Gary Null, Cultivator of Dangerous Woo, Plants Seeds of Death

By Keith Kloor | May 31, 2013 11:53 am

There was a time when Gary Null, a popular alternative health speaker and author, was the Deepak Chopra of nutrition. He’s written best-selling books (one of them about reversing the aging process) and like Chopra, has been featured by PBS during fundraising drives. Nearing 70, Null was in the news several years ago when he sued the manufacturer of his own dietary supplement, claiming it nearly killed him.

The self-help guru has had a long and interesting career. One reporter notes:

His first tome, “The Complete Guide to Health and Nutrition,” [published in 1986] led to a decades long column in Penthouse magazine, where Null railed on topics like the ineffectiveness of mainstream cancer treatment and the deadly health risks of vaccinations.

In the last decade, Null’s brand of quackery has given some fans pause with his trafficking in outright denialism. From Wikipedia:

In addition to his promotion of alternative cancer treatments, Null has argued that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS. In his  [2002] book AIDS: A Second Opinion, Null questioned the role of antiretroviral medication and instead advocated a range of dietary supplements for HIV-positive individuals.

Null, as you might expect, is fiercely opposed to genetically modified foods. Indeed, “natural health” proponents are among the most fanatical opponents of GMOs. As David Gorski at the Science-based Medicine blog has observed:

There’s a lot in common between anti-GMO activists and antivaccine activists. Perhaps the most prominent similarity is philosophical. Both groups fetishize the naturalistic fallacy, otherwise known as the belief that if it’s “natural” it must be good (or at least better than anything man-made or “artificial”).

If you want a taste of this fetish, I suggest you tune in at noon on weekdays, to WBAI, where Null is the long-time host of a radio show on the virtues of alternative health practices and the dangers of conventional medicine. (Here is an archive of his hour-long shows.) Naturally, he uses this forum to explain why vaccines and GMOs are unsafe. His soothing voice belies the misleading pseudoscience of his claims. He may talk like Mr. Rogers but what he says could kill you, if you are someone who has cancer or AIDS and you take his advice.

Null also fancies himself to be a crusading documentary filmmaker. His latest self-produced work is called Seeds of Death, released this year.

Set to haunting music, it features a roster of charlatans, like Joseph Mercola and Jeffrey Smith, explaining all the ways that genetically modified foods are poisoning humanity and the planet. The 90-minute film is a classic collection of all the untruths, myths, and tropes commonly used by the anti-GMO movement. The scope of its dishonesty is brazen, as when at the outset alternative medicine purveyor Rima Laibow intones:

Every single independent study conducted on the impact of genetically modified food shows that it damages organs,  it causes infertility, it causes immune system failure, it causes holes in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract, it causes multiple organ system failure.

Midway through the film Laibow also says:

We have increasing numbers of retarded and autistic and genetically damaged people among us. We have increasing numbers of lethal allergies and potentially lethal allergies that coincide with the introduction of genetically modiifed food. We have increasing amounts autoimmune problems. We have increasing amounts of pretty much everything.

This is crazy train stuff said with a straight face. The worldview that allows someone to believe such things cannot be penetrated with legitimate scientific information.

It is the same worldview that leads Mike Adams, the publisher of a website called Natural News and one of the foremost cranks on the internet, to say in Null’s film that the FDA “treats the American people as slaves,” and that “if people knew the truth, they would demand access to healing herbal therapies and healing herbal supplements.” I had no idea that Americans didn’t have access to a broad suite of quack pills and treatments.

Another aspect of the worldview that animates Seeds of Death is exemplified by Bruce Lipton, a scientifically trained biologist who says in the film:

When we have a company like Monsanto that says ‘I don’t care what nature says, I’ll create the crops that I want,’ we look at what happens, we see another step, another process in our demise. The whole concept of genetically modified organisisms is throwing a monkey wrench in the life on this this planet, and until we change that, we are heading downhill at a rapid rate of speed toward our own extinction.

You can’t counter this attitude with better information. Lipton, whose background tells us he is no dummy, also says this near the end:

We have to recognize there’s a new science. And that new science completely pulls the foundation out under the conventional science of genetics and GMOs. That science is false and destructive.  The wakeup call is knowledge. Knowledge is power. Lack of knowledge is lack of power. What this world is suffering from right now is lack of knowledge.

There is no knowledge that can free Lipton, Gary Null and their fellow soul travelers from the fantasy world they inhabit.

[One of Gary Null's dietary products.]

  • RobertWager

    “World’s top scientists” yup the usual quack crowd and the usual pseudo-science.

  • Buddy199

    Spoiler alert:

    Skip to minute 52:00

    That blows the lid off the whole conspiracy.

    • Karl Haro von Mogel

      57 minutes: Epigenetics. It does not mean what you think it does.

      • Buddy199

        Spidergoat, Salmonsaurus, Cowpig
        I knew ManBearPig was real

        • Tom

          There are no peer-reviewed studies conclusively showing that ManBearPig is real. Creatures from Imagination Land are natural by the way (including the devil-worshipping forest critters).

          • Buddy199

            Ah, point taken!

          • Tom

            Nah, people would just demand labels on their gold jewelry.

  • http://twitter.com/mem_somerville mem_somerville

    I wish academic scientists had the time and money to make movies. Unfortunately, they seem to actually prefer doing science, writing papers, and teaching students.

    • Karl Haro von Mogel

      Psst… I want to make a movie. :)

      • http://twitter.com/mem_somerville mem_somerville

        I’m sure you do. My wish is the same–that you had the time and money.

