Mike Adams Escalates his Ugly Anti-GMO Campaign

By Keith Kloor | July 24, 2014 9:10 am

I recently discussed what is perhaps the most twisted, disgusting anti-GMO tract ever written. It’s by Mike Adams, who as Jon Entine said earlier this year, is “a titan in the booming alternative lifestyle business, running dozens of websites promoting ‘natural’ products, many of them bogus or dangerous, which he relentlessly hawks online.”

The main communication portal for Adams is Naturalnews.com. According to Alexa, the site receives 219, 877 daily unique visitors and 407, 386 daily pageviews. Dr. Oz featured Adams on his show several months ago. Earlier this week, Adams published a screed at his main site that carried this headline:

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

The article was accompanied by Nazi imagery and horrible pictures of the Holocaust. Adams equated Hitler’s propagandists with today’s media outlets and journalists who “have signed on to accelerate heinous crimes being committed against humanity under the false promise of ‘feeding the world’ with toxic GMOs.” Adams refers to this as a modern-day genocide being perpetrated by “Monsanto collaborators.”

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Adams then chillingly suggests (his emphasis),

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.

This creepy, disturbing rant has taken a darker turn. Today, I woke up to an update posted by Adams:

After this story was first published, someone has indeed launched a website that appears to be inspired by a suggestion from this story. The Monsanto Collaborators website lists the names of journalists and publications that the site says have contributed to the agricultural genocide of GMOs, comparing the 250,000+ suicides caused by GMOs to “genocide” and the Holocaust.

Yeah, we can guess who that “someone” is. This update by Adams singles out Jon Entine and the “Monsanto Collaborators” website lists a number of publishers and journalists, including myself.

The whole thing just takes your breath away.

One of the listed “collaborator” outlets is Alternet, which over the weekend published a hard-hitting critique of Adams and other popular alternative health hucksters who, as Cliff Weathers wrote in his piece, “often cherry-pick science and use what suits them as semantic backdrop to fool unsuspecting consumers.”  Last night, Weathers contacted me to say that shortly after his article appeared, he stared getting “numerous crank calls.”

Unhinged extremists like Mike Adams should be concerning to anti-GMO campaigners, which includes a shrill minority (amplified by some influential voices) that traffics in ugly, conspiratorial rhetoric. Adams has  distinguished himself as the darkest, most disturbing manifestation of the anti-GMO movement. I certainly hope Dr. Oz  and anyone else who takes him seriously is taking note.

UPDATE: You may be wondering if it’s counterproductive to spotlight the mad ramblings of someone like Adams? It’s a legitimate question that I gave some thought to before writing this post and the one before it. David Ropeik captures why I went ahead. The analogous examples he gives are exactly the ones I had in mind:

This is no different than Right to Life activists calling for the murder of abortion doctors fueling the hatred that leads some to commit such murders, or people so angry at the government that they bomb government buildings and kill innocent victims.

UPDATE: Mike Adams has responded at his website. I can’t do justice to it. Best that you read it from the man himself, in full:

After careful analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the Monsanto Collaborators website is a bait-and-switch trap engineered by the biotech industry in an effort to lure in support from GMO skeptics and then discredit them with some sort of insane “call to action” of some kind. Click here to see the evidence and reasoning on this. Because of this, I am recommending that members of the GMO skeptics community refrain from linking to or endorsing the Monsanto Collaborators website.

Additionally, immediately upon publication of this article, the usual GMO corporate shills immediately began to spread utterly false and defamatory information about what this article actually stated, inventing false quotes and intentionally citing sentences out of context. We expect nothing less than lies and fabrications from the GMO crowd, of course, but they have taken it to a whole new level in their attempts to silence this powerful story that tells the truth about the agricultural holocaust that has already killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

I have always stated in this story, as you can see below: “For the record, in no way do I condone vigilante violence against anyone, and I believe every condemned criminal deserves a fair trial and a punishment that fits the crime. Do not misinterpret this article as any sort of call for violence, as I wholly disavow any such actions. I am a person who demands due process under the law for all those accused of crimes.”

CATEGORIZED UNDER: biotechnology, GMOs
  • Aidan Benelle

    Really want to end the ugliness?

    Tell the pro GMO lobby and the biotechs and their millions, to get out of the way of the 92 % of American consumers, who want to see GM’s labeled.

    Europe has labeled GMO – easily and efficiently since 1997

    There’s no reason the same labeling cannot occur in America. If the ‘supposed concern’ is adequate amounts of non GMO feeder lines to supply new demands that GM labeling may bring – allow federal GMO labeling policies to have a built in timeframe for feeder lines to be established.

    • Dennis Prouse

      Europe is an economic basket case that is the largest per capita food importer in the world. Their farms are becoming less productive relative to the rest of the world, and their consumers are forced to spend almost twice what North Americans do for basic groceries, robbing working class people of a great deal of disposable income. The benefits they gain from this, beyond a smug sense of superiority, are unclear. Needless to say, I find, “Europe does it, so we should too” not to be terribly persuasive as a talking point.

      • Clifford Ageloff

        Yes, it’s one of those famous two-tiered talking points that is posited as de facto proof and a reason to follow suit. Double epic fail.

      • Aidan Benelle

        Europe is way ahead on food safety issues:
        The EU has labeled GMO’s since 1997 without any significant impact of cost to the consumer.

        The EU has also banned all antibiotic use in farm animals to stamp out growing resistance issues that the U.S. has barely begun to address.

        • Tyler Hurson

          Antibiotic resistance isn’t caused by antibiotics, it’s caused by overuse of antibiotics. Banning antibiotics hurts the consumer more than it helps him/her.

          More regulations != safer food. Europe suffers from occasional food poisoning epidemics just like the U.S. Nonsensical, politically-driven, “precautionary” bans on foods and food additives stifles the agricultural industry and is part of the reason why food in Europe is so expensive.

          Granted, some European countries have a more evidence-based food policy.

        • Miles Stockdale

          In terms of percentage of household income spent on food, Europeans spend about twice as much as Americans.

          Europe also needs to import a large percentage of their food, and pesticide usage in Europe has gone up significantly faster there.

    • Jason Lamb

      Adams calls for murder (and hes got a sufficiently stupid emotional fan base for them to commit murder) and you’re saying that the ugliness is on behalf of biotech not wanting to label their products?

      You’re a crank.

      • Aidan Benelle

        So 92% of American consumers are cranks?

        • Matt F

          Where do you get the figure 92%?? Holy cow – misinformed much are we? And labeling can do more damage to the industry than not labeling, as MANY people don’t understand the nature of chemicals. I bet you’d think twice about buying something that was labeled with dihydrogen monoxide, unless you just went to look it up on Google. Also, if GMO’s are regulated to be labeled as such, then I want organic products to be labeled with a safety caution that they may contain E. Coli and such.

          • Andrea Armstrong

            Wow Matt F. Condescending much? If labeling will “do more damage”, then let the burden be on GM producers to educate consumers and market their products more effectively. But to argue that the public is to stupid to understand what is good for them is insulting. As for labeling organics with the warning you suggested, I’d be all for that. Information is good.

          • Jesse Redden

            I don’t want my food touched by anything plastic, I have no evidence as to why I should want this but I want it labelled. Plastic is bad and I have a right to know what my kids are eating has touched. I demand labels for all food that has been touched by plastic!

          • durham kid

            If enough people share your concern, then those foods should be labelled.

            BTW, there are a number of plastics that arguably should NOT touch your food due to the presence of chemicals that mimic hormones – how ironic that you chose that example…

          • Jesse Redden

            No irony, I knew using plastic as an example would make the anti-science set read on. So if a lot of people are wrong it becomes right? If someone can demonstrate using peer reviewed science that there is harm in a particular GMO I don’t want it labelled I want it banned. I would love to hear your description of the several processes involving the genetic modification of foods and what processes are harmful and why.

          • scotty perey

            …except the GMO labeling campaigns at present aren’t very informative, in any sort of comprehensive or consistent way. For instance, I am curious what adherents of such feel about mutagenically produced strains, and what their relation is and ought to be with respect to genetic engineering labeling efforts.

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

            Not Matt F, but going based on what I’m seeing on the anti-science pages, the public is too stupid to understand what is good for them. Look at all those bitching about vaccines harming them, chemtrails, “GMOs are dangerous.” That’s proof right there of people’s stupidity.

            Hell, there’s a reason the First Rule of Reason in Objectivism is called, “People are stupid.”

          • Aidan Benelle

            92% is fact – citation above

          • scotty perey

            not to mention the pesticides they use in “organic” farming… many of which are considered by the Xerces Society to be quite more toxic to honeybees and other pollinators than Roundup, and by a long shot from the sound of it….

          • durham kid

            Where does this “fact” about pesticides in organic farming come from? CITE A SOURCE!

          • Miles Stockdale
          • Neil

            Here’s a link: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2012/09/24/pesticides-food-fears/#.UfKcPdI3uDo

            Pesticides are used in organic farming (they are allowed to use “natural” pesticides) and some are more toxic than glyphosate (Roundup). Pyrethins, rotenone and copper sulfate are all legal and all class II pesticides (moderately hazardous; LD50s: 500-1000mg/kg, 132-1500mg/kg and 300mg/kg respectively) according to the WHO, while glyphosate is a class III pesticide (slightly hazardous, LD50 4230mg/kg).

          • scotty perey

            not to mention the pesticides they use in “organic” farming… many of which are considered by the Xerces Society to be quite more toxic to honeybees and other pollinators than Roundup, and by a long shot from the sound of it….

          • durham kid

            What are your talking about?!? Pesticides are not used in organic farming. If you are going to make such claims, please state your sources.

          • scotty perey

            Gladly. http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/xerces-organic-approved-pesticides-factsheet.pdf

            You are far from being alone in this misconception. When surveyed as to why they bought organic produce, a whopping 94% of respondents replied that it was because “they didn’t use pesticides.” I was under the same misconception myself up until less than a year ago.

            Xerces is a very reliable organization, by the way. The second page of their pdf I linked above has a table with three columns of “organically certified pesticides” organized by toxicity. Seasoned followers of the GMO debate will be interested to find that not only is bT included on this list of chemicals that organic farmers use to kill bugs, but also that it is in the “non toxic” column.

          • durham kid

            Interestingly – I will check this out more thoroughly when I have time. One thing to keep in mind: just b./c it is approved to use doesn’t meant that it IS used. Organic produce has been tested and shown to have considerably less pesticides than conventional (some would be there due to mislabelling, drift of pesticides, etc). For more info, go to ewg.org and look for info on pesticides in food – tested (I couldn’t get to the link – problems with the server).

            Since organic is cleaner, esp when you know who your farmer is, I buy directly whenever I can.

          • Miles Stockdale

            I didn’t look up anything on EWG, but having seen many similar claims before, they normally test for specific synthetic pesticides, and of course find less of them on organic produce. But, as they were not testing for the pesticides used in organic farming, there methodology was fundamentally flawed.

          • kurzweilfreak

            If you’re going to get even some of your most basic arguments incorrect, you should really rethink trying to participate in a debate that you are that uninformed on.

          • Don Rusho

            The sad thing is, you probably actually believe that.

            If you were interested in the truth, as opposed to jabbing your opponent in the eye, you could have easily googled “organic farming pesticide” before blurting out such an ignorant comment.

            One specific result, from the incontestably reputable Scientific American, is:

            http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

            which includes the definitive statement:

            “there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing
            of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards.”

            So go peddle your nonsense somewhere else, as you clearly have exactly zero idea about what we are discussing here.

          • Aidan Benelle

            citation above

          • durham kid

            If you think people are misinformed about GMOs (a matter of opinion, with which many do not agree), then work on educating, rather than ignoring the will of the vast majority of Americans.

            Your logic is chilling for someone who (presumably) cares about democracy and freedom of choice.

          • Miles Stockdale

            I think psychological studies have shown pretty strongly that providing information is useless for most people, and often counterproductive.

            That is not always the case. I was extremely anti-gmo myself 10 years ago. I have changed the minds of a few people, but in each case they were open to new information. Most people I know who hold anti-gmo views are as unreachable as the climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, and creationists I know.

            Like most things, the irrational fear of GMOs will die when the people who hold those irrational fears die.

          • Aidan Benelle

            And furthermore – more than 60 bills have been introduced in over 20 states to require GE labeling or prohibiting genetically engineered foods.

        • Jesse Redden

          Citation on that statistic please.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Posted above

          • David Brown

            Most Americans Pay Little Attention to Genetically Modified Foods, Survey Says

            “Whether consumers say they want GM food labels depends on how you ask the question, so we asked about it in several ways.

            Before introducing the idea of GM foods, the survey participants were asked simply “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?” In response, only 7 percent raised GM food labeling on their own. A similar number (6 percent) said they wanted more information about where the food product was grown or processed. In contrast, when asked directly whether GM foods should be required to be labeled, 73 percent said yes.”

            http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/most-americans-pay-little-attention-genetically-modified-foods-survey-says/20131101#.U7Ms9vldW0J

        • scotty perey

          “92%” of Americans are misinformed.

          Besides, majority opinion does not equal scientific reality nor does it equal the moral high ground by any means whatsoever. Consider all the opinions, attitudes, and policies throughout the ages as well as in the very recent past.

          • durham kid

            It is not your job to decide who is misinformed and who is not – that is a personal decision – which we used to allow in a democracy. I am not Jewish and don’t eat Kosher – but I totally support the right of people to do so.

          • Miles Stockdale

            Kosher is voluntary labeling. Just as organic and non-GMO is. The general public should not pay as a whole for mandatory GMO labeling, just as they should not, and do not, pay for mandatory kosher labeling. Those who want food labeled for philosophical or religious reasons pay for that preference.

        • Jason Lamb

          Just you, I only called you a crank.

          Other’s who want gmo labels are ubiquitously ignorant of the science of genetics, of the fact that nearly all the food we eat is genetically modified in some regard, of the positive environmental impact of GMO farming and are always in some way or another arguing from an emotional or ideological standpoint rather than a rational scientific one.

      • durham kid

        I don’t think so, Jason – Aidan was reframing the argument. I’ve never heard of Mike Adams before but I don’t like his thinking either -that does not mean that I am going to paint ALL anti-GMO people as belonging in that camp.

        • Jason Lamb

          what does that have to do with my comment? My comment is in response to his attempt to reframe the argument (because it’s the dumbest reframe possible), what he said was DUMB. I didn’t paint any group.

    • mem_somerville

      Hitler was a fan of compelled labeling too. In fact, I heard that from the *actual* Godwin:

      https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/265182901275074560

      • Aidan Benelle

        And Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned of people with of your ilk with staunch opinions they would dictate over the rights of the American consumer when he said –

        “Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”

      • First Officer

        And for much the same reasons.

    • Fullerene

      Assume that every unlabled-for-GMO food item you buy in the store has some GMO component. Isn’t that easy? If someone wants to sell a GMO-free item (and it can be certified as such), then they should label THOSE ITEMS as GMO-free.

      Your response to the kill-the-abortion-doctors-type tactics that Adams is using is disappointing. Sociopathy doesn’t bother you, and the means justify the ends?

      • Miles Stockdale

        Your solution is simple and correct.

        However, it doesn’t reach the heart of the labeling campaign which is to induce fear and panic through lies for the purpose of convincing the ignorant to spend more money for organic foods.

    • Spamihazit

      it is unnecessary. Just assume any non-certified organic products could contain GMOs, especially if they contain corn or soy.
      Why put the financial burden on the majority of Americans, who consume GMOs on a regular basis? And where do you get your 92% of Americans want it labeled? Any scientific polls?

      • Aidan Benelle

        In April, 2014, the Consumer Reports National Research conducted a nationally‐representative phone survey to assess the opinion of 1,004 adult U.S. consumers regarding the labeling of food. In this survey, consumers were also asked about
        genetically engineered food. This report examines consumer support for the standardization and labeling of genetically engineered food.

        92% Think GE Food Should Be Labeled Before Sold

        92% Think GE Food Should Meet Government Safety Standards Before Sold

        92% Demand the Government Label GE Salmon

        pdf on specifics:

        https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014_GMO_survey_report.pdf

        • Ripshed

          Isn’t it interesting how in the two states where labeling initiatives were proposed and referendums held that they both failed with results that differ substantively from the poll you reference?

          I might add that the Consumers Union is not an unbiased source.

          When people are asked about labeling with little to no education on what GMOs are or what their issues are, people seem to be for it. But when they are given a chance to actually study and learn about the issue, they no longer support it in such great numbers.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Well the $46 million spent in California alone by the pro GMO lobby to defeat labeling says it all.

          • Miles Stockdale

            It takes a lot of time and money to try to counter all the lies and misinformation spread by the anti-GMO activists.

        • FosterBoondoggle

          I’m guessing you’d get the same figure if you did a poll asking whether foods containing dihydrogen monoxide should be labeled.

        • David Brown

          It all depends upon whether you ask a leading question.

          “Whether consumers say they want GM food labels depends on how you ask the question, so we asked about it in several ways.

          Before introducing the idea of GM foods, the survey participants were asked simply “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?” In response, only 7 percent raised GM food labeling on their own. A similar number (6 percent) said they wanted more information about where the food product was grown or processed.”

          http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/most-americans-pay-little-attention-genetically-modified-foods-survey-says/20131101#.U7Ms9vldW0J

          • Aidan Benelle

            How many polls do you want ~

            “Americans overwhelmingly support labeling foods that have been genetically modified or engineered, according to a New York Times poll conducted this year,

            with 93 percent of respondents saying that foods containing such ingredients should be identified.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=0

          • David Brown

            Yes, if you ask a leading question, most Americans will say they want GE labels.

            However, if you ask Americans what they want labeled, less than 10% will mention GMOs. Why? Most Americans have no idea what “GMO” means.

    • kurzweilfreak

      [citation needed for 92% figure]
      You’d be pretty hard pressed to get a large and diverse population as the US has to agree 92% on ANYTHING, so I’m calling bullshit.

      Name a product that a biotech company makes that you can purchase that you would like labeled. Monsant et al already label all of their products clearly. To their customers. Who are farmers. Buying the seed products they sell.

      • Aidan Benelle

        citation below

  • DrDenim

    The monsantocollaborators.org website does not appear to work

    • DrDenim

      Like the harm of GMO, the website is still completely non-existent

      • Ripshed

        It loads for me. It’s just crappy and offensive propaganda that tries to capitalize on the real suffering of the holocaust to demonize GMOs and contains a list of people who have refused to condemn GMOs.

  • http://adhdcommunity.boards.net/ Amtram

    A good rule of thumb would be “If Mike Adams says something, believe the opposite.”

    • laracraftmili

      Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the>>CLICK NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP

    • CombatChicken

      GMO propaganda strikes again. I guess the author of this article loves manipulating people with disinformation, with quotes falsely attributed to Mike: – “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” – Which was actually Mike quoting the German Government.

      And here is what Mike really stands for:
      “For the record, in no way do I condone vigilante violence against anyone, and I believe every condemned criminal deserves a fair trial and a punishment that fits the crime. Do not misinterpret this article as any sort of call for violence, as I wholly disavow any such actions. I am a person who demands due process under the law for all those accused of crimes. ”

      AND IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME, THEN READ MIKE’S ARTICLE YOURSELVES YOU IRRESPONSIBLE FOOLS WHO DON’T DO ONE IOTA OF RESEARCH BEFORE COMMENTING!

      • Doug Ducat

        And Mike Adams put that quote in his piece to send what message exactly? Think about it.

        • CombatChicken

          Well if you read his article you would know then wouldn’t you.

          • Ripshed

            Mike Adams bolded the last part of that sentence. Why would he quote this speech and bold those words in the context of an article about GMOs and “collaborators” if not to suggest that this is what he believes should happen to pro-biotech people?

            Come up with a reasonable explanation – you can’t.

            It’s pretty simple – Mike Adams is playing chicken with law enforcement and the realm of terrorism. He would glee with delight if people started getting hurt or killed over this.

      • http://sci-ence.org Maki

        Nice try.

        I’ll give him some credit that he was smart enough not to write an article that said “Kill journalists” but rather read “These people are Nazis, and you know what we need to do to Nazis”.

        And his sudden call to nonviolence was only recently posted alongside his conspiratorial claim that it was a black flag bait-and-switch. Give me a break.

      • Antaeus_Feldspar

        No. Those are NOT the quoted words of the German government.

        They are what Mike Adams is now calling a “paraphrase” of the German government’s words. We have NO WAY of knowing which words the German government said that Mike Adams claimed to interpret as “it’s a good thing to murder people as long as they’re sufficiently bad people,” so we will never have any reason to think that Adams’ “paraphrase” actually represented what they said, rather than what he wanted to hear.

        Besides Adams’ reputation for accuracy and honesty, that is. Which is much like Liberace’s reputation for being shy and restrained.

      • Don Rusho

        Is that you, occupystephanie? You sure sound like one of those ignorant goobers over at dailykos.com with a cornucopia of maniacal screeds against GMOs, vaccines, and collapsing bees. What a bunch of losers.

      • Rigel54

        Anti-GMO zealots are anti-science, anti-facts, paranoid delusionists. They prey on the simple-minded, sadly, there are plenty of those. European resistance is rooted in farmer’s political organizations. They cannot compete with American agriculture, so they spread fear to undercut the competition. “Combat Chicken,” do you have any training in science, if so, list it. Paranoia is the current, worsening, and potentially fatal disease of Western civilization. It is spread by the “Tea Parties” of the right and the GMO nuts of the left.

  • mem_somerville

    Wow, he is going further this time. When anti-abortionists made lists like this, doctors actually did get shot.

    And this is exactly why I’ve had scientists tell me on the back-channel that they don’t feel like they can talk on this issue–because they fear for their family’s safety.

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      Same thing happened with animal rights extremists, IIRC. The result is that animal experimentation moved to countries which care less, so the animals get treated worse. If the anti_GMO crowd get their way, GMO research and manufacture will probably just move to China and they will have no hope of tracking their use.

    • Don Rusho

      Hi MEM! It looks like some of the usual idiots have shown up to fling poo and shriek their dismay, just like back home: occupystephanie, Crider, Cordgrass, maybe wisper but certainly that pervert atana.

      Don’t those people ever give up?

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

    Good ideas propagate, bad ideas self-correct. The atrocity is cherishing empirical failure by feeding it what works. This is our current world, and is exponentially failing.

  • http://www.evolutionnews.org/ ElDorado501

    No need to murder anyone, the illneses that GMOs are causing to the fools that are eating them will do very effective job! By the way, Mike Adams has seen worse attacks on him by worse Monsanto shills then this one, this is yet another blank fired by the walking zombie!

    • Ripshed

      What illnesses? I eat a 100% non-organic diet and I’ve been given a clean bill of health by my doc at my most recent checkup.

      • First Officer

        I think it takes 1 to 2 hundred years for the effects to kick in. It’s easliy confused with the aging process. :)

      • Derek Wolf

        Perhaps the chronic, degenerative illnesses that have been sky rocketing gradually since the introduction of RoundUp & GM crops on a grand scale?

        Unfortunately those toxins don’t create immediate, poisonous responses otherwise it would be even more obvious. Some effects do seem to be quicker than others, though; as evidenced by the rise of kidney disease in the East by way of mineral chelating toxic chemical applications that readily deliver heavy metals into the kidneys.

        Are is your statement another one of those highly unscientific, illogical, PRO-GM rhetoric?

        • Ripshed
          • Spamihazit

            hahaha, I made that same accusation to my brother. And the use of less and safer pesticides. And the lack of vaccines. Because pesticide usage has decreases. People getting vaccinated has decreased.. and yet autism goes up? IT MUST BE CONNECTED.

          • Aidan Benelle

            People are turning to organic foods in droves because they have lost faith in the USDA and FDA.

          • Ripshed

            The organic program is an invention of the government and overseen by the USDA.

        • Pierce Nichols

          People are more likely to die of degenerative diseases these days because we’ve gotten so good at preventing them from dying of other things. Accidents and infections that would have been fatal half a century ago are now merely an expensive and painful inconvenience. Our techniques for treating heart disease, cancer, and stroke have advanced enormously. And yet we’re all going to die someday, of something. Once you’ve removed many of the faster causes of death, all that remains are the slow predations of age and entropy.

        • Spamihazit

          Roundup is less toxic than vinegar or caffeine. It doesn’t volatilize like other herbicides.
          Roundup AND Gm crops? Well what else has increased? Hybrid cars. Panda populations. Multi-racial people. The number of women names Olivia and Isabelle. Men named Jacob. All as scientifically correlated as Roundup and GM crops.

        • Aidan Benelle

          Intestinal Disease up 71% in children since 2000:

          The new study, published online and scheduled for the August 2013 print issue of the Journal of Investigative Medicine, found a 65 percent increase in IBD hospital discharges from 2000 to 2009. The number increased from 11,928 discharges in 2000 to 19,568 discharges in 2009.

          IBD refers to a group of inflammatory conditions of the colon and small intestine. The major types of IBD are Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). When looking at these two types of IBD individually, the authors found a 59 percent increase in CD discharges and a 71 percent increase UC discharges.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130625141208.htm

          • Ripshed

            Chron’s and UC are both genetic conditions.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Hereditary, genetics, and/or “environmental factors” contribute to the development of Crohn’s Disease and other forms of IBD.

            The environment in which you live also appears to play a role. Crohn’s is more common in developed countries rather than undeveloped countries,

            Recent studies (Samsel/Seneff) have shown a connection between Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome as a possible reason for the increase in IBD.

          • August Pamplona

            Senneff’s “study” is but a bunch of “we hypothesize” linked together which was published in the odd journal where she seems to publish all her “studies”, Entropy. I doubt even the journal Medical Hypotheses would accept such rubbish.

          • Ripshed

            Chron’s does not develop independent of genetics.

          • Aidan Benelle

            You’re totally incorrect

          • Ripshed

            You can believe that all you want but you can consult any medical journal or medical encyclopedia and find out for yourself that Crohn’s is widely believed to manifested due to genetics.

          • Aidan Benelle

            At least you spelled it correctly this time

          • Ripshed

            Ah yes, attack my spelling when you are on the losing side of an argument.

            Find me a single doctor or study that suggests that Crohn’s can develop independently of genetics.

            Go on. You can’t do it – because you’re wrong.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Crohn’s disease is a heterogeneous disorder with both a genetic and environmental aetiology.

            Rapid increase in Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) incidence in developed countries, ‘occurrence of CD in spouses’ and lack of complete concordance in monozygotic twins are strong arguments for the role of environmental factors in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20117338

          • Ripshed

            “occurrence of CD in spouses ”

            Does not invalidate a genetic role. Crohn’s has a very large prevalence in the Jewish population, for example. It would be quite believable for a couple who are both Jewish to have the disease.

            “lack of complete concordance in monozygotic twins”

            Neither does that.

          • Ripshed

            Here’s your problem: You want to have us believe that bowel disorders are completely the result of GMOs through statistical correlation. This is, of course, stupid. Correlation does not establish causality.

            The current research on Crohn’s suggests that these diseases require a certain genetic profile to occur. However, it is possible for someone who is genetically susceptible to not develop the disease.

            What you have not established is showing an example of someone who has Crohn’s but has no known genetic markers for it.

          • Aidan Benelle

            No I’m just stating facts

          • Ripshed

            You’re being mendacious now. You apparently forgot what thread you’re participating in.

            This thread started because of someone who claimed that GMOs cause diseases and that all of us pro-GMO people will die early deaths because of it. I replied that I eat a GMO-heavy diet and have no known health issues.

            After that, someone replied claiming there is an explosion in chronic illnesses as a result of GMOs. Then you chimed in to support him with your data. You never provided the causal link, you simply wanted people to make that association in their heads – it must be the GMOs.

            You lose.

            QED.

          • Aidan Benelle

            You are obviously ill informed on this topic

          • Ripshed

            Also, neither Samsel or Seneff are trained biological researchers. Seneff’s actual academic credentials are in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. If you haven’t noticed, Seneff is affiliated with the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

            Samsel is not an academic researcher in any area.

            Furthermore, their publication contains no experiments, they are simply, at best, commentary and suppositions.

          • Miles Stockdale

            And the similar increase in IBD in European countries where GMOs are almost unknown?

          • Aidan Benelle

            Glyphosate sales in Europe are increasing because industry is continually finding new uses. It is recommended throughout the crop cycle, including as a drying agent 7-10 days before harvest.

          • Miles Stockdale

            Oh sorry, I didn’t know we were talking about Seneff’s bad science. Never mind, I don’t bother with people who are dumb/delusional/misinformed enough to take her nonsense seriously. It is a complete waste of time.

          • Aidan Benelle

            One look at your ‘rabid’ pro biotech/ pro GMO posting past history says it all Miles…..

          • Miles Stockdale

            “Is Monsanto’s Roundup linked to a deadly kidney disease?”

            No. There is no evidence or data to support such a position. Both links are based on one piece that appeared in a journal which was marked “hypothesis” because there is no data to back it up. Could it be true? Sure, just as any of the other billions of hypotheses could be true. A cautionary view should be based on evidence and data, otherwise there is no basis for deciding which speculative hypotheses deserve caution other then that it conforms with your worldview.

    • bobito

      What attack? I think calling out someone for using “Nazi” rhetoric and promoting the murder of innocent people is more like a public service.

      BTW: Have you ever heard the term Cognitive Dissonance? If you think everyone who doesn’t have a problem with GMO is a “walking zombie” it must make it easier to hold your non-scientific position on GMOs.

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

      Corn is mutated teosinte. Store teosinte seed in a wet copper or copper alloy bowl, get little corns when you plant. Copper-catalyzed oxidative scission of DNA does the trick. Corn is a Genetically Modified Organism from Day One..

      http://farma.qfb.umich.mx/maizetxt.htm
      http://distantmirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/corn-evolution-truth-saves-com.jpg?

    • Cassie

      I’ve literally only eaten ONE non-GMO item in my life and I’m not ill.

    • Tyler Hurson

      GMOs do not cause illness.

  • Kevin Folta

    Sweet. I can only hope to be on the list. This is the best thing that can happen, so don’t crush it too soon. The bottom line is that the crazy anti-GM movement appeals more to the don’t-give-a-damn middle than the science does. THIS kind of intimidation is clearly desperation. When you have to pull out the swastika, you are waving a white flag that you have nothing else— no facts, no evidence, nothing.

    This is what is needed to turn the conversation. Take your screenshots now and put them in your talks, seminars and public interactions.

    • Greg Shumchenia

      #TargetForAdams

      • https://www.facebook.com/DaveOwenK David Owen

        Explain that comment.

    • durham kid

      Let’s talk about the issues of GMOs instead of whether or not Mike Adams is a nut. To associate the entire anti-GMO crowd with Adams in an attempt to discredit the entire movement is a dishonest political move that any ethical person should be ashamed of.

      Let’s talk about the science – and the right of people to know what is going into their bodies. It is not for you (or me) to judge what people decide is acceptable for anyone else to eat – that is a personal decision, which should never be taken away.

      • Miles Stockdale

        It is difficult to talk about the science when most of those who are anti-gmo have been convinced of so many lies that finding any meaningful starting point is difficult. Folta however does spend much of his free time educating those few who are willing to be. I personally don’t know how he does it. I spent several hours last night talking to my in-laws about agriculture/GMO related issues. I did not want to, but they brought it up, knowing that it is related to my graduate work. Very little science could be discussed as 1) even though they are well educated, they have no science background and 2) they have had their minds polluted by the steady stream of nonsense that has infiltrated TV, the internet, and their daily newspaper. When I attempt to explain to them why a particular article they read was based on crappy study, with an extreme ideological bent, and not inline with the overwhelming bulk of scientific research, it only makes them distrustful of science in general and not specific examples of ideologically driven bad science.

        Your claim of a right to know any and everything you might want to know about a product does not exist and never has. Therefore it can not be taken away as it is imaginary. You are within your rights to grow your own food, buy organic, buy food that is labeled Non-GMO. You are not within your rights to force everyone else to pay more for food to satisfy a philosophical fear based on bad science and pseudo-science

        • durham kid

          “You are within your rights to grow your own food, buy organic, buy food
          that is labeled Non-GMO. You are not within your rights to force
          everyone else to pay more for food to satisfy a philosophical fear based
          on bad science and pseudo-science”

          Labelling GMOs does NOT cause food to cost more – they’ve been doing it for years in Europe.

          You can call anti-GMO people stupid and scientifically illiterate all you want – but your arrogance way to telling them what you think is good for them flies directly in the face of people’s right to make their own decisions. Do you even understand that issue?

          Or are you so cock-sure of the safety of GMOs that you don’t give a damn about people’s freedom of choice?

          That does not sound like American values to me.

          • Miles Stockdale

            Food does cost more in Europe – significantly more. If you don’t think the labeling will cost more then you simply don’t understand the costs in the system that will be involved with mandatory labeling. The only way the change could occur without increased food costs is if all products simply slapped on a label saying “may contain GMOs” whether it does or not. Otherwise the costs will be steep and people here can enjoy the European experience of spending 12% of the income on food instead of 6%.

            People can make their own decisions. I understand that you are far too stupid to understand this but I will try this once again with you: You have the choice/decision to buy or not any product you wish based on the information provided to you. That does not mean that you have the right to know anything you want about any product you want. In the case of foods you can buy organic and foods labeled non-GMO. If enough people care about this issue then more companies will provide voluntary labeling. But the rest of us have no interest in paying more for their food to satisfy your pseudo-science desires.

          • duguesclin

            “Food does cost more in Europe – significantly more.”

            NO, it does NOT cost more in Europe. It depends on the state you’re within the States, and the European country your comparing prices with. In fact, just to put forward a bunch of examples, in Iberia, France and Italy food is way way cheaper, and way way tastier than in the States (generally speaking, of course). And the GM labelling (a tiny phrase somewhere in the packaging) doesn’t make a difference.

            As you can imagine I know what the heck I’m talking about…

          • Miles Stockdale

            Anyone who cares can easily look up the difference between food costs between European countries and the United States.

          • duguesclin

            Of course. And that’s why I’m right. Go and buy a kilogram of carrots in France, Italia or Iberia for under half a dollar. Then, try to repeat that in the States’ coasts, where most americans live.

      • FrenchKissed

        If you buy food that has an ingredient that could be genetically modified and the label doesn’t say that it’s GMO free then as far as anyone knows, it contains GM ingredients.

        Requiring everything else to say it may contain GMO is ridiculous. It’s like labeling everything that isn’t Kosher or Halal as non-Kosher or non-Halal. Or like labeling tea, Greek yogurt, hard cider, cheese, ham (or any other of the dozens I’ve seen) as being gluten free.

        • durham kid

          The real issue is that if things were labelled GMO, then people would not buy them. You can call them stupid all you want – but they have a right to decide what to put in their bodies.

          • Cairenn Day

            GMO is a process not an ingredient. Please tell us ONE product in the US that requires a label for a process.
            Mandatory labels are for something EVERYONE needs to know, like calories, carb content, and ingredients.

            Please tell me what NEEDED info is on a GMO label

          • FrenchKissed

            Yes, they have a right to decide what to put in their bodies, and if they don’t want to eat bio-engineered foods then they can buy food marked GMO free or organic.

            I decided I wasn’t going to eat meat when I was a kid, so I know about the importance of labeling in making choices. I know that my dietary limitations place me outside the norm, and I’ve learned to function with the system in place.

            I do appreciate it when food items have “vegetarian” written on the front of the label, but I don’t think foods containing meat should have to have “non-vegetarian” written clearly and conspicuously on the package.

            If a food item does not say “vegetarian” or “non-vegetarian” on the package, I can figure it out because I have taken the time to learn a few things. For example, if the ingredient list includes pork, beef, chicken or fish (for example) and it doesn’t say “mock” or “meatless” right in front of it, I know it’s meat and I avoid it. I also know to avoid foods with rennet or gelatin.

            In your case, you know that if the ingredient list includes vegetable or canola oil, corn, sugar (other than pure cane sugar) soy, papaya, zucchini or squash and it doesn’t say GMO free, then you can’t have it. Sure, some farmers still grow non-GM versions of those foods, but unless they sell it for the purpose of being non-GM ingredients, it all gets mixed together by the distributor and can’t be labeled specifically as GM free.

            I know there are plenty of organic foods and GMO free foods sold because some of my favorite brands have jumped on that bandwagon and I no longer buy them (except on the rare occasion when I give in to temptation). Labeling foods as GM would not accomplish what you wish to accomplish anyway. They will still be grown and used because they are safe, viable food sources for this over populated planet.

      • Jefe Mixtli

        You can’t argue science with someone who’s argument isn’t falsifiable.

        You might as well argue evolution with a evangelical! They can always fall back on the “God did it” argument… You can’t debate against that.

        Similarly, anti-GMO folk can deny any science with a “the study is tainted” argument. If ANY connection between the study and industry (or government groups that are ‘in on it’) can be made, the data is ignored.

        Of course, the same level of scrutiny is never applied against scientists affiliated with anti-GMO activism.

        • Don Rusho

          As much as they profess to dismiss all science as tainted by special interests, they LOVE tainted special interest “science” when it appeals to their biases – just look at that fraud, Seralini, and the way these people wave his paper around like it was printed on golden plates and they had the magic decoder crystal. Now that they have a “peer reviewed paper” to wield as a club, they won’t give it up until you pry it from their cold dead fingers.

        • durham kid

          I would love untainted studies – but I have serious doubts about the credibility of the studies b/c there is so much money at stake. The same goes for some other important issues – we saw it with tobacco and we are seeing it with climate change. How are you supposed to trust anyone? Everyone has some ax to grind….whether they like or hate GMOs.

          • Jesse Redden

            There is a simple way to know who to trust simply learn about the peer review process and learn how to evaluate the quality of a study. This would take time and can be boring and tedious unlike reading flashy graphics on the internet. I will start you off, Natural News is blatantly biased and is consistently voted the #1 anti-science site on the internet. Not a good source.

          • Rigel54

            Paranoia runs rampant. The fatal disease of today’s Western civilization. Your reasoning is compromised by paranoia.

          • Cairenn Day

            Then why do y’all use Seralini and Carmen? Their studies were PAID for anti GMO groups.

  • http://theprogessivecontrarian.wordpress.com/ Bernie Mooney

    18 U.S. Code § 875 – Interstate communications
    (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

  • mem_somerville

    This doesn’t happen in a vacuum, though. Let’s also note that some folks have led Mike and his readers to believe that GMOs will kill babies. Scientists who peddle that kind of misinformation have brought Mike to this point.

    • Spamihazit

      Can we use derisive quotes when talking about those “scientists”?

  • Greg Shumchenia

    I would happily get murdered if it meant people listened to common sense and decency. #TargetForAdams

  • Alexander J. Stein

    Given that there are close to 2000 papers (if not more) that support the safety of GMOs — http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 — it may take some time to enter all their names in the “Scientists” section of the overview of “Monsanto Collaborators”. (Even if some scientists will have contributed to more than just one paper, usually there is also more than just one author.)

    Perhaps the makers of the hit list can order those thousands of experts who found no problem with the safety of GMOs by country and then by postal code, or they risk that their list becomes a bit unwieldy… (Or they simply hack into Monsanto’s computer system — all those names and addresses of all those scientists from all around the world must be somewhere on the payroll from where they can be copied and pasted easily.)

    • durham kid

      How many of those 2000 papers were commissioned by Monsanto?

      How many papers are there questioning the safety of GMOs? And how many unbiased studies have been commissioned?

      There is an awful lot of money at stake here – just like in the fossil fuel and the tobacco industries. People fundamentally understand and are suspicious of that – as they should be.

      • facts

        It seems like you are the one who should be providing those facts. Please, tell us — how many are commissioned by Monsanto?

      • Alexander J. Stein

        Kid, indeed, as I said, they should all be on the payroll of Monsanto! But I hope the makers of the list don’t get discouraged facing the herculean task of listing them all… (And never mind the conflict of interest statements that are part of many of these papers, where most of the authors do not mention any industry links at all — obviously such people will not refrain from lying as all their results are fabricated already anyway.)

        But talking about all the money that’s at stake, that’s also true for the over $80 BILLION worth of the organic/natural food market — in the US alone! So I’m a bit puzzled now. Quite obviously Monsanto must pay all the scientists in the world who claim they find no fault with GMOs, but how can I trust those people who claim organics are somehow superior? Might not the organic guys be behind all that? Any insights on that?

        • Aidan Benelle

          Very interesting article about Monsanto tactics: Muzzled by Monsanto

          Is Big Ag squelching research showing its new RNAi GMOs may be dangerous?

          “I didn’t use to be an anti-GMO person and I didn’t use to have strong feelings about Monsanto, but …,” she says, her voice trailing off.

          “But that was before the Chinese research, before the calls from Monsanto, before she couldn’t get funding for work that she feels could change the way we treat cancer and other diseases. Her research put her at odds with one of the most powerful corporations in the world.”

          ~ Vicki Vance, a professor at the University of South Carolina

          http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-12640-muzzled-by-monsanto.html

        • durham kid

          Once organic became big business, one (sadly) had to be skeptical. If there is money involved, you have to wonder…

          That having been said, th organic market is a PITTANCE compared to the money that Monsanto has at stake.

          BTW: you mention $80 billion for the organic/natural food market. You do realize that ‘natural’ means almost nothing – so it begs the question of HOW MUCH of that $80 billion market is truly organic…?

      • Miles Stockdale

        The European Commission has funded well over 100 independent safety tests by more than 500 independent research groups. That you don’t know anything about that, or anything about GMOs in general, or other plant propagation methods, but yet have come to a conclusion that is at complete odds with all of the major scientific organizations says a lot about you.

        • Aidan Benelle

          Most importantly the EU recognises the consumers’ right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice.

          Since 1997 Community legislation has made labelling of GM food mandatory for:

          products that consist of GMO or contain GMO;
          products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO if there is still DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification present

          • Miles Stockdale

            EU labeling had zero to do with consumer’s right to information. It was and is pure protectionism for inefficient farming techniques and has resulted in food costing about twice as much the budget for families.

            The few areas where the EU was not far behind (cheese and beer which both are often made with GM microbes) were and are exempted from labeling. Why? I thought this was about a consumer’s right to information? Things like oils and sugars where there is no trace of GM present, but are derived from GM plants must be labeled. As there is no difference, regulations requires companies to keep traceability records for years, and the liability issues scare companies away from entering the 21st century. The regulatory process has no other purpose then to increase the cost of GM foods and deter those foods from coming in and competing with an inefficient agricultural sector. This will continue until Europeans have finally decided that they have had enough of paying twice as much for food that is no safer or better for them.

            Unlike in North America where people currently have the choice of buying food with voluntary labeling, and paying more to satisfy their pseudo-science preference, while the rest of us have the choice to not pay more for our food. In Europe they don’t have that choice. They are forced to pay more for food. I understand that people like you will stop at nothing to force the rest of us to pay more money for food. Hopefully we will not be stupid enough to fall for the fear-mongering and nonsense spread by liars, conspiracy theorists and crackpots.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Obviously incorrect

          • Don Rusho

            Don’t tell me, let me guess: you are really gullible.

            “I know that the EU passed these regulations because it respects my human rights, rather than as a cynical international trade maneuver, because they said so here on this piece of paper.”

          • durham kid

            Yeah, right, Don – and the billions at stake for Monsanto don’t have any affect on the outcome of the GMO debate – just like the tobacco debate. Wouldn’t that make you pretty gullible?

          • Rigel54

            What about the billions at stake for European agriculture. Has it not occurred to you that this is an industry battle of old tech against new tech?

          • Aidan Benelle

            Don’t tell me, let me guess: you are really gullible.

            Its you the gullible one for not realizing why we don’t have labeling in the U.S.

          • Rigel54

            The EU passed these regulations to handicap American competitors without taking responsibility for it. They hope to cripple American agriculture and gain market share. It’s not only Americans who can be gullible idiots.

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

            Here’s something funny for you: GMOs are labeled in the US. Go to images.google.com and enter, “GMO labels.” You will see many types of labels for GMOs.

          • durham kid

            If that were true (that GMOs were labelled), then why the big fights over the votes in Washington and California last year?

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

            Because knuckleheads who neither know, nor understand, what they’re talking about are bitching about a whole other batch of labels. These, unlike the ones are ready used, would be nothing more than propaganda to scare people.

            Because you’re doubting me, that means you didn’t do as I suggested. So, here: I’ll do the hard work for you. Just click the links: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonentine/files/2013/02/Soybean-Seed-Monsanto.jpg

            http://cdn.singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/pioneer-corn.jpg

          • Jesse Redden

            Probably the same reason why there are fights over the lord”s prayer being said in school, abortion rights, Obama being Nigerian, and all sorts of other stupid stuff.

          • Rigel54

            That is because, per “Durham Kid,” the consumer is an idiot.

      • Aidan Benelle

        Take a look at “Muzzled by Monsanto” link below

      • Jesse Redden

        Is it so hard to imagine that a study of genetically modified foods would be commissioned by a company that produces them? Like the other poster asked, please provide a credible source for who commissions the study of GMOs. There are no parallels between tobacco, big oil and GMO products except scientific consensus. The scientific consensus says GMO is safe.

      • Rigel54

        Any paper investigating the safety of GMOs is by definition questioning it. Pretty close to all of them have answered that they appear safe. You are a paranoid in search of the unachievable absolute unanimity, which even then you would not trust.

  • Spamihazit

    Where do these people come from? Spreading lies and craziness like this should be criminal. Arguing with an anti-GMO activist is like playing chess with a pigeon. Eventually they just knock over all the pieces and poo on the board.

  • Neil

    Haha! I think he’s started deleting comments. This morning a bunch of people asked to be put on his death list but now I can’t see those comments. What a clown.

  • J. Fischer

    Someone should ask him how Monsanto plans to make money off murdering their entire customer base. If everybody’s dead, who’ll buy their products?

    • durham kid

      Your argument has flaws: the tobacco industry has been doing “murdering their customer base” for decades – the business model does work – at least for awhile.

      While tobacco use is clearly a LOT more dangerous to health to GMOs, I still do not trust the safety of GMOs.

      • kurzweilfreak

        Are you retarded? People have been consuming tobacco for over 3000 years. It’s not like tobacco products just popped up in the 1950s and no one had ever seen it before. A few thousand years is a tough tradition to break, regardless of how bad for you it is. There’s no way cigarettes would ever be approved by any regulatory agency today had they not already existed for longer than western civilization. To compare the tobacco industry to GMO technology is hilarious.

        • durham kid

          Your point has nothing to do with mine – go re-read it.

  • Doug Ducat

    If this: “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” is true, then Mike Adams should be the one on the lookout for snipers.

  • JH

    When someone starts implying that it’s OK to harass, injure or kill people, it’s time to draw attention to them. I hope it draws the attention of Federal law enforcement authorities.

  • Turtleman

    Did the FBI pick him up yet, or is Mikey hiding in Ecquador?

  • camille_h

    Oh stop this nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable for people to begin to understand that we do urgently need to look into the origin & manipulation of the ingredients that go into our industrialized food supply. I’ve read dizzying statistics about what percentage does or doesn’t contain undisclosed GMO ingredients. From our deplorable factory farms to wasteful packaging, I can see many more consumers, people formerly known as your fellow Americans or citizens & not just mere passive “consumers”- I can see more & more people questioning our food supply & sketchy preservatives in the actual marketplace. That’s a good thing. Don’t use this odd news story to try to smear everyday people who are asking questions about to what extent we are or are not lab rats. And pity the poor real lab rats as well. Not to defend one person who appears to be presenting a more extreme viewpoint.

    PS It is clear from the comment section & pro-GMO cheerleading that Discover is now simply astroturf.

    • Tyler Hurson

      Where did he compare Adams to casual anti-GMOers? In fact, in paragraph 9, Kloor goes out of his way to differentiate between Adams and other anti-GMOers, even calling Adams and his type a “shrill minority” among the GMO lunacy.

      • camille_h

        Hi Tyler- You are right (although I strongly object to your characterizing the concerns my fellow Americans have about the ongoing accelerated laboratory experiments we have now formerly known as “food” as “GMO lunacy.”

        That said, there’s a very visible & disturbing trend at Discover & at other publications that are starting to operate more like PR firms for certain industries. At National Geographic, it’s all suddenly pro-fracking. Which is bizarre, considering the incredible damage to the water table that is being done by pumping metric tons of poison into our water table.

        This “article” is more like a petty blog fight than an actual article is my point. It is nearly as unprofessional as the thing it critiques. I’m not keen on anyone making terroristic threats. I do understand intellectually the frustration people have who are fearful of the incredible hubris we have as a species that we can just manipulate resources on this planet

        • Miles Stockdale

          If you are worried about the manipulating of resources of this planet by humans you should stay as far away from computers and the internet as possible.

          • camille_h

            Thank you for your incredible insight. Really.

          • Miles Stockdale

            A person who views Discover’s attempt to explain basic science as industry astroturf is not capable of gaining insight anyways. You are guided by fear and misinformation, and you label technologies you personally dislike based on gut feeling as manipulation of the resources on this planet, while the technologies you do like are fine.

        • Mariel Thomson

          Here’s How Conde Nast and Mo Rocca Are Making Propaganda for Monsanto This is at gawker.com

    • FosterBoondoggle

      Translation: “They are telling me things I don’t want to hear and refuse to believe, so they must be getting paid off to do it.”

  • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

    Wait, so this website you discuss is an example of Poe’s Law for GMOs instead of creationism? Life is getting weird.

  • http://agonisticliberal.com/ Shane Taylor

    Mike Adams, in short: Monsanto collaborators are Nazis carrying out a new holocaust. Assassinating Nazis is your moral duty. But if a vigilante actually kills one of the collaborators, I should not be prosecuted for any violation of the law. Anyone who claims otherwise is part of a false flag operation. You see, the Nazis *want you to think* that anti-GMO activists are out to kill them. Because holocaust.

  • durham kid

    Mike Adams does appear to be an extremist but that does not affect my concern about GMOs. It is just as illogical to decide that climate change is not real b/c you think Al Gore is not credible or crazy or whatever.

    The big question for me is: when 80 to 90% of the public wants GMO labelling (so they can decide for themselves what they are going to eat), which 60 or so other countries do, and yet we cannot pass GMO labelling laws in this country (due to massive amounts of corporate lobbying), something is badly amiss – and democracy is in serous trouble.

    • Neil

      It’s all about the credibility. People like you believe the clowns at natural news while ignoring credible experts such as the National Academy of Sciences and the WHO. THAT is when democracy it’s in serious trouble.

      • durham kid

        Actually, Neil, we are in trouble when anonymous people on the internet make gross generalizations about “people like you” with hardly any knowledge of where the person is coming from.

        I could assume you are a Monsanto lobbyist (are you?) or an ill-informed person (maybe you are?) or perhaps someone who has done a bunch of research on the subject and has found different info than I. I do wonder but I give you the benefit of the doubt.

        Meanwhile, you still did not address my most important point: when 80 to 90% of the public wants GMO
        labelling …..and yet we cannot pass GMO
        labelling laws in this country,…. something is badly amiss – and democracy is in serous
        trouble.

        • bobito

          I was against GMO when I first heard about it many years ago. I thought things like the plants were irradiated and that the genetic alterations were playing god and that it was a bad idea. Then I did some research and found that my opinion was based on bad information/assumptions I had picked up along the way.

          So, when I was uninformed about GMOs, I would have certainly said “Yes, I want it labeled”. But now that I am informed I would say, “No, I don’t want it labeled”.

          I have no problem believing that 80-90% of people in the USA are uninformed on the GMO subject.

          So, should we intact something to pacify the uninformed? Or make decisions based on facts and logic?

          • durham kid

            Bob: it is an extremely complex subject. Of course, it is a lot easier to prove that GMOs are unsafe than that they are safe – b/c we can always look further and may find an example of where they are unsafe. The idea is to determine if they are GENERALLY safe, which is a conclusion that society must make as a whole.

            I am not sure where you got your information – and I am not asking you to justify it, since it was over a long period of time. I do know that knowing the source of the info is critical – so one can have a skeptical eye about it.

            I have an friend who does not get involved in political discussions. He has a Phd in Environmental Engineering and has had some minor health issues lately, related to his gut. In a discussion with him, he mentioned that my generally cautious approach to eat less processed, less meat, organic (and thus non-GMO) was a good one – bc/ some of the things in GMO food they pass through the digestive tract more easily and now our bodies are being exposed to stuff that our bodies are not accustomed to.

            My point is that this is one example of an issue with GMOs. Have we missed a lot more?

            What about the super-weeds that are growing resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops? You won’t read about that from Monsanto – but who has the money to study it?

            But…back to your other point: you say that you “have no problem believing that 80-90% of people in the USA are uninformed on the GMO subject.”

            Who are you (or I) to make that decision for others? When more information comes out, who are you or I to say the people were “uninformed”? And, as frustrating as it may be, people may follow a wise path for the wrong reasons; thus, some may oppose GMOs for what you or I call illogical reasons but they may be right about GMOs being unsafe for a yet unknown reason.

            PS. thanks for your respectful post – that is the most important part of any discussion.

          • bobito

            “Of course, it is a lot easier to prove that GMOs are unsafe than that they are safe”

            Why would you say that? Humans have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years? We just have now found ways of generating mutations more easily/quickly.

            “The idea is to determine if they are GENERALLY safe, which is a conclusion that society must make as a whole”

            Over 90% of Americans believe in God: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx. Should we pass laws based on this?

            “I am not sure where you got your information”

            I found it on every main stream news and science outlet. Where are you finding the information that GMOs are not safe?

            “What about the super-weeds”

            My understanding is that the only people that should be concerned about so called “super-weeds” are Monsanto. Because the only thing super about them is that they resist Monsanto’s cash cow RoundUp. If RoundUp stops killing weeds, then people won’t buy RoundUp. Other than that, nothing to see here. But the “super-weed” jargon certainly makes it SOUND like an issue…

            “Who are you (or I) to make that decision for others?”

            Decisions should be made using logic and reason. I see little of either from the anti-gmo crowd. But they seem to be VERY good at marketing! I see the 80-90% of people want labeling number a lot. Why is it that when it comes up to vote it’s been voted down each time? Because, when it comes up to vote, the pro-GMO crowd gets it’s chance to market it’s opinion (and the scientific facts that back up said opinion). So far, logic and reason is undefeated on votes in this country about labeling. So, when people are informed, it seems that less that 50% of people want labeling…

          • durham kid

            “Humans have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years? We
            just have now found ways of generating mutations more easily/quickly.”

            That is precisely the issue: for one thing the modifying was done by seed selection and other simple options that did not involve the mixing of various genes together that could never get there in nature. The fact that the process took thousands of years was a large PART of why it was safe (in addition to the fact above about gene mixing).

            “Over 90% of Americans believe in God: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147…. Should we pass laws based on this?”

            We do pass laws respecting the right of freedom of religion – so, in fact we have passed laws based on this.

            “If RoundUp stops killing weeds, then people won’t buy RoundUp. Other than that, nothing to see here.”

            There are questions about the safety of RoundUP, And what about those of us who don’t want super weeds in our gardens and don’t want to use things we believe are poisonous, like Roundup?

            RE: the campaigns to label GMOs – if you followed them, you might know that the success in marketing was by the GMO crowd – they claimed that there would be a huge cost to labeling, which was a ridiculous lie. The fight over GMO labeling can be summed up, IMHO, as a fight of big corporations having a lot more resources than the other side – they outspent the anti-GMOP crowd by something like 40:1 – you call that a fair fight with an informed public? – please!!)

            WE have very different perspectives – I hope you have thought a bit about my concerns and points.

            I have to leave for the weekend – enjoy.

          • bobito

            “did not involve the mixing of various genes together that could never get there in nature”

            This is incorrect, the correct way to phrase it is “it would be highly unlikely to get there in nature”. Genes are on/off switches, technically any mutation is possible. When you are looking for a specific mutation is where GMO plays it’s role because gives you more chances of finding it.

            “There are questions about the safety of RoundUP, And what about those of us who don’t want super weeds in our gardens and don’t want to use things we believe are poisonous, like Roundup?”

            A bit of moving the goal post on me here. Certainly the safety of any herbicide should be scrutinized. The questions about it’s safety is coming from the fringes not the main stream. And, btw, if you don’t want to use RoundUP, it wouldn’t matter if a superweed landed in your garden because, again, the only thing super about it is RoundUP won’t kill it. So, whatever other method you choose to rid yourself of the superweed would be exactly the same. The only option you’ve lost is using RoundUP to kill it.

            Yes, on the voting issues the corporations have spent lots of money to disprove opinions that are not based in scientific fact. Can you blame them for that?

            I consider all information put before me, but I’m certainly not going to give your opinions more weight than that of the scientific community.

          • Miles Stockdale

            “That is precisely the issue: for one thing the modifying was done by seed selection and other simple options that did not involve the mixing of various genes together that could never get there in nature. The fact that the process took thousands of years was a large PART of why it was safe (in addition to the fact above about gene mixing).”

            Your view of plant breeding is at complete odds with the last 100 years, and even in the couple thousands years before that. I recommend people educate themselves by reading the book on the history of plant breeding “Hybrid” by Kingsbury, but they never do.

            If you don’t want to use things like round-up in your garden, then don’t (It is of course not poison, but you are free to believe whatever nonsense you want, although public policy should not be driven by nonsense beliefs). If you don’t use something like round-up then it would be completely irrelevant whether the weeds are round-up resistant or not. When I read that paragraph I can’t help but feel that you don’t know much about these issues. And eliminating GMOs, would not eliminate “superweeds” (other then it being a completely nonsensical term made up by people pushing an ideological agenda), or herbicide resistant crops, as the clearfield varieties of many crops demonstrate. And seriously, more then a decade before GMO herbicide resistant crops were commercialized there were several varieties of round-up resistant crops created through somaclonal mutation breeding.

          • Miles Stockdale

            “He mentioned that my generally cautious approach to eat less processed, less meat, organic (and thus non-GMO) was a good one – bc/ some of the things in GMO food they pass through the digestive tract more easily and now our bodies are being exposed to stuff that our bodies are not accustomed to.”

            So your PhD friend simply makes up completely absurd things when it comes to things outside of his field. Not really surprising.

          • durham kid

            No, Miles, you don’t know him at all. He’s one of the smartest people I know (and I know quite a few) and his degree is in environmental engineering. He understands things very quickly and does not need to talk about things he does not understand or know.

            You, on the other hand, can’t seem to NOT condescending. Sadly, there is a lot of that on the internet – it really takes away from having an open robust discussion when so many just want to be ruce and score points.

          • Miles Stockdale

            If he believes what you claim he does then he is a complete loon, who is so far removed from scientific understanding on this topic that it is not a case that he knows nothing, but that he knows less then nothing, as what he “knows” is flat out wrong.

          • durham kid

            What amazes me about people who want to convince others of their point is that, when on-line, they are incredibly rude and condescending – something they would never do in person. Do you really think that makes your point?

            What are your credentials, Miles? Are you a scientist? Does your livelihood depend on GMOs succeeding? Do you work for the marketing dept of Monsantos? Are you someone who just reads a lot of journals?

            Whatever your POV, your delivery style really takes away from any point you might make. If you were confident of those points, you wouldn’t need to be so condescending…

          • Miles Stockdale

            I long ago realized that there was no sense trying to change the minds of conspiracy theorists, creationists, anti-vaxers, climate deniers, anti-GMO activists, holocaust deniers etc. Tons of evidence shows that people who hold those views are almost always impervious to reality.

            As to what my credentials are, they are none of your business. I don’t make arguments from authority using myself and therefore my credentials are irrelevant. I will say that I have no connection to any biotechnology company.

            My interest in this topic is simple. 1) I once held anti-gmo views because I was duped by the lies that have been spread by anti-gmo activists. 2) I am beyond tired of the decent people who are trying to feed the world being crapped on, and lied about, by no-nothing idiots. You may think that I am rude and condescending to you. Well that is nothing compared to the way you, and others like you, treat decent hardworking farmers, plant scientists, and others in the field. You spread malicious lies about them, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Insightful post-

            Many people with cautionary views towards GM’s, are concerned about the initial superficial 3 month rat studies provided by industry for approval of this technology.The area of concern that your friend has pointed out ie: increased GI tract problems (which are statistically going of the charts, especially in children) where are the responsible parties funding efforts to get to the root causes of these concerns? Without labeling the basis for cause on effect can not be established.

        • Neil

          Nope. 20+ years experience in the field of recombinant DNA. So I smell better than you.

          But you ask a fair question and I do apologize, I was busy multitasking this morning and did not address it.From my perspective what you are asking is:

          After 17 years of an activist orchestrated fear campaign – that had no scientific basis when it started and STILL has no scientific basis now – 80 to 90% of the public wants GMO labeling and they don’t have it. Does this prove democracy doesn’t work?

          Answer: no. It proves that people are still susceptible to fear campaigns.

          And “we are in trouble when anonymous people on the internet make gross generalizations about “people like you” with hardly any knowledge of where the person is coming from”.

          Oh puhlease.

          We are in trouble when legitimate, multi-year scientific experiments into the safety of rDNA crops are destroyed by vandals.

          We are in trouble when laboratories that are associated with GM technologies are burnt to the ground.

          We are in trouble when high profile activists call for the killing of “Monsanto collaborators”.

          • Miles Stockdale

            The bottom line is if you polled people about whether “x” should be labeled, a very large percentage will say yes, no matter what “x” is. In polls which ask people what should be added to labels, GMOs are far down the list. In polls in which you ask people if GMOs should be labeling but the labeling will come with a financial cost, the percentage of support labeling falls below 50% even if the financial cost is small.

            The claims of a massive % wanting labeling has fallen apart in two state votes.

        • Farmer Guy

          You may be a physicist but you obviously don’t know anything about plant breeding or how push polls work.
          Can you explain how the 2 most liberal states in the country cant pass legislation when, as you claim, 80-90% of people want labeling?

          • durham kid

            The pro-GMO crowd had – what was it? – about 40 times as much money to spend – and they only won by under 5 percentage points, if I remember correct. A lot of money can sway an election – but, it would be better spent educating people if you are so sure GMOs are safe.

          • Farmer Guy

            The evidence you ask of is all over the internet. Try the WHO, NAS, EFSA, etc etc etc

      • durham kid

        Your assumptions make a fool out of you – I am a physicist who probably has a more rigorous sniff test than you do.

        • ssadram

          This thread is an example of the conflation I complained about in the tl:dr I just posted. A request for GMO labeling is perfectly reasonable. All kinds of things that someone or other has raised health scares about are currently identified on food labels. People still buy them. The only argument for NOT labeling is to assume that consumers as a whole are so irrational they’ll do themselves harm by avoiding anything labeled as containing GMOs. First, any visit to the grocery department at Wal-Mart will evidence how few people care about any aspect of food labeling. Second, GMO scares ≠ anti-vax scares. If someone passes up a GMO-containing food product for an conventional alternative, they’re not going to get sick or spread a deadly epidemic. Third, in cases where food labeling does result in a shift in consumer habits — identification of trans fats, for example — the market responds and offers mass produced products that meet the demand at more-or-less reasonable prices: which acts to undermine the appeal of the scam artists pushing massively-overpriced ‘solutions, to the same problem.

          When you start to think “If Mike Adams is for it, it must be BS, so I’m against it” or “If Mike Adams is against it, it must be good, so I’m for it,” then Mike Adams has won, because you’ve bought into the whole Manichean melodrama that fuels his hussle.

          • Miles Stockdale

            ” The only argument for NOT labeling is to assume that consumers as a whole are so irrational they’ll do themselves harm by avoiding anything labeled as containing GMOs.”

            That is not the only argument for not labeling. There are whole books on this topic, such as “Labeling Genetically Modified Food” by a wide range of experts put out by Oxford University Press where they discuss the negative consequences of a food labeling policy that is not longer based on science or evidence.

  • willows921

    “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.”
    Where is the article that this quote came from?

  • willows921

    It appears this quote is not from Mike Adams mouth…these are words from the German Government.
    How to take words out of context!!!

    • ssadram

      Yes, those words are from Adams pen. It’s not a quote. Read the paragraph, starting from the subhead. The current president of Germany took part in a ceremony honoring the German officers who attempted to assassinate Hitler. It is ADAMS assertion that in doing so, “the German Government” has signaled to the world “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.” That’s HIS interpretation of the meaning of the ceremony. NO ONE in the German Government said that. The words are NOT a “paraphrase” of anything any German official said. Adams is not just a liar, he’s a pathetically BAD liar.

  • ssadram

    IMHO the disturbing thing about Adams and his ilk is the way they’ve succeeded in defining the terms of debate about Monsanto and dominating what should be a wider discussion.”GMOs=poison; Buy Our Organic Supplements, Stay Healthy!” So, we basically have a paranoid Conspiracy Theory being exploited for profit. So the paranoids fire off their moon-loonie salvos, and the rationalists respond with rationality, basically just to bond with other rationalists in a game of point-and-laugh-at-the-wacko because they know the wackos aren’t actually listening.

    But something is being hidden in this game. A comment below reads “Arguing with an anti-GMO activist is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    Eventually they just knock over all the pieces and poo on the board.” Well, I happen to know a perfectly rational anti-Monsanto activist. With a science degree —exactly in what I can’t remember —some kind of botany/environmental science thing. Been awhile since we’ve talked, but IIRC, his issue isn’t with the effects of GMOs on the health of people who consume them, but the effect the methods used to produce GMOs have on the environment and on the largely poor farmers displaced by Monsanto’s practices. This is hardly paranoia, as there are more instances of corporations polluting the environment and exploiting the poor on the production end than any of us have time to count.

    So there should be something for rational people to debate here, except the few voices saying “maybe you should be concerned about what Monsanto is doing to the land and people of Hawaii in order to put cheap food on your table” are drowned out by the chorus of “Monsanto is POISONING YOU!” because, well it is all is about ME, isn’t it, and who gives a flying fig about some islanders with ridiculous redundant multisyllabic names who think a ukelele is a legimate musical instrument? But worse, the paranoia would seem to be leaking into the legitimate issue. Go look at http://monsantocollaborators.org/ The complaint is not about the health effects of GMOs. It’s about Indian farmers who have committed suicide after being ruined financially from crop failures attributed to genetically modified seed pushed by Monsanto.

    Now, I have no idea how much truth there is to this. And I have no idea whether monsantocollaborators.org/ is being sincere. The site could have been put up by some shill for Adams, with a different line of attack just as a strategy so Adams could claim distance from it. But I can see that two entirely different issues are being conflated here, and that’s not cool.

    So the massive steaming piles of “Monsanto is poisoning you!” stupid seem to be generating an unwarranted pro-Monsanto backlash marred by it’s own smaller dollops of dumb reflecting its antagonist. E.g. stupid pro-Monsanto comment below: “Someone should ask him how Monsanto plans to make money off murdering their entire customer base.” Dude! Ever heard of R. J. Reynolds? I have no doubt that any giant corporation would sell crack-laced anthrax bon-bons if they could turn a big enough gain in the next quarter’s bottom line by doing so. The point is they don’t have to go that far to rake in obscene profits. They do just fine with your standard everyday run-of-the-mill corporate malfeasance, reaming poor folks in the Third World and what have you. Just because Monsanto is not poisoning us does not mean they’re nice people.

    Maybe the India thing is overblown, but I’m guessing there’s at least a genetically-unmodified grain of truth there. Still, even if it’s true that “Every 30 minutes, a farmer commits suicide due to GMO crop failures” (and since Huffpo is cited as a source, I have my doubts) the Swastika symbology is more than a little hyperbolic, as is the claim “The responsibility for these deaths falls upon those individuals and organizations
    shown on this site.” Some of them may not be totally absent of responsibility in a broad sense — ‘sins’ of omission, maybe. IMHO, John Stossel is a despicable troll (and I refer not to anything he’s said about Monsanto or GMOs, of which I have no knowledge, but just his schtick in general) but labeling him a “collaborator” under a photomontage of Death Camp images is so far beyond the pale it makes my head spin.

    Some of the names on the list are what lead me to wonder if monsantocollaborators.org/ is sincere in its concern over Monsanto’s role in problems in India’s agricultural economy, or is just using that as a ruse to villify folks who have only taken issue with Mike Adams for bilking a gullible public with his GMOs-are-poison schtick. E.g. Dave Gorski, who’s exposed Adams as a quack, but AFAIK has never defended Monsanto’s agricultural production practices, nor would I think he’d be likely to if they fell onto his turf, which they don’t, since he’s a surgical oncologist who first and foremost gets upset when the quacks seduce cancer patients into “health alternatives” that hasten their deaths. As Gorski also gets upset when kids die from measles infections they never should have been exposed to, he also takes on the anti-vax nut jobs, who frequently respond by comparing him to Joseph Mengele. I’ve got friends walking the Earth today who would have died long ago if not for the work of gifted surgical oncologists. So the Mengelian accusation is about as crazy as crazy gets, but here it bleeding over into complaints about Monsanto manipulating the Indian seed market? Huh?

    Maybe the most telling thing about monsantocollaborators.org is that the little ID tags listing the sins of the ‘collaborators’ don’t match the complaint articulated on the right side of the page. Gorski is the “Key perpetrator of the poisoning of hundreds of millions of children with GMOS
    and vaccines.” Don Hazen is guilty of “attacking GMO labeling advocates, bashing nutritional
    supplements and promoting the vaccine propaganda of Dr. Paul Offit.” Nothing about the economic ruin of Indian farmers here. Could this be the true colors of monsantocollaborators.org peeping through? Sucker the ‘rubes’ in with a legit social justice issue, and then sneak in the anti-vax propaganda under the radar?

    Well, to try to wind up, my intent in this ramble is to frame an appeal to the rationalists to unwind the conflations infecting the public discussion — to separate out questions about the health effects of consuming GMOs from questions about the corporate practices by which food is produced, and to separate out the folks who have legitimate concerns about the later — which they express in perfectly rational ways focused on corporate managers who might actually be responsible — from supplement-pushing scam artists and anti-vax hysterics. There might be a baby in that bathwater…

    • Miles Stockdale

      So your rational scientist friends is opposed to GMOs because of the harm to the environment that the GMO method has, and because of farmer suicides in India. I can see no basis for the first. It only seems rational because 99.99% of the people have no understanding of the other plant propagation methods that are used. The second is simply false, as studies have shown. It was made up and propagated by opponents of biotechnology like Prince Charles and Vandana Shiva.

      http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/26/the-myth-of-indias-gm-genocide-genetically-modified-cotton-blamed-for-wave-of-farmer-suicides/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/03/gm-crops-indian-farmers-and-suicide

      http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmo-and-indian-farmer-suicide/

      The last link is to Steven Novella, who along with Gorski founded the Science-Based Medicine website. Novella also has written about Monsanto, and through my own investigations of Monsanto over several years I have basically come to same conclusion as Novella, Monsanto is no worse in terms of their actions than other companies the same size.

      http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gmo-controversy/

      • ssadram

        Miles:
        My acquaintance Paul said nothing about suicide or India, nor did I say he did. He is a for realz scientist, knows more about plant propagation than you do, and confines his discussion to questions he has researched, in person, on the ground in Hawaii, and documented with video footage.

        “Monsanto is no worse in terms of their actions than other companies the same size”? Well, that’s damning with faint praise. I wrote “there are more instances of corporations polluting the environment and
        exploiting the poor on the production end than any of us have time to
        count.” and said Monsanto doesn’t need to poison people as they “do just fine with your standard everyday run-of-the-mill corporate malfeasance.”

        You have missed the forest of my post for the trees. The rational science-based skeptic is obligated to unravel the conflated threads of Monsanto critique and evaluate them individually. Adams and Shiva are saying different things. They may both be total BS, but those are separate cases. Shiva and Paul are talking about completely different areas of the globe using completely different data sets. Paul tells no extreme stories of suicide. The economic/cultural harm done to the Hawaiians is not the stuff of Nazi analogies by any means, but you wouldn’t want to have it happen to you, and like I said, he’s got it on video…

        Really, for anyone claiming the mantle of reason, that sentence: “Monsanto is no worse in terms of their actions than other companies the same size.” is just such an epic fail I’m SMH. I could be here all day listing analogies demonstrating the absurdity of that non-logic. but actually I Gotta Go…

        • Miles Stockdale

          If your friend “Paul” is a real scientist with real evidence then he should publish it and win the nobel prize. I won’t be holding my breath. You can say all you want, but you friend Paul, is at complete odds with the community of scientific experts.

          As for Paul not mentioning Indian scientists there is really no way of telling when you are talking about him, and when you are not. So Paul doesn’t tell extreme stories of suicides in India, but in the next paragraph you make it THE reason for complaint. So extreme stories that completely false is your way. OK.

          And yes, there is no real evidence that Monsanto is worse than similar corporations their size. I have spent years looking up the claims about them. Most of them have little basis in reality. I am ethical enough to oppose lies being spread about any group, including a large corporation.

          • ssadram

            “So Paul doesn’t tell extreme stories of suicides in India, but in the next paragraph you make it THE reason for complaint.” No I didn’t. Massive reading comprehension fail. _I_ made no complaint at all. I suggested that some complaints against Monsanto may be legitimate. I specifically expressed strong doubts that the suicide claim among those. Your use of straw man accusations belies your claim to rationalism. Your claim to defend Monsanto on the basis of ethics, yet condemn Paul without any any knowledge of him of his work. I am not impressed by your ‘ethics.’

            I don’t know enough about any of this to speak for Paul, nor do I know him well enough to recruit him into the conversation. I apologize for that.

            However, I know plenty about corporate malfeasance in general, and by simply re-stating “Monsanto is worse than similar corporations their size” you have essentially forfeited any claim to rationality.

            The point of my original post is that YOU are enabling Mike Adams by mirroring his Manichean position. I stand by that.

  • Loren Eaton

    I posted yesterday in response to his response… that it took chutzpah for HIM to attribute a quote by Goebbels to anyone. This morning the post was gone. Oh well.
    I don’t know the man, but I think we all know the type. Wanted to hang out with the ‘in’ crowd as a kid. Now he’s going to make sure everyone knows how big his empire is. Is, was, and will always be a wannabe, certainly in science.

  • First Officer

    This comment of mine was removed from the Natural News website under the

    http://www.naturalnews.com/046147_Monsanto_Collaborators_false_flag_operation_GMO_skeptics.html

    article, in reply to thwap:

    thwap 2 days ago

    True, but it could also be someone who wants to demonise Mike (and others with the same voice) in order to discredit in a dirty move of PR (we already know how dirty Monsanto are), which in this current world of hyper-globalisation and Internet-exploded media saturation, is unfortunately all it takes to win over the masses sheeple who are too busy enjoying their modern bread and circuses to check for themselves what’s really happening with this situation.

