to know

    Boost Low White Blood Cell Count and Immune Function Naturally

    What the media isn’t telling you about Elliott Rodger, the psycho killer who murdered six in a soulless rampage

    Plants won’t grow near Wi-Fi routers, experiment finds

    Flight 370 passengers may still be alive; ‘pirated’ Boeing 777 may return to skies as stealth nuclear weapon

    TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, ‘food as medicine’ or natural healing

    10 other companies that use the same Subway yoga mat chemical in their buns

    Popular on Facebook

    96K Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 now clearly a government cover-up: All evidence contradicts official story77K White House admits staging fake vaccination operation to gather DNA from the public59K 10 other companies that use the same Subway yoga mat chemical in their buns52K High-dose vitamin C injections shown to annihilate cancer52K Irrefutable proof we are all being sprayed with poison: 571 tons of toxic lead ‘chemtrailed’ into America’s skies every year51K EXCLUSIVE: Natural News tests flu vaccine for heavy metals, finds 25,000 times higher mercury level than EPA limit for water49K Truvia sweetener a powerful pesticide; scientists shocked as fruit flies die in less than a week from eating GMO-derived erythritol47K Senator who attacked Doctor Oz over dietary supplements received over $146,000 in campaign contributions from Big Pharma mega-retailer and Monsanto45K Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions45K HOAX confirmed: Michelle Obama ‘GMOs for children’ campaign a parody of modern agricultural politics44K U.S. treating meat with ammonia, bleach and antibiotics to kill the ’24-hour sickness’42K Ben and Jerry’s switches to non-GMO, Fair Trade ice cream ingredients42K Battle for humanity nearly lost: global food supply deliberately engineered to end life, not nourish it39K Diet soda, aspartame linked to premature deaths in women39K Russia taking McDonald’s to court, threatens countrywide shutdown39K Cannabis kicks Lyme disease to the curb38K Elliot Rodger, like nearly all young killers, was taking psychiatric drugs (Xanax)38K Harvard research links fluoridated water to ADHD, mental disorders

    4,420

    65

    (NaturalNews) The basic human rights protections established by the Nuremberg Code, which was adopted immediately after the end of World War II, continue to serve as a global template for how human beings are to be treated by the scientific community. But the modern equivalent of the Holocaust is now taking form under the guise of feeding the world and saving the planet, with Monsanto and others in the biotech industry routinely testing their chemicals and faux foods on the public without informed consent, just like amoral scientists did in the death camps.

    As far as medical experiments go, every individual has the right under the Code to consent, or not, to being used in scientific trials or tests that involve toying around with new or unusual substances. This constitutes the essence of the Code, which expressly prohibits human experimentation unless the person being experimented on first gives his or her permission, with full disclosure of any potential adverse events.

    “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” states the first point of the Nuremberg Code.

    “This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision,” it adds.

    Unlabeled GMOs are a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code As far as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are still not properly labeled in North America, the ongoing use of these untested additives in the food supply without full disclosure represents a blatant violation of the dictates of the Code. Since not a single long-term study has ever verified that GMOs are safe for human consumption, these substances are, by their very nature, experimental.

    This suggests that in order for them to justifiably exist as “food,” GMOs must, at the very least, be properly labeled so that people who consume them know they are present. There also must be full disclosure about the potential risks of consuming GMOs if the technology is to meet the moral obligations outlined in the Nuremberg Code.

    But neither of these criteria is being met, as GMOs have remained hidden in the American food supply since the mid-1990s, without consequence. Even though copious independent research has raised major questions about GMOs and their effects on human health, practically nothing has been done to address this deliberate lack of transparency.

    In fact, as you may already well know, Monsanto has been given a free pass to essentially lie to the public about the nature of GMOs, with false claims that they are materially identical to real food. Such claims only apply to concerns about food safety that affect the public, of course — as far as patents go, Monsanto will be the first to tell you that its “intellectual property” is most certainly not the same as natural seed.

    Deadly crop chemicals like Roundup, 2,4-D spreading disease and death to unwitting public Not only are GMOs themselves a problem as far as the Nuremberg Code is concerned, but so are the chemicals used to grow them. It is the official position of Monsanto that its popular Roundup formula, which contains glyphosate as its active ingredient, is completely safe. And the American government affirms this, allowing Roundup to be sprayed at volumes of up to 200 million pounds per year.