    • Kayti Grant

      “I wish academic scientists had the time and money to make movies.Unfortunately, they seem to actually prefer doing science, writing papers, and teaching students.” Bleck. As a filmmaker myself, I find this statement so patronizing and offensive. Filmmakers give up a lot to do their work, and it is an extremely difficult medium that requires painstaking attention to detail and a wide range of understanding of technology as well as visual aesthetics. Being “too busy” gettin’ your science on, is absolutely no excuse. The people I know who’ve made films have used crowd funding like kickstarter, have taken out second mortgages on their house, or made their film in a city with tax incentives and reimbursement for filmmakers, like Ann Arbor. So get out of the research lab and make a movie and find out the toll it takes on you. I wish you luck, because you will need it. Oh, wait, that’s right– you’re just judging from atop mount Olympus, you aren’t actually going to do it. You might not like what Gary Null did, but at least he made the effort, and a lot of it was good information, even is some of it veered off into soft science. I guess the evening news forgot to tell us about Monsanto being given it’s own prestigious post in the FDA, BT Toxin in the blood of pregnant women, and the dangers of Glyphosate. Well at least that “bozo” Gary Null put it in his movie, so I could learn about it. I’m just flabbergasted by the lack of appreciation for some of the actual hard facts that are undeniable, which where included in this film, and which everyone should know about.

      • Tom

        Sadly many (or all) of those “hard facts” are untrue and therefore quite deniable. Kayti, if you’re not to busy getting’ your film-making on, please familiarize yourself with science behind it. Science is an extremely difficult medium that requires painstaking attention to detail and a wide range of understanding of technology. (That reply ended up sounding a lot more patronizing than I intended it to. Sorry.)

        • Kayti Grant

          Yeah, that does sound patronizing. Many scientists agree with me, by the way. Dr Oz, a renowned heart surgeon at New York Hospital, was influential in the making of the film “Genetic Roulette,” also against GMO’s.

          “Any polititian or scientist who tells you these products (GMOs) are safe, is either very stupid or lying.”

          -David Suzuki, CC, OBC, Ph.D., and geneticist

      • tonibark

        In addition, academia these days seem to be publishing PR machines for the industries which support their departments. If you think for one minute there aren’t serious COIs and that negative results can easily be discussed openly when a department is beholden to giants, then wake up.
        I agree, she made a smug comment. I’ve worked in academia, egos and greed abound and rule the departments. it’s all about financial gain and recognition for the next round of money.THings have changed drastically from 30 years ago.

  • Tom Scharf

    “Every single independent study conducted on the impact of genetically modified food shows that it damages organs”

    Of course by “independent”, they mean independent of studies that say the opposite. The careful reader can pick up disinformation clues such as this. Others are terms such as “all credible studies”, “all studies by respected scientists”, etc.

    I have some experience in what the FDA actually does for a living, having pushed several medical devices through FDA qualification. What they are primarily interested in is that your product does what it claims to do, and is safe to use, nothing more. They examine your marketing claims, your labels, your user manuals, etc. You must provide them proof that your product does everything it claims to do. Then you are given a “marketing” clearance to sell to hospitals, etc. It is arduous, ask anyone who has been through it.

    You have to be careful what you put on your label, and people directly connected to the company have to be careful what they say in public about the product. Third party “off label” use is another matter. Other people making wild claims cannot be controlled.

    The food supplicant market is not nearly as tightly controlled as the drug and device market, but making wild claims on your label is asking for an FDA audit.

    • Kayti Grant

      So why did Monsanto’s products get pushed through with the help of Monsanto lobbyist and Attorney, Michael Taylor, who resides in the FDA as Food Safety Czar? And what qualifies a bio-tech attorney to be given a special appointment in the FDA? Of course these are legitimate questions. Of course this points to corruption in the system. Who cares that you worked in the FDA– these red flags remain and they are real, despite the fact that you yourself did not directly encounter them at the time of your employment in the FDA.

  • my2cnz

    Author of this article is an idiot

    • kkloor

      shh, don’t tell no one. It’ll be our secret.

  • RAndrewOhge

    There are NO long-term studies that have ever been authorized by Monsanto for it’s products. Those who have tried to buy seed for such studies have been rebuffed by the Corporation. The only existing studies were on basic handling safety, done by Monsanto for the Monsanto run FDA. They were for ninety days only, unlike the oft-denigrated Gilles Seralini study that used three study groups of rats, one with traited seed, one with regular seeds and one with regular seeds and Round-Up Residue. The rats with the traited seeds were the ones that got the tumors. One of the denigrations is that this study isn’t “Peer-Reviewed”. As it was finished in 2012, it would be 2014 before such a study could be completed. This is simply more corporate initiated disinformation. The days of that succeeding are numbered.

    • kkloor

      Yes, the truth is out there.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQoRXhS7vlU

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000980613760 Kevin Folta

      RAndrew, for years I have requested that scientists wanting to initiate long-term studies should contact me. I’d love to do the test. I’m an ag-biotech/molecular/genomics guy. I can provide expertise on that end, but I need someone else with expertise in animals/histology/etc. In all of my public requests, I can’t find ONE scientist that wants to do such a study, or use it as a basis for an NIH proposal. If there are no studies, it is because there are not scientists that want to do them, because they have no scientific merit. Nobody wants to waste their time chasing a question that has been answered.

      If any of the published work had a shred of credibility you’d see scientists all over the world diving in and expanding those studies. Instead, they die on science’s vine, only living well in kooky websites an in the heads of activists.

      • Susan

        Yes Kevin, you are for Big Ag, take contracts from them & are an avid GMO supporter. How is all of this suppose to sway people that GMO’s are good for us?

        • Tom

          Depends on how you define ‘good’,

      • dogctor

        Hi Kevin.

        Please recruit owners of 2000 cats, provide them with a balanced and complete diet ( manufactured to NRC specifications) identical in every way, except for inclusion of a GMO RR corn + GMO RR soybeans in the experimental group (1000 cats) and non-GMO isogenic corn & soy in the control group ( 1000 cats), then recruit veterinary internal medicine doctors, from tertiary and specialty practices across the country to do the following yearly: A complete examination, complete blood panel to include a urinalysis tests for pancreatitis, T4s, bile acids + abdominal ultrasound and ultrasound guided liver biopsies, and yearly intestinal biopsies via endoscopy. Please make sure that none in the investigation know which intervention (food) the cats are getting–meaning blind the researchers to the diets.

        Have the pathologists evaluating the liver and intestinal samples come up with a uniform grading scheme for indices of inflammation in the intestines ( stomach, duodenum, jejunum) and hepato-biliary changes and then have then analyze the samples, blindly.

        Collect data for 7yrs ( mid life) and then hire a statistician to crunch the data and the trends in a multivariate analysis.