    So I think it’s good Mike makes it clear, that he has always promoted non-violence which I think is pretty obvious if you’re running a site like this as your main enterprise in life, and especially one of this nature. (yeah, nature.)

    7

    Reply

    first_officer

    First Officer 2 days ago Removed

    Mike Adams has put the child in the road. Whether the person running it down agrees with Mike Adams that the child should die or he’s running the child down to make Mike Adams look worse than he is, neither exonerates Mike from creating the circumstances whereby that child was put in mortal danger and the subsequent consequences of that action.

    I wonder why?

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

    In response to having my name on this deplorable “Monsanto Collaborators” website, I have posted the following: http://www.isitorganic.ca/biotech_collaborator

  • Leslye Gower

    Yep, “bandwidth exceeded” is the excuse for the empty page.

  • http://www.highdesertpermaculture.org Christine Baker

    While I don’t agree with everything Mike Adams writes (especially when it comes to immigration), he is right on the money when it comes to GMOs.

    I have no idea why any informed person with average intelligence would NOT do everything they can to immediately stop ALL GMO planting worldwide. But then again, most people believed the tobacco companies when they claimed that their scientists proved that smoking was harmless. I suppose a lot of people just are not very smart.

    Unfortunately, that millions got sick and or died from smoking cigarettes is rather insignificant compared to the IRREVERSIBLE damage done by GMOs.

    • Clifford Ageloff

      I suppose you are not very informed or even just average smart believing that GMOs are causing irreversible damage without ever seeing any peer-reviewed proof of it whatsoever. How do I know you haven’t seen any studies that prove GMOs are dangerous? Because there are none! You are free to choose organic and Non-GMOs if you prefer the poisons that come with it. Just don’t think the rest of us are a gullible as you are in mistaking scare-mongering for science. Please, what just are the damages caused by GMO’s?

      • http://www.highdesertpermaculture.org Christine Baker

        Let’s start with 300,000 dead Indian farmers, millions of people with chronic diseases and pain and farm animals dying after they eat GMO leftover cotton, etc.

        The reason there are no studies?

        Monsanto FORBIDS using its seeds for studies. It’s THAT simple.

        Here are a couple links that should explain in more detail:

        http://highdesertpermaculture.org/blog/2014/06/06/german-farmer-ruined-by-gm-corn-fights-syngenta-and-corrupt-politicians/

        And if you read about Tyrone Hayes, you’ll surely understand:

        http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2014-02-25/its-been-crazy-berkeley-biologist-feels-vindicated-reaction

        Hayes didn’t study GMOs, but Syngenta (Monsanto owned) chemical atrazine. Notably, where it’s sprayed birth defects in HUMANS are high.

        Monsato et al already caused far more damage than Hitler and killing the SOBs in charge of today’s holocaust is unlikely to end this disaster. Nobody knows what would happen if all GMO crops and seeds were immediately destroyed.

        Grandpa Prescott Bush and Union Bank financed Hitler and now we see the world’s most powerful corporations finance the destruction of the planet — with YOUR support. Because you’re as ignorant as any German in 1936 and you believe just about anything the corporate owned media tells you.

        • Clifford Ageloff

          You’re misinformed at best. You have not posited one fact but sources with obvious confirmation bias. They don’t explain anything other than you have no sources of fact but you somehow crafted an opinion based on their propaganda. There is no holocaust today, you are just delusional as Shiva is about GMOs causing suicides in India. I don’t believe the corporate media but I’m certain not to take my lessons from your disreputable sources. Farm animals being fed cotton is quite a stretch since it is not feedstock its for clothing. Atrazine has nothing to do with GMOs and neither does Hitler or Bush. There are plenty of studies using seeds from all sources, including Monsanto. You believe every BS myth that suits your politics now why is that?

          • http://www.highdesertpermaculture.org Christine Baker

            How is the FACTUAL report about scientist Haynes based on bias? How is the lawsuit against the German farmer based of bias? Those are FACTS.

            It is a FACT that GMO seeds come with a contract that PROHIBITS scientific studies!

            It is YOU who failed to post a single link. Wonder why. Monsanto’s OWN studies are for 90 days. Humans have been eating their poisons for over 15 years now.

            I cannot understand why ANYONE with half a brain would want to jeopardize our food supply so that some ruthless corporations can make a buck. Especially since we all know what happened with Agent Orange and DDT. Well, I suppose you have a motive.

            Cows won’t eat GMOs when given a choice. Why aren’t you that smart?

            Here is one last link with FACTS:
            http://responsibletechnology.org/health-risks

            I highly recommend watching Genetic Roulette. While we’re lacking many SCIENTIFIC studies, it sure is interesting to see how so many sick people get well once they stop eating GMOs.

            Clifford, you just keep eating lots of corn and soy and eventually you’ll get it.

          • Clifford Ageloff

            Oh, I got it. Genetic Roulette is yet more garbage by the very same people who stand to benefit from it’s dissemination. Jeffrey Smith is a complete scam artist, has no scientific training and he himself has huge issues with the truth. The very fact you point me to Genetic Roulette only proves you readily believe extreme bullshit. Cows have NO idea that GMOs are in grains and readily eat BOTH. Responsible Technology is also more biased unscientific crapola but you just suck it up. My only motive is to out low-information people like yourself who are willing to believe shamsters like Jeffrey Smith. And that German farmer? His cows died from disease that had nothing to do with GMOs.

          • http://www.highdesertpermaculture.org Christine Baker

            Your “complete take-down” fails to link to the studies in favor of GMO. I am aware that Monsanto’s studies claim that there was no difference, but to my knowledge those studies lasted only 90 days.

            Real life: My neighbor fed his chickens regular chicken feed, of course with the GM crap. They started making their own chicken feed without an GM food and they laid way more eggs.

            My mother’s cousin had cancer and tumors the size of golf balls on her neck. She quit her job and changed her diet to vegetarian and mostly organic. Her doctor couldn’t believe it when the tumors were GONE a few months later.

            Just the facts …

          • Clifford Ageloff

            Cute little stories are not facts. You are just confused.

          • http://www.highdesertpermaculture.org Christine Baker

            I get it. To you a human life has no value — it makes no difference whether someone lives or dies.

            Just like Monsanto.

          • Clifford Ageloff

            Don’t put words in my mouth, but your friends chickens and your surviving fat-necked tumoriffic kin have nothing to do with GMOs. ZERO. They are just STORIES. But it’s no story that MIke Adams raised the rhetoric beyond argumentum ad monsantum when he started using language that could incite violence against those with another viewpoint. SO don’t you be accusing anyone of being ‘just like Monsanto’ simply because of some goofy chicken story and tumor tale that had nothing to do with GMOs – you should be more worried about narcissistic and dangerous jerks like Mike Adams putting peoples lives at risk through violence. You are a PARODY of the anti-GMO low-information crowd that simply parrots what they hear and have really no idea what they are talking about.

          • Clifford Ageloff

            BUT MONSANTO! OY!

          • http://www.highdesertpermaculture.org Christine Baker

            Adams didn’t put anyone’s life at risk and he did not incite violate.

            So, who exactly are YOU? What’s your interest in GMOs?

          • Mariel Thomson

            Money, obviously. Don’t bother trying.He just wants to wear you out.

        • Rietha Crafford

          Christine, you can only take a horse to water, you can’t make it drink….let Clifford grandkids be born cripple and have their brains on the outside of the scalp…..then he might “think they are mutations” from another planet

          • Clifford Ageloff

            I have no children so no grandkids, so better luck next time wishing harm to me and my family. Nice.

          • Rietha Crafford

            I have not wished any harm to either you or your family. I am not that kind of a person…………if you have that kind of a mind, the onus is on you, don’t make your weaknesses mine please…… but this is normally when the problem hid home that people start opening their eyes only and normally it is to late

          • http://www.highdesertpermaculture.org Christine Baker

            Rietha, you are so right! I live in a retirement community, so I mostly see older people suffering. But Genetic Roulette really hits home with the many interviews of parents whose kids’ health dramatically improved after they went off GMOs. Sadly, while there is often improvement, many of these kids will have food allergies and all sorts of ailments for life.

            I always wonder about people like Clifford, what makes them be the way they are? I also don’t have any kids, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care. I don’t understand why so many people lack compassion entirely.

            After all, the kids are our future.

          • Rietha Crafford

            Christine, Clifford is just a dumb-ass idiot…..I don’t even bother with a fool like him……he will one learn or die with ailments he does not know why he has them

      • Rietha Crafford

        You have no clue what you are talking about the damages done by GMO……just look at Argentina as a starter with the kids born with brains outside their heads….I have seen firsthand pig being fed GMO feed what they look like, all crippled and early abortions etc. You should sleep with your eye WIDE OPEN or your grand kids will look the same

        • Clifford Ageloff

          Any scientific studies you care to reference to the hogwash you posit above? I guess not. Your ‘firsthand’ experiences are not scientific proof or proof of any kind. GMOs did not cause any of the things you claim but if so, let’s see it.

  • nik

    Any company that engineers plants to need chemicals to grow,chemicals to produce fruit or seed, and are nevertheless sterile, so new plants cannot be grown from them, and then sues others when their crappy plants contaminate other crops deserves all it gets, as do those who support it.

  • Nyrala Sirom

    Nothing can get the hysterical masses stirred up more quickly than the use of the word, “Nazi.” Nice to see nothing has changed on either side. Deep breaths, people, deep breaths. Take a break, relax, and look at all of this calmly and rationally. Please don’t get sucked into the manipulative tactics of journalistic drama-queens. The moment I see shock tactics of this sort, I consider the source to have discredited itself, and that piece of “journalism” is not worth the read, let alone the reply. Maybe if more of us did that and fewer jumped on the bandwagon, there would be less of such trash journalism and more factual writing.

  • Brian Allan

    “…agricultural holocaust that has already killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” What a totally line of B.S.! GMO’s will feed a starving world… Adams just likes to hear himself talk; just don’t listen to the idiot!

    • Rietha Crafford

      We don’t need GMO or Chemicals to feed the world…………..plenty alternatives to plant as well as use to prevent insects. I don’t agree with this Adams “creature” but the fact of the matter is there are many old day food that can be utilized to feed the world and natural oils to prevent insects from eating your produce as well as protecting against blights/fungus/bad pathogens

      • Loren Eaton

        That is totally naïve…but really groovy!!

  • LunarTick

    He identifies himself as one of “the GMO skeptics community.” But skeptical hardly seems adequate to describe someone who
    • embraces “the obligation . . . to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity,” and
    • identifies these as essentially anyone who sees any value in GMOs.

  • Abolish Holders OftheLight

    One day the criminals like Monsanto will be violently stopped.

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 »