    But again, this approval is based on the biased “science” coming directly from the chemical lobby, which has a vested interest in portraying its products in the best light. There is plenty of independent science, including a 2013 study published in the journal Entropy, that point to major health problems such as infertility and cancer that can emerge from exposure to Roundup, yet none of this is considered in light of Roundup’s continued heavy use.

    Residential lawns, city planters, public parks, agricultural fields and much more are quietly and routinely doused in Roundup, exposing families and young children to chemical compounds that could damage their nervous systems and make them infertile. But few people know about this because, once again, full disclosure is not taking place. The American public simply isn’t being given the option to consent or refuse these chemical exposures before encountering them — these exposures, in other words, represent nothing more than weapons in a global chemical war.

    “[S]ome in the bioethics movement seek to undermine this crucial human subject protection,” wrote Wesley J. Smith for National Review about this departure from the Nuremberg Code in our modern context

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046210_Monsanto_Nuremberg_Code_agricultural_experiments.html#ixzz38usg0qZz

  • Robert Mackey

    Scientific Studies

    Share

    td#pinIttd a { margin-top: 42px !important; }
    td#pinIttd a span {background-size: 100% !important;
    background: url(//media.mercola.com/themes/mercola/images/bg-pinterest.jpg) no-repeat !important;
    bottom: 20px !important;
    height: 36px !important;
    padding-top: 6px;}
    .widget-text {
    background: url(//media.mercola.com/themes/mercola/images/cssprites.png) no-repeat 0 -157px;
    width:137px;
    height:63px;
    font-size: 12px;
    line-height: 16px;
    padding: 7px 0 0 7px;
    color:white;
    }

    Spread the Word to
    Friends And Family
    By Sharing this Article.

    115

    8

    0

    41

    Email

    Print

    Email this article to a friend

    Do you know the truth about what you’re eating? Science and technology has changed the way man secures his food supply. Genetically modified (GM) foods have been the subject of controversy and intense debate in recent years. Is genetic modification really the key to ensuring that the world does not grow hungry or does tampering with the natural makeup of animals and plants unleash unwanted possibilities and horrific consequences to your health? Take a look at these scientific findings and be the judge.

    Scientific Position Paper on GMO Risks

    A discussion of the dangers of GM foods and how regulatory agencies like the FDA turn a blind eye to these dangers in favor of promoting biotechnology.

    GMO Health Risks

    An invitation to become a member of the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America.

    Lyme/Autism Group Blasts Genetically Modified Foods as Dangerous

    Advocacy group raises the red flag over GMOs and how they worsen autism, Lyme disease and other related conditions

    Disease-resistant Genetically Engineered Crops May Make Humans (and Plants) More Vulnerable to VirusesSpilling the Beans, June 2006

    Virus-resistant GM crops like plum have potentially dangerous long-term consequences.

    Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our IntestinesSpilling the Beans, April-May 2006

    Do you want herbicide in your gut? GM crops disturb your healthy digestive balance.

    Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in MiceSpilling the Beans, November/December 2005

    Study reveals serious and potentially deadly flaws in how GM foods are regulated and assessed, as evidenced in GM peas causing dangerous immune response in mice.

    Open Letter to TJ Higgins

    Open letter to TJ Higgins, Australian plant molecular biologist who developed GM peas.

    A Deadly Epidemic and the Attempt to Hide its Link to Genetic EngineeringSpilling the Beans, August 2005

    A discussion of the dangers of GM foods and how regulatory agencies like the FDA turn a blind eye to these dangers in favor of promoting biotechnology.

    Scrambling and Gambling with the GenomeSpilling the Beans, July 2005

    How mutations in GM crops can have serious consequences to your health.

    Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-upSpilling the Beans, July 2005

    Monsanto and European authorities try to cover up the dangers of GM corn as an extensive study reveals the man-made variety caused blood, kidney and liver problems when fed to animals.

    Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified FoodSpilling the Beans, May 2009

    American Academy of Environmental Medicine urges doctors to educate their patients, peers and the general public about the health risks associated with eating GM foods.

    Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive FailuresSpilling the Beans, July 2007

    Laboratory animals fed with GM foods show damage to almost all body system and farmers report that dead, sick and sterile animals have been eating GM feeds.

    Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part Two)Spilling the Beans, June 2007

    Research shows that a “safe” toxin produced by GM plants triggers allergic reactions.

    Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part One)Spilling the Beans, June 2007

    Rising food allergies blamed on consumption of GM foods.

  • Robert Mackey

    Nearly 300,000 suicides in India so far from GMO crop failures

    Posted: 29 Jul 2014 02:18 AM PDT

    The Western media is steeped in denial about the true damage being caused by genetically modified (GM) crops, especially in the developing Third World. But despite the lies you may have heard from mainstream news sources, nearly 300,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1995 as a direct result of mounting debt and crop failures associated with GMO crops, and mainly cotton crops that were forcibly converted to patented, transgenic varieties owned by Big Biotech

  • Robert Mackey

    I mean its coming out daily what Monsanto is doing and has been. I started this movement, I saw it many years ago and face booked this non stop for over 5 years..,when I picked up on ,it I was astounded ,and yes there are many conspiracy’s with in Monsanto and there partners, they are evil and greedy, profits over life is a fact, they new the test results long ago. But have hid it.why ,trillions of dollars, at play here ,big enough to influence countries around the world and our own govt, elected officials. There destroying all life as we know it. once the bees are gone 3 years later so will we. Along with the soft killing of people around the world ,slowly but with fore thought and malice in mind ,they also new the results of this in advance. to say they didn’t, would be the greatest lie told.

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

      You started the movement and can’t even construct a sentence properly. No wonder you have the facts upside down if your reading comprehension is so low.

  • Robert Mackey

    Please watch and share with everyone you know! GM farming devastation in the Philippines, by MASIPAG Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura http://youtu.be/hCuWs8K9-kI People need to know.

    10 Years of Failure, Farmers Deceived by GM Corn

    The film entitled “10 Years of Failure, Farmers Deceived by GM corn” shows the dire situation of corn farmers in the Philippines who have adopted GM corn. Am…

    youtube.com|By The Cinematic Orchestra

  • Robert Mackey

    Support GMO ban in Bharat: “Our hearts ache with the bondages of GMO that has been allowed to grown so strong and we know that in this time of change we have the power of good that has already started to come together and is strong enough t…o make this great and rightful change happen!”

    https://www.change.org/petitions/shri-narendra-modi-ji-and-shri-ashish-bahuguna-ji-ban-gmo-in-bharat-and-save-future-of-our-kids-create-laws-to-protect-the-farmers-from-gmo See More
    Shri Narendra Modi Ji and Shri Ashish Bahuguna Ji: Ban GMO in Bharat and Save future of our…
    http://www.change.org
    GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) has already devastated a lot of farmers in Bharat and beyond, it’s time to Ban GMO in Bharat. GMO…

  • Robert Mackey

    Millions Against Monsanto by OrganicConsumers.org shared GMO Inside’s photo.
    Yesterday at 7:49pm ·
    GMO Inside
    FUND A FILM! Roundup is showing up everywhere! Watch this outrageous trailer for the film A New Resistance: http://vimeo.com/98732877 Show your support for Ed B…rown’s new film! ‪#‎Donate‬ here: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-new-resistance#description ‪#‎GMOs‬ ‪#‎Roundup‬ ‪#‎StopMonsanto‬See More

  • Robert Mackey

    Bees in scientific spotlight again: “There are no recorded cases of predominant bee parasites such as Varroa destructor or Nosema ceranae that have plagued honeybees elsewhere. And the absence of massive corn and soybean farms on the rocky …island with its comparatively short growing season means neonic pesticides are hardly used, Jennings said.

    An international panel of 50 scientists last month called for tighter regulations and an ultimate phase-out of such products. The group calling itself the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides compared so-called neonics or neonicotinoids, a type of insecticide that’s chemically reminiscent of nicotine, to the use of DDT in the 1960s.

    It said a study of 800 research papers offers conclusive evidence that neonics sprayed as a preventive pesticide over crops or to coat seeds are killing bees and other insects on a massive scale.” See More
    Newfoundland’s healthy honeybees are an increasing draw for researchers in the race to understand why colonies across much of the globe are struggling or dying off.