        I am game–are you?

    • RAndrewOhge

      So, somehow you can get that seed for study from Monsanto no one else in North America can. If you just advertise that, you could turn it into a healthy second revenue stream.

  • SasBoarden

    Let’s pretend GMOs are good for us as the author suggests…
    1) GMO companies would be advertising the benefits to the consumer & the farmer so that we would want to buy them.
    2) GMO companies would publish studies on how their products have helped solve world hunger over the past 20 years (I encourage readers to check the GMO markets in Europe & Asia).
    3) GMO companies would WANT their product to be labeled for containing GMOs so consumers can support the goodness
    4) GMO companies would not need a government subsidy to survive, they would have the financial support from their very own Americans

    Bottom-line: “Monsanto” would be a household name because they would be proud of producing a GMO product and would want every American knowing it.

    • Tom

      Well, since consumers aren’t screaming out for a label because they specifically WANT the GM kind, it’s kind of understandable. I’d be all for a label that says “May(!) contain ingredients derived from genetically modified corn”. No guarantee it does, no guarantee it doesn’t. Then if the consumer wishes to avoid GM ingredients, he or she can simply buy organic certified alternative. Or even better, introduce an in-between “certified GM-free (non-organic)” label for those suspicious of GM but sick of organic BS (and pricing).

      Regarding your second point you might want to have a quick flip through Robert Paarlberg’s “Starved for science”. Most African nations are dependent on the European market for their agricultural exports. If Europe refuses to import GM grain, then African nations are forced to stick to conventional. (South Africa is an exception. They have had an active GM crop program goings since about the same time as the US.) Right now Burkina faso has started growing Bt cotton with positive results. The current generation of GM crops are mostly suited to American and European growth conditions though. However, there are drought tolerant varieties in the pipeline.

      Also, check out this public sector (non-Monsanto) disease resistant GM banana being developed in Uganda:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/gm-banana-crop-disease-uganda

      • Kayti Grant

        Burkina Faso is a place where the poorest of the poor live. Hopefully Bt Cotton won’t ruin them the way it did to the farmers in India.

    • jh

      The author doesn’t claim that GMOs are more healthy than “regular” food. GMOs may, in the future, provide some health benefit. In the mean time, the benefits of GMOs are better yields, better drought resistance, better pest resistance and less resource consumption per acre per crop. Those features in turn benefit the consumer with lower prices, less fluctuation in prices, and greater supply and supply stability.

      On the other hand, there’s no evidence that organic or traditional farming methods produce crops that are better or more healthy for the consumer, but they do cost more, consume more resources, and fail more frequently.

      • Kayti Grant

        There is a technique called permaculture which allows the farmer to plant certain crops together that benefit each other and ward off pests, without contaminating the food with harsh chemicals. It is easy to do, and much better for the soil, as mono-planting tends to deplete the soil of nutrients (remember the Dust Bowl which occured because of depleted soil). Round-Up and Glyphosate are infamous for depleting the soil. Once the ground is mineral-depleted and depleted of micro-organisms, you are changing the ecology and lessoning the crop yields. Using toxic chemicals to assist with growing food puts these toxins into the soil, which then ends of in the run-off water and the aquifer. BT Toxin and Glyphosate also are deleterious to human health. There’s a reason these products are called “poisons.”

      • tonibark

        cost more? the whole idea of GMO seeds is to enable more herbicides and pesticides to be used. we have not seen reduction is hunger, in fact subsistance farmers have gone out of business due to GMO seeds and have contributed to slums in third world cities.
        why do you hide behind your initials? perhaps a shill?

    • Susan

      People are pretending for sure.

    • tonibark

      Monsanto brought us DDT, agent orange and PCBs and told the public these were all safe. They also had front men in academic circles talking their talking points. hmmm how quickly we all forget.

    • Timmy Utley

      No. Bottom line is that because of people spreading anti GMO ignorance, the public perception of them is mixed, so labeling only adds to that perception. Why should a company agree to labeling when there is NO CREDIBLE evidence that GMO’s are less safe than foods genetically modified by natural selection and traditional breeding? They’re all GMO’s – just done by different means. You already have a label – it’s called organic. Which, btw, isn’t so perfect on the environment either.

    • Timmy Utley
  • ronaldmsonntag

    I’m disappointed that with all the fuss and bluster you bring to discrediting these people you failed to offer a single reference to either their mentioned studies or your own set of contradicting studies. Poor journalism at the least!

    • Tom

      Ok, I might be able to help you. What would you like to know?

      • ronaldmsonntag

        Thought I made myself clear. REFERENCES to ARTICLES written by SCIENTISTS supporting either side. Interesting that Japan has stopped importing US wheat due to the Oregon fiasco. And, Europe already REQUIRES labeling. If it was so damn safe, then why is Monsanto lobbying millions to PREVENT simply labeling items as containing GMO or not. Then the consumer can make the choice.

        • Tom

          So you are basically asking for the full scientific literature for and against? Sure, I’ve already got a couple of hundred references to get you started but I thought were referring to specific ones and was offering my assistance to find them for you. Do you want the lot or something in particular?

          Since you’re mentioning the labeling issue – my impression is that the people demanding the label seem to be skeptical of genetically engineered crops. So my question to you is – why not simply buy organic? It’s certified GE-free and you can make the choice as a consumer.

          • Kayti Grant

            Tom, your proposal puts conventional non-GMO farmers at a disadvantage. Consumers would like to buy from conventional farmers using heirloom seeds as well. Paying to be certified organic puts the onus on the farmer to show he is non-gmo. The onus should be instead on the gmo farmers to label their products. People simply have a right to know what they are eating, and those producing crops that are gmo just need to step up and be honest, so that consumers can choose.

  • Leo

    I bet he lives to the average age of men in the USA ….75…just like the rest of us..and then drops dead…so all the advice null and void… :o P

    • Kayti Grant

      Oh, at first I thought you were referring to the retarded author of this article, who is obviously biased in the opposite direction, and was about to give your comment the thumbs up. Seriously, if this author had one iota of common sense, he would at least acknowledge the variables at work here, the elements that should cause one to do further research, and the concerns regarding BT Toxin in the the blood of such a statistically large number of pregnant women, resulting from the ingestion of BT Corn, which Monsanto said would not remain in humans, but would be broken down and destroyed in the gut. Monsanto created Bovine Growth Hormone which caused infection in cows, and a resulting overuse of anti-biotics in the milk supply– which leads to germs that are anti-biotic resistant– this is dangerous for humans– Monsanto shrugged and looked the other way, they also used to label Round Up as “Organic”– another lie. Come on, this article is so far biased in the other direction as to form an even more appalling caricature of this author than the one he paints of Gary Null. GMOs are either banned or labeled in 61 other countries– I’m sure all those people who decided to do this are not idiots as you and the author of this article would paint them. GIVE ME A BREAK. OF COURSE there is some quackery in this film– who gives a sh*t– there is also a lot of food for thought, as well as realistic and useful information. To just take a gigantic dump on this film as to dismiss it entirely sounds absolutely absurd. Of course there is danger in eating something that was breed specifically to withstand toxins that would otherwise kill a living organism. OF course we should be thinking about this. Are you all out of your minds? The fanatics here are in the room, and they are not the GMO naysayers who would like food democracy and food labeling, and to make their own decisions about food. The fanatics here are the fools who insist on eating toxins and expecting it not to effect their health. No BT Toxins are not healthy to have your bloodstream, nor is Glyphosate. Duhhhhhhh Don’t need me no science degree to understand in my head (picks nose and eats it) that eating poison equals no good for me. You scientists are fu**ing retarded– must be all those GMO’s your eating.

      • b33bl3br0x

        Monsanto created Bovine Growth Hormone which caused infection in cows,
        and a resulting overuse of anti-biotics in the milk supply– which leads
        to germs that are anti-biotic resistant– this is dangerous for
        humans– Monsanto shrugged and looked the other way, they also used to
        label Round Up as “Organic”– another lie.

        1. Monsanto did not create BGH, it has been in cows for thousands of years. They did however create a method for harvesting large amounts of it for injection into cows.

        2. The Germ Theory of Disease guarantees us that BGH cannot cause an infection.

        3. Anti-biotics are not used in the milk supply, milk is tested several times throughout the production stream for anti-biotics and positive tests necessitate discarding the affected milk. Pasteurization removes nearly all of the bacteria which are harmful to people from milk.

        4. Misuse of antibiotics does lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria, but most if not all antibiotic resistant variants of clinically important bacteria came about as a result of mis- or overuse in people not farms.

        5. The comment about roundup and organic can not be substantiated by me so I will not comment upon it except to note that it is a complete non sequitur.

        OF COURSE there is some quackery in this film– who gives a sh*t– there is also a lot of food for thought, as well as realistic and useful information. To just take a gigantic dump on this film as to dismiss it
        entirely sounds absolutely absurd.

        The level of quackery established in the film and the lack of ability of a lay audience to distinguish between the quackery and what may be accurate make the film something that should not be relied upon for information.

        Of course there is danger in eating something that was breed specifically to withstand toxins that would otherwise kill a living organism.

        Do you know how the modification works? An existing protein in the plant, is copied and inserted many times over. So you’re not eating anything that wasn’t there before. You’re also coming close to having a problem with organisms, which you eat all the time, that have naturally bred themselves, or been bred by humans, to withstand toxins, and toxic conditions that would otherwise have killed some of their forebearers. But that fact in itself does not render your point incorrect, it only renders you hypocritical.

        No BT Toxins are not healthy to have your bloodstream, nor is Glyphosate. Duhhhhhhh Don’t need me no science degree to understand in my head (picks nose and eats it) that eating poison equals no good for me. You scientists are fu**ing retarded– must be all those GMO’s your eating.

        Read over that last section again. You have said, in essence. “I’m not a scientist but I’m certain that this is poisonous to me, regardless of what you people who actually are scientists tell me.” What you’re saying is that your intuition is more accurate than experimentation. Now I’m not by any means saying that scientists are always right (they’re not), I’m also not saying that it’s not possible that some new test may show some day that all this stuff is really bad (it is possible), however, given history, I’ll side with (provisional) science over intuition always. I’ll also note that if someone ever does figure out that all this stuff really is bad, it’s going to be someone with a science degree doing good research not some charlatan like Null.

        Additionally, think about your last sentence again. If the people who understand all the biochemistry, biology, and medicine are not afraid of eating the GMOs, why should you be?

        • Kayti Grant

          Recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST, is
          injected into cows to make them produce more milk. This practice, which
          is known to cause harm to cows and may pose harm to humans, is banned in
          Canada, Japan, Australia, and all 25 countries of the European Union.

          RBGH causes udder infections in cows, which are treated with
          antibiotics. Increased antibiotic use in food animals is a serious
          problem because it creates antibiotic resistant bacteria and is strongly
          linked to human infections that are difficult to treat. Injections of
          rBGH also increase another hormone, called IGF-1, in the cow and the
          cow‚ milk. Too much IGF-1 in humans is linked with increased rates of
          colon, breast, and prostate cancer. While it’s not certain that rBGH
          given to cows significantly increases IGF-1 in humans, why take the
          chance?

          Throughout the Midwest and West, there has been an explosion in large
          dairy operations over the last decade. They are associated with
          numerous environmental and health hazards, including air pollution.
          California state regulators have named dairy cows as the leading air
          pollution culprit in the San Joaquin Valley–home to 2.5 million dairy
          cows. As a result of having some of the worst air quality in the nation,
          16 percent of children in the region have asthma, three times the
          national average.

          “…studies suggest that rBGH is linked to increased cancer risk”

          At many of these factory farms, in an attempt to increase the
          profitability, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is used to make
          the cow produce more milk. This hormone causes health problems in cows
          and increases antibiotic use on dairies. While the effect on humans
          consuming rBGH milk is not clear, studies suggest that rBGH is linked to
          increased cancer risk.

          Many consumers have balked at the widespread use of hormones and
          antibiotics at giant dairies and opt for purchasing organic and
          sustainably produced milk.

          • Kayti Grant

            And isn’t it interesting that Food Safety Czar at the FDA, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto Lobbyist and attorney– has ruthlessly gone after small farmers for selling raw milk, after Monsanto’s rBGH caused cows so much suffering, and created so many extra unnecessary safety hazards both for cows and humans.

          • b33bl3br0x

            Recombinant means that it’s produced in a culture rather than in a cow. It’s the same thing as is made in the cow, it’s just made somewhere else. Thus, “Monsanto did not create BGH, the cows did that one on their own at some
            point in evolutionary history. They did however create a method for
            harvesting large amounts of it for injection into cows.”

            Infections are caused by micro-organisms not hormones, that is definitional of the word infection. As I stated before, the Germ Theory of Disease guarantees us that BGH doesn’t cause infections. The place you’re quoting either means something different, or doesn’t know what they’re talking about. I think it’s probably the former but since I don’t know your source, I can’t rule out the latter.

            Effect of large scale cattle farming on air quality is ranging off topic so I’ll ignore that.

            Too much IGF-1 in humans is linked with increased rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancer. While it’s not certain that rBGH given to cows significantly increases IGF-1 in humans, why take the chance?

            In the absence of data suggesting a real danger, avoidance is not warranted.

            And isn’t it interesting that Food Safety Czar at the FDA, Michael
            Taylor, who is also Monsanto Lobbyist and attorney– has ruthlessly gone
            after small farmers for selling raw milk, after Monsanto’s rBGH caused
            cows so much suffering, and created so many extra unnecessary safety
            hazards both for cows and humans.

            On the other hand, there is clear data that raw milk has bacteria in it; Raw milk does contain normal skin contaminants and, if the cow has an actual infection, could potentially carry the bacterial species which causes the disease. There are some bacteria that cows can carry which are not harmful to them but are harmful to humans, additionally some stages of some diseases may not be evident at the time of milking; Raw milk is inherently dangerous to consume, a process as simple and effective as pasteurization is therefore warranted.

        • Kayti Grant

          “Read over that last section again. You have said, in essence. “I’m not a scientist but I’m certain that this is poisonous to me, regardless of what you people who actually are scientists tell me.” What you’re saying is that your intuition is more accurate than experimentation. Now
          I’m not by any means saying that scientists are always right (they’re not), I’m also not saying that it’s not possible that some new test may
          show some day that all this stuff is really bad (it is possible), however, given history, I’ll side with (provisional) science over intuition always.”

          I am not using my intuition, I am using my common sense. Any poison strong enough to kill a plant or kill bugs is not something I want to eat. Just as my not wanting to go suck on a can of Raid, roach killer, D-con, etc– no, herbicide isn’t good for people, nor is pesticide– not because my intuition tells me so, but because poison, by it’s very definition, is dangerous for consumption. That is why people who spray pesticide/herbicide onto crops wear protective suits and masks.

          • b33bl3br0x

            I am not using my intuition, I am using my common sense. Any poison strong enough to kill a plant or kill bugs is not something I want to eat.

            Chocolate kills non-human mammals, and many insects at fairly low doses.

            Relatively low concentrations of caffeine will kill most insects and a large number of vertebrates, though produced by some plants, it inhibits growth of most.

            Large amounts of Aspirin will kill plants, one adult aspirin will kill a cat.

            Acetaminophen (Tylenol) has significant liver toxicity in people, particularly when taken while or shortly after consuming alcohol.

            Need I go on?

            no, herbicide isn’t good for people, nor is pesticide– not because my intuition tells me so, but because poison, by it’s very definition, is dangerous for consumption. That is why people who spray pesticide/herbicide onto crops wear protective suits and masks.

            Route of exposure matters significantly. For example, injected i.p. BT toxin has an LD50 somewhere between 20-100 mg/kg body weight in rodents, yet they can be fed much larger quantities daily with no associated pathology. Other pesticides that are used in agriculture have significant toxic effects, usually they’re more harmful if inhaled or get into mucous membranes than if you get them on the skin, and they’re usually much less toxic when ingested. Thus the need for a protective suit when applying pesticides, but less concern about eating the things they’re sprayed onto.

            Incidentally, the approved pesticides for organic farming are more toxic to people than those used in conventional farming (barring BT toxin which is used heavily in both, and shows no mammalian toxicity when ingested).

            It would appear that common sense/Intuition isn’t all it’s cracked up to be is it?

  • Kayti Grant

    How am I to take Kieth Koors seriously as a journalist, when this article is so far biased against everything in the film, even the elements of the film that are realistic, factually explicit and concrete, informative, and based in common sense? This is too important an issue to dismiss a film because a couple of people in it could be considered quacks. Much of the film gave very specific information about the concerns of BT Toxin in the blood of pregnant women, Glyphosate becoming part of our diet, and other nutritional red flags that should be important to anyone who cares about their health. Other good info in the film was: Monsanto lobbyist and attorney Michael Taylor being given a prestigious and influential post with the FDA, questions about the safety of Bovine Growth Hormone which was banned in Canada because of how it caused in infections and excruciating pain for the cows, not to mention how important it is to remember that Monsanto is a company that wants to patent seed, so that it can be the purveyor of seed and make multi-billions off it, because farmers are not allowed to replant their own seed, instead they must keep buying from Monsanto. Monsanto is not a humanitarian organization that just wants to help the third world, and create more food abundance for the ever-increasing population. This is a company out to make money, and Null’s film gave credible evidence of that, though there are some other films out there that detail this more explicitly and in closer detail, such as “The World According To Monsanto.” I recommend the author of this article take a break from eating BT Corn and watch “The World According to Monsanto” as well. If he can still his mind enough not to pick apart every instance of “soft science,” I bet that it will give him food for thought, as well. This article is so brazen in calling anti-GMO activists “fanatics,” and yet this author seems to be the one who is thinking more in terms of black and white rigidity, and not paying mind to nuances of meaning and the value of certain types of information. Personally, I found it fascinating that hundreds of thousands of people, mostly middle class, came out in 250 cities to support GMO labeling on May 25th at Capitols around the country and around the world, and it was not covered by any news stations. Gee, doesn’t that sound strange?? 3,000 ordinary people came out in Denver alone, and no one in the local news acknowledged it or covered it. Seems interesting to me how frightened the news media is of this topic, also interesting to learn from the film that GMOs are banned or labeled in 61 countries including Russia and China. These people are not idiots.

    • Tom

      They are (mostly) not idiots. But they are (mostly) misinformed.

      • Kayti Grant

        The interesting thing is that both you and the author will not concede to there being any gray area or need for more research, whatsoever. That just seems a little suspect, as there is so much at stake here. There’s also already enough food to feed everyone, the problem is with distributional and poverty, not supply. Irrigation, local, sustainable farming, permaculture, and aquaponics are all ways to produce food, and give people what they need. People don’t need all this “science,” it’s only an issue because Monsanto is a multi-billion dollar corporation who wants to control the ultimate “product” and who, by the way, can afford to pay people to write biased blogs, articles, as well as other forms of propaganda.

  • Kayti Grant

    And by the way, it’s so funny that Keith Kloor tries to make Null like like nothing but a money-grubbing huckster by including a photograph of a bottle of Null’s brand of vitamin supplements. AND YET, Kloor totally doesn’t even MENTION that Monsanto is attempting to make inconceivable multi-billions by patenting the genome of life, and suing farmers who try to re-plant their seed, as would occur in nature. Null’s vitamin business is negligible and meaningless in the face of Monsanto’s inconceivable greed, recklessness, and disregard for human life. There’s another film “The World According To Monsanto” which deals very specifically with Monsanto’s unbelievably predatory business practices. You think this is a company that cares about your health? No, this is a company that wants to control seed. Think about the implications of this. It really is hair-raising. Null’s film might not be perfect, but thank goodness someone is at least trying to alert people to the potential for harm that lies in wait for those who do not really try to comprehend the full meaning of what is transpiring when a chemical company tries to control the food supply.
    I for one prefer organic, just like in the cafeteria at Monsanto.

    • Tom

      Kayti, there is nothing called “the genome of life” so Monsanto can’t patent it. (They might try to copyright the phrase instead.) Please, just talk to a farmer in your area who grows GM crops and see what he or she says. If they complain about how Monsanto is enslaving them then I’ll shut up.

      • Kayti Grant

        There IS something called the genome of life~ it is a seed! This is a genome, it produces life, Monsanto is patenting it. No need to be cutesy about it, Tom. Watch “The World According to Monsanto” and the interviews with farmers who have been bankrupted by Monsanto. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

        In India Monsanto has completely monopolized the market, so Indian farmers have no alternative but to buy Monsanto seeds. These seeds are not all they were advertised to be. The only seeds available in India now are GMOs, which require farmers to pay an
        annual royalty each time they are replanted. The GMOs need additional
        fertilizers, and as the seasons move forward, more insecticides and
        pesticides. The soil in which these seeds are planted requires more
        water. All of which means more and more money for the farmer to lay out.

        An Indiana farmer recently went to the Supreme Court because he was being sued by Monsanto. You can bet he feels monetarily enslaved to Monsanto.

        As NPR’s Dan Charles :
        Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman had been using — and paying Monsanto for — the company’s
        when he planted his main crop in the spring. He also signed “standard agreement not to save any of his harvest and replant it the next year. Monsanto demands exclusive rights to supply that seed.”

        The farmer got into trouble when he planted a second crop of soybeans later in the same year, when the yield would likely be much lower. As Dan
        wrote, “Bowman decided that for this crop, he didn’t want to pay top dollar for Monsanto’s seed. ‘What I wanted was a cheap source of seed,’ he says. Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a smallgrain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. … He knew
        that these beans probably had Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene in them,
        because that’s mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn’t
        think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he
        was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat
        to Monsanto’s seed business. ‘I couldn’t imagine that they’d give a
        rat’s behind,’ ” he said.

        Monsanto did care. It took Bowman to court. The farmer, as Dan reported, was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000 for infringing on the company’s patent.

        :
        Los Angeles Times:
        “An Indiana farmer who clashed with Monsanto Co. over his replanting of
        its patented soybean seeds ran into steady skeptical questions Tuesday
        from the Supreme Court.The justices strongly suggested that they would rule for Monsanto and
        decide that the company’s patent protection for its genetically
        modified seeds covers not just the first planting, but also seeds that
        are generated later.”

        Time:
        “Have we really gotten to the point that planting a seed can lead to a
        high-stakes Supreme Court patent lawsuit? We have, and that case is
        Bowman v. Monsanto, which is being argued on Tuesday. Monsanto’s critics have assailed the company for its “ruthless legal battles against small farmers,” and they are hoping this will be the case that puts it in its place. They are also hoping the court’s ruling will rein in patent law,which is increasingly being used to claim new life forms as private
        property.”

        Christian Science Monitor:
        “A central issue for the court is the extent that a patent holder, or the developer of a genetically modified seed, can control its use through multiple generations of seed.”

        Here’s a story about farmers filing a class action law suit:

        5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

        Wednesday, March 13, 2013

        54 comments

        Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes, 5 million farmers are now suing Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US dollars).

        The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain
        farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt’, Monsanto has been
        reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous
        royalty charges.

        The farmers state that Monsanto has been unfairly gathering exorbitant
        profits each year on a global scale from “renewal” seed harvests, which
        are crops planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest.

        The practice of using renewal seeds dates back to ancient times, but
        Monsanto seeks to collect massive royalties and put an end to the
        practice. Why? Because Monsanto owns the very patent to the genetically
        modified seed, and is charging the farmers not only for the original
        crops, but the later harvests as well. Eventually, the royalties
        compound and many farmers begin to struggle with even keeping their farm
        afloat. It is for this reason that India slammed Monsanto with
        groundbreaking ‘biopiracy’ charges in an effort to stop Monsanto from ‘patenting life’.

        Jane Berwanger, a lawyer for the farmers who went on record regarding the case, told the Associted Press:

        “Monsanto gets paid when it sell the seeds. The law
        gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in
        the world is there a requirement to pay (again). Producers are in effect
        paying a private tax on production.”

        The findings echo what thousands of farmers have experienced in
        particularly poor nations, where many of the farmers are unable to stand
        up to Monsanto. Back in 2008, the Daily Mail covered
        what is known as the ‘GM Genocide’, which is responsible for taking the
        lives of over 17,683 Indian farmers in 2009 alone. After finding that
        their harvests were failing and they started to enter economic turmoil,
        the farmers began ending their own lives — oftentimes drinking the very
        same insecticide that Monsanto provided them with.

        As the information continues to surface on Monsanto’s crimes, further
        lawsuits will begin to take effect. After it was ousted in January that
        Monsanto was running illegal ‘slave-like’
        working rings, more individuals became aware of just how seriously
        Monsanto seems to disregard their workers — so why would they care for
        the health of their consumers? In April 2012, another group of farmers sued Monsanto for ‘knowingly poisoning’ workers and causing ‘devastating birth defects’.

        Will endless lawsuits from millions of seriously affected individuals be the end of Monsanto?

        Here’s more on the horrible situation Monsanto has created in India, destroying the lives of countless farmers:

        Monsanto’s talk of ‘technology’ tries to hide its real objectives of
        control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed,

        “Monsanto is an agricultural company.

        We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more.”

        “Producing more, Conserving more, Improving farmers lives.”

        These are the promises Monsanto India’s website makes, alongside
        pictures of smiling, prosperous farmers from the state of Maharashtra.
        This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink
        the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing
        control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed is
        now controlled by Monsanto.

        Control over seed is the first link in the food chain because seed is
        the source of life. When a corporation controls seed, it controls life,
        especially the life of farmers.

        Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well
        as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’
        suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto
        vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2
        billion for unfair collection of royalty.

        Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our
        planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original
        breeders.

        Patents on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a
        plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of
        deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and
        life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in
        debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception
        that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds,
        and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds.

        The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible
        with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the
        Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. Five things changed
        with Monsanto’s entry: First, Indian companies were locked into
        joint-ventures and licensing arrangements, and concentration over the
        seed sector increased. Second, seed which had been the farmers’ common
        resource became the “intellectual property” of Monsanto, for which it
        started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs of seed. Third,
        open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO
        hybrids. A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented
        commodity. Fourth, cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with
        food crops now had to be grown as a monoculture, with higher
        vulnerability to pests, disease, drought and crop failure. Fifth,
        Monsanto started to subvert India’s regulatory processes and, in fact,
        started to use public resources to push its non-renewable hybrids and
        GMOs through so-called public-private partnerships (PPP).

        In 1995, Monsanto introduced its Bt technology in India through a
        joint-venture with the Indian company Mahyco. In 1997-98, Monsanto
        started open field trials of its GMO Bt cotton illegally and announced
        that it would be selling the seeds commercially the following year.
        India has rules for regulating GMOs since 1989, under the Environment
        Protection Act. It is mandatory to get approval from the Genetic
        Engineering Approval Committee under the ministry of environment for GMO
        trials. The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
        sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not start
        the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002.

        And, after the damning report of India’s parliamentary committee on Bt
        crops in August 2012, the panel of technical experts appointed by the
        Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM
        food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops.

        But it had changed Indian agriculture already.

        Monsanto’s seed monopolies, the destruction of alternatives, the
        collection of superprofits in the form of royalties, and the increasing
        vulnerability of monocultures has created a context for debt, suicides
        and agrarian distress which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in
        India. This systemic control has been intensified with Bt cotton. That
        is why most suicides are in the cotton belt.

        An internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January
        2012 had this to say to the cotton-growing states in India — “Cotton
        farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of
        farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton
        farmers.”

        The highest acreage of Bt cotton is in Maharashtra and this is also
        where the highest farmer suicides are. Suicides increased after Bt
        cotton was introduced — Monsanto’s royalty extraction, and the high
        costs of seed and chemicals have created a debt trap. According to
        Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent rural debt is due to
        purchase inputs. As Monsanto’s profits grow, farmers’ debt grows. It is
        in this systemic sense that Monsanto’s seeds are seeds of suicide.

        The ultimate seeds of suicide is Monsanto’s patented technology to
        create sterile seeds. (Called “Terminator technology” by the media,
        sterile seed technology is a type of Gene Use Restriction Technology,
        GRUT, in which seed produced by a crop will not grow — crops will not
        produce viable offspring seeds or will produce viable seeds with
        specific genes switched off.) The Convention on Biological Diversity has
        banned its use, otherwise Monsanto would be collecting even higher
        profits from seed.

        Monsanto’s talk of “technology” tries to hide its real objectives of
        ownership and control over seed where genetic engineering is just a
        means to control seed and the food system through patents and
        intellectual property rights.

        A Monsanto representative admitted that they were “the patient’s diagnostician, and physician all in one” in writing the patents on life-forms, from micro-organisms to plants, in the TRIPS’ agreement of WTO. Stopping farmers from saving seeds and exercising their seed
        sovereignty was the main objective. Monsanto is now extending its patents to conventionally bred seed, as in the case of broccoli and
        capsicum, or the low gluten wheat it had pirated from India which we
        challenged as a biopiracy case in the European Patent office.

        That is why we have started Fibres of Freedom in the heart of
        Monsanto’s Bt cotton/suicide belt in Vidharba. We have created community
        seed banks with indigenous seeds and helped farmers go organic. No GMO
        seeds, no debt, no suicides.

        Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental
        activist, and eco feminist.Shiva, currently based in Delhi, has authored
        more than 20 books and over 500 papers in leading scientific and
        technical journals.She was trained as a physicist and received her Ph.D.
        in physics from the University of Western Ontario, Canada. She was
        awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 1993. She is the founder of
        Navdanya http://www.navdanya.org/

  • http://mindprod.com roedygreen

    “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
    ~ Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html
    New York Times Magazine, 1998-10-25

    It is not just market-ready products submitted to the FDA for approval that cause problems. It is all the experimental crops planted in open fields that the FDA never sees.

    • Kayti Grant

      Not to mention the fact that Monsanto’s own Michael Taylor was handed (not elected to) a prestigious and influential post in the FDA, allowing Monsanto to write their own ticket.

  • Kayti Grant

    “Any polititian or scientist who tells you these products (GMOs) are safe, is either very stupid or lying.”
    -David Suzuki, CC, OBC, Ph.D., and geneticist

    More science needed on effects of genetically modifying food crops
    By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola
    In gearing up for the 2010 release of its super-genetically modified corn called ‘SmartStax’, agricultural-biotechnology giant Monsanto is using an advertising slogan that asks, ‘Wouldn’t it be better?’ But can we do better than nature, which has taken millennia to develop the plants we use for food?

    We don’t really know. And that in itself is a problem. The corn,
    developed by Monsanto with Dow AgroSciences, “stacks” eight genetically
    engineered traits, six that allow it to ward off insects and two to make
    it resistant to weed-killing chemicals, many of which are also
    trademarked by Monsanto. It’s the first time a genetically engineered
    (GE) product has been marketed with more than three traits.

    Canada approved the corn
    without assessing it for human health or environmental risk, claiming
    that the eight traits have already been cleared in other crop seeds —
    even though international food-safety guidelines that Canada helped
    develop state that stacked traits should be subject to a full safety
    assessment as they can lead to unintended consequences.

    One problem is that we don’t know the unintended consequences of
    genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) foods. Scientists
    may share consensus about issues like human-caused global warming, but
    they don’t have the same level of certainty about the effects of
    genetically modified organisms on environmental and human health!

    A review of the science conducted under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
    in 2008 concluded that “there are a limited number of properly designed
    and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health” and that this
    and other observations “create concern about the adequacy of testing
    methodologies for commercial GM plants.”

    Some have argued that we’ve been eating GM foods for years with few
    observable negative consequences, but as we’ve seen with things like
    trans fats, if often takes a while for us to recognize the health
    impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised
    about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to
    antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need
    to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals.

    Of course, these aren’t the only issues with GM crops. Allowing
    agro-chemical companies to create GM seeds with few restrictions means
    these companies could soon have a monopoly over agricultural production.
    And by introducing SmartStax, we are giving agro-chemical companies the
    green light not just to sell and expand the use of their “super crops”
    but also to sell and expand the use of the pesticides these crops are
    designed to resist.

    A continued reliance on these crops could also reduce the variety of
    foods available, as well as the nutritive value of the foods themselves.

    There’s also a reason nature produces a variety of any kind of plant
    species. It ensures that if disease or insects attack a plant, other
    plant varieties will survive and evolve in its place. This is called
    biodiversity.

    Because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs,
    we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the
    precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action
    could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we
    know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing
    the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.

    That’s not to say that research into altering the genes in plants
    that we use for food should be banned or that GM foods might not someday
    be part of the solution to our food needs. We live in an age when our
    technologies allow us to “bypass” the many steps taken by nature over
    millennia to create food crops to now produce “super crops” that are
    meant to keep up with an ever-changing human-centred environment.

    A rapidly growing human population and deteriorating health of our
    planet because of climate change and a rising number of natural
    catastrophes, among other threats, are driving the way we target our
    efforts and funding in plant, agricultural, and food sciences, often
    resulting in new GM foods.

    But we need more thorough scientific study on the impacts of such
    crops on our environment and our health, through proper peer-reviewing
    and unbiased processes. We must also demand that our governments become
    more transparent when it comes to monitoring new GM crops that will
    eventually find their ways in our bellies through the food chain.

  • Richard Gale

    Gee. since you are just shill for Big Pharma, you certainly have not lack of funding.. go make a film.. we need some more science fiction from the evidence based medicine cult.

  • Theresa frangos

    If he is so wrong why are GMO’s, artificial preservatives and other “less natural” food additives limited and banned in the rest of the developed world?

  • caligirl

    on monsanto’s payroll, eh? nice work if you can get it…?

  • Peter Listino

    You are a total fraud! How pathetic that you are a ghost writer or just a ghost for the insidious powers attempting to crush the truth. Go get your education and your real human body then write truths and not lies for the fraudulent bio-tech companies that hire you as the dumbbell who will write what they are told. How pathetic! Peter C. Listino ALSEMT, EVOC, ITLS, Post-baccalaureate/Pre-med Honor Student

  • Jim Peters

    The writer of the above article may not realize it, but he has very effectively made the case for the person he tried to debunk. Null cites science to back up what he says and lays it out in detail. Without substance, the above writer merely cites a few quotes from Null’s detractors (and Wikipedia!) as evidence that Null is a quack. Null invites qualified people to openly debate him on the issues. Would the above writer like to present himself for this?

  • Timmy Utley
  • Timmy Utley

    All you anti GMOers ought to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI

  • Laura Cordova-James

    Gary Null is unqualified to to say that what he knows is a fact that is beyond his scope of expertise. He is a promoter who understands some truths in nutrition and is entitled to share his opinion. But, when he’s wrong, he’s wrong and needs to be called out on it by people who are qualified to educate the public.

  • JayTe

    A truly brilliant article! Keith, pray tell, how did you get this job? Obviously it wasn’t based on you actually knowing anything about agriculture or health. Because if you knew anything about agriculture, you would know that it has been known for more than 100 years to grow plants, faster, bigger and healthier just by using pulverized granite to remineralize the soil. A Dr. Julius Hensel discovered this in the the 1890s and in experiments, produce grown on the soil that had been covered in pulverized granite they never got sick nor were they attacked by parasites or insects. This concept of providing the minerals that the soil requires was further validated by Dr. Maynard Murray, when he did exactly the same thing using sea solids! But of course, you didn’t know that did you? You think the way for agriculture to flourish is to use toxic chemicals to drain the soil of all of its nutrients and then modify the DNA of the produce to provide the food that we need to live? I wait with baited breath for the blog that I know you’re going to announce showing that you’ll back up what you say by putting yourself and your family on a GMO only diet for the next couple of years to show people like Gary Null or myself what idiots we are and how YOU are so very knowledgeable about health! Yes Keith, please, SHOW US!

  • Ken O’Toole

    Keith, who is paying you to write this idiocy?

  • Ken O’Toole

    Who are you, you can’t be for real? “Peer reviewed evidence” .. you are kidding right?

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, a senior editor at Cosmos magazine, and 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 »