    READ MORE: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/newfoundland-bees-drawing-international-scientific-attention

    #BeeDeaths #Bees #Neonics #Neonicotinoid #Honeybees #gmofreecanada

    • frank anderson

      There is recent scientific evidence that Neonicotinoids are causing bee killing mites to develop into strains which grow larger and more aggressive in attacking and killing bees.

      • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

        How come Australia doesn’t have CCD but are using Neonicotinoids on a grand scale?

        • frank anderson

          Neonicotinoids are a group of pesticides. Factors also involved are length of usage, type of Neonicotinoids, and species within an environment. Also keep in mind, a study is a study. It takes much effort, proper statistical analysis of studies; case history, laboratory, forensic, field, blind, double blind, et cetera type studies. If a few studies show positive correlations and that study is accepted as the final truth, that is not good science. Conversely, if a few studies show no positive correlations, and the whole premise is rejected as null and void, then that is not good science. Had the western world moved briskly to dismiss failed hypotheses and theories, we’d never have flown, been to the moon, developed industry, seen TV, radio, able to navigate the seas out of sight of land, cured infectious diseases and seen the microbiological world invisible to the naked eye.

          • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

            And?

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen
  • Robert Mackey

    Michael Slay and WorldTruth.TV shared a link.
    Illinois illegally seizes Bees Resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup; Kills remaining Queens | World…
    Illinois illegally seizes Bees Resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup; Kills remaining QueensNews, world…
    worldtruth.tv

    • hyperzombie

      All bees are resistant to Roundup, it is a herbicide not an insecticide.

  • frank anderson

    It’s very simple. Allow states to require labeling of all genetically modified foods, and let individuals concerned about those foods, research the data themselves. In the meantime responsible scientists will research the effects of GMO foods. Unless accredited scientists have time and money to waste researching this, they will not, unless the are driven by something other than financial gain. Because an accredited scientist can make a heck of a lot more money defending Monsanto, Dow, et cetera, than they can finding fault with it. And Monsanto and Dow are pretty big boys, so it won’t be easy, or safe…..

  • Mike Kewl

    Logic works if you believe…no matter who you are or what you promote…logic was used by the good Germans to create NAZI’s.

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

      And the internet.

  • Dr_Zinj

    “it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity.”
    Have you read the Declaration of Independence lately? The Founders themselves understood the need to kill tyrants, and those who would cause them harm when more civilized, reasonable methods failed. Granted, I’m a retired Gulf War vet, so I don’t have a big problem with killing monsters or those unfortunates who are defending monsters.

    • hyperzombie

      How is selling better seed to farmers a crime against humanity?

      • windskisong

        Producing the food to feed billions of people is considered a crime against humanity by those who think themselves too important to be removed if there wasn’t enough food, aka statists aka leftists.

  • tropicgirl

    MONSANTO IS THE MAKER OF POISON GAS FOR VIETNAM AND BEFORE, THEY HAVEN’T CHANGED…

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

      Yes, they have. A) It’s not the same company B) they don’t produce those things any more.

    • hyperzombie

      Also remember 17 other companies made the same product and Monsanto never sprayed it on anyone, Your government did.

  • Nick

    So he’s not advocating violence just telling people Monsanto is committing heinous crimes against humanity then saying that people have a duty to kill people who commit heinous crimes against humanity, then creates a site, listing the names of possible targets. “Oh will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest” much?

  • Scott Burnett

    Mr adams is a legend.
    If gmos are safe why don’t they want to label it?
    Pretty simple

    • http://www.twipscience.org/ Sebastian Larsen

      I am pro gmo and I agree. We should label gmos. And we should also label all the other breeding methods and what pesticides are used. It will be expensive but we have a right. I just think a lot of people will be turned off when they find out how much pesticide is used on organic food.

  • slayerwulfe

    DR OZ again ? the world will continue. I’m going to have some apple juice with organic arsenic concentrate while I wait for all the boomers to die.

  • David L. Stinson

    Just another leftist emotive moonbat being swept-away by his hormonal tides.

  • Daniel

    This.

  • TheHighForester

    Is Robert Mackey a Genetically Modified Organism?

  • jim marcum

    over my head.

  • ursafan40

    How can it be, that so many left wing “peace loving” nut-jobs who claim to love humanity, call out for killing a certain portion of it?

  • Peculiar Person

    When the farmers, Percy and Bowman, were happily fed to the Monsanto wood chipper, complicit with the Dept of Agriculture and the Supreme Court, I became a more adamant supporter of the farmer and not the politburo.

    • hyperzombie

      Percy and Bowman
      So you support farmers that like spraying Glyphosate on their crops?

  • Chris Headley

    Oh, and Now the Ozone is coming back? HYM

  • disqus_kDVfNyAz9z

    Excuse me? If there is no problem with gmo’s why can’t consumers know it is in their food? Simple question. We are told about preservatives, coloring, nutritional measures etc…but not this? Really…get a grip here! And if they are soooo worried about the soaring cost of printing: “Contains GMO’s”….on the label, lol what is the excuse for the waste of money to fight it? The claim is that the costs of the info would be put on to consumers…omg! Who is going to be paying for the cost of their fight against it?…any ideas? Why, the consumer! What blatant hypocrisy.
    Why is this even an issue? Why do they want to keep this info off the label? People have the right to know what is in the food they buy…period! This is the simple fact of the entire issue. It isn’t bigger than this nor smaller! There is not ONE answer to that question offered by Monsanto or any other entity that negates that right. I really have to wonder what kind of person it is that would agree that it is in the consumers interest and well being to deny everyone of the right to information of this kind.

  • Dr. G

    There is something call a Bell Curve. Every population has one. To the left are hard core supporters, and on the right are hard core detractors. Most of us are in the middle, hence the curve.

    It appears that on the aspect of GMO’s, Adams is on the right curve, with the bolded quote placing him on a fringe. It also appears that all of the other quotes used by Kloor in an attempt to discredit Adams puts Kloor to the far left of the curve. Indeed, it seems that these are two fringe people on the GMO issue. This is a piece written by Kloor. One written by Adams about Kloor would, with selected quotes no doubt, make Kloor into a nut job.

    All I know is that when you try to give a goat GMO produce, the goat will refuse it. The goat does not recognize it as food. If you put a pat of butter on the sidewalk next to one of margarine, ants will avoid the margarine and carry off the butter. They do not see the margarine as food. Take it for what it is worth. I still enjoy a Hostess Twinkie. But the peaches off of my grandma’s tree, picked ripe and full, explode with flavor and the stuff at the market tastes more like wet cardboard. Follow YOUR mind. Not either of the ends of the Bell Curve.

  • Justin OB

    All of you idiots who think gmos are good and side with monsanto deserve what you get.

  • carlcasino

    Are we still beating this dog. Climate Change has been around as long as the universe has been in existence. A million, a billion, a trillion years?
    Climate Change is going to be around after all the money has been siphoned off to the Al Gores of the world. Lets use a little common sense, a stretch for progressives but lets try anyway. Can Man crap up the planet? Without a doubt-YES. Can man manipulate global climate? Are you insane? One volcano eruption in one day can change the global climate more than man has been able to do in the time man has occupied Earth. When computers first came on the scene and all information was entered by hand the term GIGO [garbage in-garbage out] became a fashion statement. Not a damn thing has changed in all these years. If you program faulty input your output is still going to be crap. Man made Global Climate change is the result of faulty input designed to give the wanted outcome.

  • eldergent

    All that is requested, is that we be given accurate and fair amounts of facts and info, in order that we are able to make up our own minds regarding what is safe, healthy, etc, by being well-informed. After all, it’s our and our children’s lives that are at risk.
    In the interim, and based on what I’ve come to realize, is that there are indeed nefarious forces out there, which for their own agendas, continue to mislead us for the sake of monetary gain, over health, safety, clean environment, principles, etc.
    Will mankind forever face the dichotomous ‘forces of good vs evil’?

  • Bob Barton

    Sounds like a pro-GMO activist wrote this article.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is a wide-ranging blog forum that explores issues at the nexus of science, culture and society.

About Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a NYC-based journalist, and an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. His work has appeared in Slate, Science, Discover, and the Washington Post magazine, among other outlets. From 2000 to 2008, he was a senior editor at Audubon Magazine. In 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he studied how a changing environment (including climate change) influenced prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. He covers a wide range of topics, from conservation biology and biotechnology to urban planning and archaeology.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »