CANADA

‘Most evil corporation’ Monsanto opens up and offers rare opportunity for its opponents to engage it http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/most-evil-corporation-monsanto-opens-up-and-offers- rare-opportunity-for-its-opponents-to-engage-it/

Graeme Hamilton | 08/11/13 | Last Updated: 08/11/13 7:15 PM ET More from Graeme Hamilton | @grayhamilton

Christinne Muschi for National PostEric Darier (L), Agriculture Senior Campaigner of Greenpeace International looks on as Trish Jordan, Director of Public and Industry Affairs, Monsanto Canada speaks during a forum called "Mind the Gap" Bridging the GMO Divide in Montreal, November 6, 2013. MONTREAL — For years, Monsanto has been the favorite whipping boy of activists opposed to genetically modified crops, and the seed company has typically shied away from going head-to-head with its critics.

People who are convinced you are the world’s “most evil corporation” and are to blame for everything from pesticide contamination to farmer suicides in India are not likely to have their minds changed.

But on Wednesday night, Trish Jordan, Monsanto Canada’s director of public and industry affairs, walked onto the stage at the Canadian Centre for Architecture and took her seat next to Éric Darier, Greenpeace International’s senior campaigner on agriculture, for a discussion on genetically modified organisms.

Mr. Darier said in an interview beforehand that it was a “very rare” opportunity to face off against Monsanto. “Until recently, they had a communications strategy not to engage with opponents,” he said.

Related

• Attacks on science: Canadian municipalities often more likely to listen to activists than scientific facts

• Junk Science Week: GMO guerillas

In the eyes of many in attendance, Ms. Jordan was on stage in the role of villain. Outside the venue, anti-GMO activists handed out pamphlets linking Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds to devastating environmental and health effects. Beside a photo of a mother kissing an infant, the pamphlet said GMO seeds require pesticides that threaten the health of pregnant women and young children.

Playwright Annabel Soutar, who organized the event and moderated the discussion, began by saying the evening was not simply a spectacle to see the participants “duke it out.” (Mr. Darier and Ms. Jordan were joined by University of Ottawa microbiologist Illimar Altosaar and Claire Pentecost, a Chicago photography professor whose work focuses on agriculture and bioengineering.) Ms. Soutar said the goal was dialogue and praised the panelists for taking “a leap of faith” and agreeing to discuss the issues with “people who disagree with you.”

For the next 90 minutes, though, there was a fair bit of sparring. “When you look at the overwhelming body of scientific consensus on the issue of agricultural biotechnology, it’s pretty clear that this technology is safe and useful,” Ms. Jordan began. “What has molded my opinion around biotechnology is really farmers. Farmers have enthusiastically embraced this technology.”

Mr. Darier said farmers have not embraced the technology, they have essentially been enslaved by it. “You control most of the seeds all over the world,” he said. “There’s a huge corporate concentration around food, and we know those who control the food supply, whatever part of it, will control the rest of society. Who do we want to empower? The 1.2 billion farmers in the world who are now feeding us, or do we want to rely on large corporations?” There’s a huge corporate concentration around food, and we know those who control the food supply, whatever part of it, will control the rest of society. Who do we want to empower? The 1.2 billion farmers in the world who are now feeding us, or do we want to rely on large corporations?

Ms. Jordan replied, “We control farmers? Ha!”

Ms. Pentecost said industrial agriculture “completely poisons the environment,” requires too much fertilizer and is a large consumer of fossil fuels. She said as weeds have become resistant to herbicides, industry has responded with “stronger chemicals, more deadly chemicals, the kind of chemicals that were in Agent Orange, which Monsanto also made.”

Mr. Altosaar, who supports the use of genetically engineered seeds, argued that they are not producing the Franken-foods the critics warn of. He used the example of Monsanto’s insect-resistant eggplant seed that is grown in India, which has eliminated the need for heavy spraying of insecticides. He said that by adding to the seed Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) — “a protein from the soil that’s in the room right now, crawling around on our boot soles” — insect larva are killed without the need for insecticides. “It’s biological, organic preservation of the eggplant, using a protein.”

One of the evening’s most cutting criticisms came from the floor. William Van Tasel, a grain farmer from Hébertville, Que., said he has been growing genetically modified crops since 1995. “I never saw anybody get sick. I never heard any documented case of it either,” he said. “Look at the issue of raw milk for cheese. There were deaths from listeriosis. How come you’re not talking about that? Why are you against GM? Is it because you’re afraid of new technology?”

Ms. Pentecost said the health effects remain unknown, but she has her suspicions. “If it is contributing to health problems, how would we know?” she asked. “Because we haven’t done scientifically based studies on that. There are different kinds of diseases that are on the rise, like auto-immune disorders and allergies.”

By the end of the evening, Ms. Jordan had heard enough. “We’re not talking about science here,” she said. “We’re talking about ideological positions. We’re talking about sociological viewpoints …. They’re making judgment statements that all corporations are bad, and Monsanto is the worst of them all, apparently.”

I don’t mind. I like engaging with people. I like people to ask questions

She accused Ms. Pentecost and Mr. Darier of telling farmers who are “working in a growing, vibrant, high-tech, innovative industry” that they don’t know what they’re doing. “I love this discussion. It’s interesting. It’s passionate. But it’s going exactly where all these discussions go, because people won’t listen to each other,” she said. “They want their own viewpoints of how the world should work.”

The evening was titled Bridging the GMO Divide, but even before it began, Mr. Darier said the gap separating him from Monsanto was too wide. “Their main business is to sell herbicides and to control farmers by supplying genetically engineered seeds to them and making sure they’re hooked on herbicides,” he said. “It’s totally contrary to where we should be going in terms of the future of food and the future of farming, so I don’t think we can bridge that gap.’’ The evening that started with anti-GMO pamphleteers outside ended for Ms. Jordan with students from the audience questioning her about why Monsanto is driving Indian farmers to commit suicide. Indian environmental activist Vandana Shiva has said the company is to blame for the suicides of farmers whose crops of Monsanto Bt cotton failed. Ms. Jordan said the suicides have nothing to do with Bt cotton and directed the students to a web site for further reading.

“I don’t mind. I like engaging with people. I like people to ask questions,” she said afterward. “They need to explore these issues. They just need to learn to read critically.”

National Post [email protected]

© 2013 National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited.

1

• 261 comments • Best • Community • • Login • Share

• David Lynch • a month ago o o The debate is seriously stupid. Everything you eat today was, at some point, genetically modified. We would not have wheat, rice, potatoes..go down the list. Virtually all the food we consume today has been "genetically modified". I understand today's organic, 12-mile grown food or die zealots think GM food is death, but there is not a shred of evidence to support that position. GM rice is saving lives.http://www.theguardian.com/com... o o 25 5 o • o Share › . . .

o Robmax David Lynch • a month ago . . That's right.

.

. Rodimus Prime Robmax • a month ago . . Ditto. .

o Andrew87 David Lynch • a month ago . . Yes what we eat today is genetically modified (seedless grapes and watermelon, to name a couple) but no one-single corporation profits off of that. With Monsanto, not only to they profit from it, but when naturally occurring things happen, like seeds from farms blowing in the wind to other farm fields, Monsanto sues and destroys that farmer for theft. . .

. Robmax Andrew87 • a month ago . . Nonsense. . . 5 5 . • . Share › . . .

. Guest Robmax • a month ago . . Do your research -again a Canadian farmer was sued by Monsanto for GMO plants just randomly growing within his yearly no GMO crop. . . 9 4 . • . Share › . . . . Robmax Guest • a month ago . . I have looked into it. He illegally planted the seed. That's why he was found guilty. . . 5 4 . • . Share › . . .

. Andrew87 Robmax • a month ago . . Just because Monsanto alleges he planted them illegally does not mean he planted them illegally. And just because the courts find him guilty of planting them illegally does not mean he planted them illegally. In case you haven't noticed, Monstanto, the law, and the government are all one. Most farmers who are sued by Monsanto are planting soy bean seeds that they buy, unaware that (as happens in nature) seeds get carries around by wind, animals, birds, etc) and don't stay uniformly in one single farm that actually has purchased Monsanto beans. So basically Monsanto has a patent on something that easily gets blow around from farm to farm, then blame the farmer when a seed starts growing on his farm, so they can sue him and bleed him dry. It makes absolutely no sense at all, except in our society where suing is becoming America's national sport. . . 12 3 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Andrew87 • a month ago . . BTW Schmeiser planted over 1000 acres of HT canola, hardly a few seeds "blowing into his fields". . . 5 . • . Share › . . .

. Rodimus Prime Andrew87 • a month ago . . Oh...my...God (and I'm an atheist). Monsanto, the law and the government are all one? Any arguments you put forth previously and in the future just became moot. We now know what type of websites you're using for your research. . . 3 . • . Share › . . .

. Robmax Andrew87 • a month ago . . Nothing is getting blown around. These farmers go to the elevator and buy seed knowing full well what it is, and plant it. Which is illegal. You have buy registered seed for planting through the proper channels. Anything else is stealing someone elses investment and work. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. D.M Robmax • a month ago . . Since when has planting seed become illegal? . . 5 1 . • . Share › • • •

. RobertWager Andrew87 • a month ago . . That has never happened. OSGTA v Monsanto NY State District Court 2012 >30,000 organic farmer plaintiffs No evidence of organic decertification for trace GM No evidence of Monsanto suing for trace amounts of GM in organic or conventional crops Case was dismissed http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/c...... • . Share › . . .

. Guest Andrew87 • a month ago . . yes a Farmer here in Canada was sued by monsanto for seed which blew onto his land . . 4 4 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Guest • a month ago . . You should read the court documents and learn what really happened. The "information" on activist websites is hardly accurate. . . 5 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Guest • a month ago . . Please tell this forum how ~3 acres of HT canola "blew onto his field" in one spot so that when he sprayed the 3 acres with glyphosate it did not die. Then please explain why he saved that seed, had it treated for planting the next year and then planted over 1000 acres with that seed he saved from the 3 acres of canola he sprayed with glyphosate. How is he a victim? . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . . . David Lynch Andrew87 • a month ago . . If you provide it, you profit for it. Capitalism. Hate it if you like. Source us for the rest of your post. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

o barmon777 David Lynch • a month ago . . Why are people becoming gluten sensitive and unable to eat "normal" wheat. After eating all kinds of bread all my life I can no longer eat bread served in restaurants because of the gastronomical pain I get after eating breads containing gluten. If I want to eat bread I have to find the bland tasting stuff that costs more in the health food section. Perhaps you have noticed the growth of gluten free products on the shelves. It's not there because it tastes better. It's there because some people now experience real pain after eating grain products containing gluten. The number of gluten sensitive people is growing exponentially. Is this because of GMO? Who knows? There is no way for the consumer to measure this. Maybe GMO is NOT the cause - but maybe it could be the cure? I have found a few non gluten products that taste OK and do not cost a lot more, but my choices are way down. If I were a wheat farmer I would be concerned that a "mistake" might happen rendering entire crops uneatable. For me, I just can't get bread with gluten in it. I fill up with gas and have lots of stomach pain. It hurts. Then I can't sleep. I can't go out. Note that this is if I eat a few slices - a tiny amount produces a lesser negative effect. What if you feed your cattle such grains and they react. How would you know? Their stomachs would bloat up and they would blow a lot more wind, and let you know they were unhappy. I bet there are a lot more people who experience gluten intolerance and don't know what it is. Go without bread for a while and find out. . . 6 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Robmax barmon777 • a month ago . . You have left wing loonism. . . 6 1 . • . Share › . . . . Rodimus Prime Robmax • a month ago . . There may be a pill for that. . . 2 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager barmon777 • a month ago . . Once again, there is no GE wheat on the market. . . 7 2 . • . Share › . . .

. D.M barmon777 • a month ago . . Ditto! I lost 17 pounds of water-retaining flesh once I quit eating regular (whole wheat. rye, multigrain) breads and have gone gluten free. I no longer have headaches, stomach aches and feel energized. Don't tell me that GMO altered grains/corn/soy is good for me! . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

o Guest David Lynch • a month ago . . Genetically modified at a cellular level is completely different than cross pollination which the Dutch did tons of with Tulips and is what I am quite sure you are seeking to say . . 4 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Robmax Guest • a month ago . . Not really. It's better though. You get to breed in the qualities you want, without breeding out the qualities you want to keep. . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Guest • a month ago . . The 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper "Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment." The three major conclusions are: (a)There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms; (b) The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods; (c) Assessment of the risk of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.) . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

• Robmax • a month ago o o Monsanto has made farming a much less riskier business, less costly and more profitable for farmers. The evil ones are the likes of greenfleece and the rest of the nut jobs and screwballs. The lies they've told and tried to manufacture are criminal, and Monsanto should have brought charges against them long ago. o o 48 16 o • o Share › . . .

o Oskie Robmax • a month ago . . Couple questions to somebody very smart in the other side: -Then why is that monsanto(aka monsatan) and coca cola, pepsi, kraft, bayer, du pont, dow, nestle and many other chemical companies want to own the whole food supply around the world? Why is that? -Why these companies did fight the labeling behind a ghost organization in washington DC using tricks, and lies against I-522 to confuse people reject gmo labeling in the USA and then Canada? -why if they want to feed the hungry around the world, gmos are banned in more than 60 countries? Why only in north america? Are the politicians and people in these countries stupid? Russia, England, Italia, Germany Israel Australia Japan Mexico Central America Argentina Chile Peru Bolivia -Why did monsanto fight prosposition 37 in California and donated millions of dollars to defeat it? -Why if these products are so good for human beings and monsanto is so proud of them why are not labeled as gmos? Not buying anything monsanto says. It is a lie, a trick and sooner or later it will be stopped. people is getting tired of the damage to life, the environment, families, babies and a whole lot of stuff that people ignore. But little by little this will end. see more . . 13 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Guest Oskie • a month ago . . yes one simple question IF GMO's are so good why not have them labeled? you would think it would be a selling point . . 4 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Guest • a month ago . . I submit the average person knows little of how food crops are bred including GE crops. Therefore putting just one breeding method on the label would be misleading the public to think there was something different with food from GE crops. Would you mind posting five things you "know to be facts" about GE crops. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

o Sun Wu'kong Robmax • a month ago . . You realize Monsanto is neither a police force nor a government, right? . . 15 5 . • . Share › . . .

. Robmax Sun Wu'kong • a month ago . . What? . . 8 . • . Share › . . .

. Sun Wu'kong Robmax • a month ago . . Only a government or their appointed agents can "charge" someone with a crime. What you're asking for is (I would hope) beyond the ability of Monsanto. Civil action is available and, I hope, you understand what the difference is. . . 5 . • . Share › . . .

. Guest Sun Wu'kong • a month ago . . oh But Monsanto bought and now owns what was called Blackwater the hired guns mercenary/security company hired by the USA government in various Conflicts worldwide . . . • . Share › . . .

o stone Robmax • a month ago . . Tell that to those that have been unjustly sued by Monsanto. . . 14 6 . • . Share › . . .

. Robmax stone • a month ago . . They are sued for breach of contract, and rightly so. . . 14 3 . • . Share › . . .

. mowgli66 Robmax • a month ago . . GMO seeds are blown onto their property and Monsanto sues them....very fair. . . 13 6 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager mowgli66 • a month ago . . You need to read the Court documents of the Organic Seed growers and trade Assoc v Monsanto. In it you can see no such lawsuit has ever occurred. The only people Monsanto has ever sued are those who stole the Monsanto seed and used in large scale. Oh and you can also learn no organic certification has ever been lost from trace amounts of GE blowing into an organic field. Two myths busted by this court case. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/c... . . 16 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . The problem in a nutshell is that GMOs are really "food on steroids". . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Robmax mowgli66 • a month ago . . That is not true. That's why these guys don't win in court. . . 9 2 . • . Share › . . .

. cakeeater Robmax • a month ago . . They don't win because they don't have the money to win. And every win for Monsanto becomes a precedent. . . 10 4 . • . Share › . . .

. mrbuddhafreak cakeeater • a month ago . . They lose because their cases run the range from specious to questionable and on to fraudulent. . . 10 . • . Share › . . .

. cakeeater mrbuddhafreak • a month ago . . Yeah. Monsanto is always right? Might is right? . . 5 1 . • . Share › • • •

. RobertWager mowgli66 • a month ago . . No such lawsuit has ever happened. The only suits were when people stole the Monsanto product and used in in large scale. Your fear story is a myth. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/c... . . 5 2 . • . Share › . . .

. stone RobertWager • a month ago . . Here you go: http://thegranddisillusion.wor... farmer sued by Monsanto. -No matter how the seed is contaminated Monsanto wins. -No matter if the farmer used RoundUp or not Monsanto wins. -Monsanto lost but not due to the above 2 -Farmer had to pay their own legal bills and went through more than a decade. -Farmer had never bought seed from Monsanto. Monsanto used the farmer as an unwilling legal guinea pig. The farmer had no motive to grow and did not reap any of hte benefit of the seeds. Farmer counter sued and won costs to clean up their land of the Monsanto seed. . . 8 1 . • . Share › . . .

. King Tut-Tut mowgli66 • a month ago . . Indeed, and to put this into contrast, you couldn't sue Monsanto because their seeds are blowing onto your property - you are only able to sue the person who is sowing them. . . . • . Share › . . .

. stone Robmax • a month ago . . Not all of them are in breach of contract: http://thegranddisillusion.wor... . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager stone • a month ago . . Your right he just propagated 1000+ acres worth of Monsanto's seed and planted nine fields (over 1000 acres) with it. That is why all three levels of the Canadian Court system found him guilty. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. stone RobertWager • a month ago . . The lower courts stated it did not matter how seed got there, they considered nothing when it came to that. The court that counted found him innocent. The court that counted had Monsanto pay for the field cleanup. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Guest Robmax • a month ago . . /*. tell that to the Saskatchewan farmer whom WAS sued and had GMO plants in his non GMO crop. go figure that out . . . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Guest • a month ago . . May I suggest you go to my website and read "Goliath vs Goliath. It will explain what really happened with that case. the court case documents are linked there. http://web.viu.ca/wager cheers . . . • . Share › . . .

o Incar Kaboom Robmax • a month ago . . Don't get me wrong, based on what I've learned regarding GMO's we wouldn't be able to feed the population it now does. Monsanto is still a evil, money/power hungry corporation and if they were transparent as they claim to be, why oppose GMO labeling? . . 6 2 . • . Share › . . .

o usamitch Robmax • a month ago . . your a crackpot that has no clue how DNA damaging GMO crops are on live stock and human beings. I would not hold on to your Monsanto stock for to much longer as they prepare to take it in the face. . . 1 3 . • . Share › . . .

• A.Outrage • a month ago o o It isn't just Indian farmers who are committing suicide, it's those farmers in the U.S. and Canada who have been sued by Monsanto simply because the GMO seeds used by a neighbouring farmer have cross-pollinated with natural seeds they use and Monsanto sends in it's "Men in Black" to accuse the farmer for IP infringement and threaten them with litigation! And many a farmer have gone bankrupt trying to defend themselves against the vast financial resources of a Monsanto. It is also well documented that Monsanto attempted to bribe veterinary doctor's employed by Health Canada to the tune of $2 million dollars back in the 1990's. They were pressuring these officials to approve a dangerous drug that boosts dairy production. Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5m (£799,000) fine for bribing Indonesian officials back in 2005. Monsanto admitted "one of its employees" paid the senior officials several years ago in a bid to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its cotton. Monsanto is like Rob Ford - they are morally bankrupt yet continue to pretend they've done nothing wrong, and when they are caught in a lie apologize but then turn around to continue to engage in the same bad conduct as before. Monsanto should be exposed as the criminal organization that they are and banned from conducting business of any kind in Canada. 'Evil' is too nice of a word to describe these d-bags! o o 40 16 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager A.Outrage • a month ago . . Lets look at the India myth. According to the Indian Government stats In 2006 (three years after GEcotton was authorized to be grown in India) the suicide rate was 13% rural and 87% urban. About 15 % of the cotton was GE. five years later the suicide rate in rural India is 10% and 90%+ of the cotton grown in India is GE. Doesn't quite fit your fear story now does it? . . 26 . • . Share › . . .

. A.Outrage RobertWager • a month ago . . Fear story? Whatever you need to tell yourself. Here is an excerpt from a Vanity Fair article: "...... Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics." "...... (The) radical departure from age-old practice has created turmoil in farm country. Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product. Still others say that they don’t use Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or deposited by birds. It’s certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn’t buy G.M. seeds and doesn’t want them on his land, it’s a safe bet he’ll get a visit from Monsanto’s seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are discovered in his fields. "Ever since commercial introduction of its G.M. seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and seed dealers. In a 2007 report, the Center for Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 states." "Even more significant, in the Center’s opinion, are the numbers of farmers who settle because they don’t have the money or the time to fight Monsanto. “The number of cases filed is only the tip of the iceberg,” says Bill Freese, the Center’s science-policy analyst. Freese says he has been told of many cases in which Monsanto investigators showed up at a farmer’s house or confronted him in his fields, claiming he had violated the technology agreement and demanding to see his records. According to Freese, investigators will say, “Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if you don’t sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to come after you and take your farm or take you for all you’re worth.” Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming out of a store, to let him know he is being followed." I would also urge you to go rent a documentary called: "The World According to Monsanto". see more . . 9 6 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager A.Outrage • a month ago . . Try this real court document that explodes those myths http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/c... . . 6 2 . • . Share › . . .

. A.Outrage RobertWager • a month ago . . So? A group of organic, non-organic farmers, seed growers, sellers and other organizations FINALLY fight back with a class-action lawsuit detailing all the reasons, farmers, governments and NGO's the world over have been arguing for years - you can not patent life! Organisms (ie. seeds) can not be released into nature to exist in perpetuity and independent of all natural forces and variables. Eventually, through no fault of any one person, those forces will come into play and copyright infringement will happen - again through no fault of anyone! Nonetheless, Monsanto will pursue it's ruthless tactics regardless of the outcome of any one law suit, (and I might add does not make your case) - their success in the financial ruination of farmers is a constant shot across the bow of anyone (or group of individuals) who would think to oppose their corporate greed. Everyone one knows, except for you, that the U.S patent system is broken - just ask the likes of Apple, Samsung, Blackberry who have been fighting round- robin patent suits for years. Both USDA and FDA officials have regularly taken up senior posts with Monsanto often right after they have served the "public interest" with these agencies. And during the time that Congressional and Senate committees, who oversee these very agencies, have been relentlessly lobbied by Monsanto to curry favour and influence their oversight of said agencies. This is in addition to senior cabinet secretaries who have served in the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations have been granted directorships on Monsanto's board. And everyone knows, again...except for you, that what constitutes the law often has little or nothing to do with what is ethical or right. As a conservative I do not partake in the broad-brush hysteria of 'corporate-bashing'. But sometimes....sometimes vocal and critical opposition of the likes of an organization like Monsanto is not only warranted, but is the duty and responsibility of all people who hold the ideal of fairness and ethics sacrosanct. see more . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . Total red herring. Face it, Robert. You are in over your head here. PS: I saw your website. I notice you do not post any peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. I conclude you are a paid shill for Monsanto. . . 6 3 . • . Share › . . .

. coco RobertWager • a month ago . . Why would Vandana Shiva lie. . . 1 3 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager coco • a month ago . . She travels around the world collecting speaker fees. Thats why . . 7 2 . • . Share › . . . . Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . So you and Monsanto and it's supporters would lie for money too??? . . 3 2 . • . Share › . . .

o C'est moi A.Outrage • a month ago . . Well, I'm sure someone told you that if a few hits didn't hurt Mr. Ford they wouldn't hurt you. . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

. KingsX C'est moi • a month ago . . This is typical of the either ignorant or uneducated leftist. They start talking about Rob Ford, where he doesn't enter into the picture AT ALL. Because they have zero idea what they are talking about, or just prefer to put their fingers in their ears and go, la la la, I can't hear you (meaning, I can't and don't want to know the truth). . . 12 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger KingsX • a month ago . . The Society of Toxicology, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and several peer reviewed non-governmental studies would disagree with you on the long term effects of GMO exposure. Was that you going "la la la, I can't hear you."? Here's an idea... Google it! Warning, try not to trip over the big words that don't play well in paid for corporate sound bites. If the other side had as much money, THESE would be the facts you would hear too. So typical of a sheeple. He who has the mostest is the rightest. (Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.) (Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.) . . 4 5 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Roger • a month ago . . As for the Pusztai paper, try reading this rebuttal from the Royal Society "The safety of GM plants is an important and complex area of scientific research and demands rigorous standards. However, on the basis of the information available to us, it appears that the reported work from the Rowett is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it." http://royalsociety.org/upload... . . 3 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger RobertWager • a month ago . . Intriguing, they did in fact find fault with the Pusztai paper. You are correct. The following report is from the conclusion of that rebuttal, but I'll summarize. More research is needed. Thank you for proving my point, Robert. "The only way to clarify the current situation would be to refine the experimental design of the research done to date and to use this as the basis for further studies in which clearly defined hypotheses were tested, focused on the specific differences already claimed. It would be necessary to carry out a large number of extremely complex tests on many different strains of GM and non- GM potatoes. It would be important to ensure that these studies had sufficient statistical power (in the sense that numbers in each experimental group were sufficient to deal with the variability in individual response) to come to a clear conclusion. It would also be important to take adequate account of the age and the susceptibility of the animals and the wholesomeness, completeness and adequacy of the entire diet. Careful thought would have to be given to the specific targets for any hypothesized damage." . . 1 . • . Share › . . . . cakeeater Roger • a month ago . . That's science! Conservatives don't do science! . . 2 4 . • . Share › . . .

. mrbuddhafreak cakeeater • a month ago . . The problem is, for leftists, that conservatives see the difference between science and politics, where the left sees the two as being part of the same activist agenda. . . 8 1 . • . Share › . . .

. cakeeater mrbuddhafreak • a month ago . . It's the RWRs that think scientists have "an agenda". They see scientists as a bunch of Lex Luthers that need to be muzzled. . . 2 1 . • . Share › . . .

• Compos Mentis redux • a month ago o o Scare mongers from the environmental left have caused people harm because of their insistence that GM crops are harmful to humans. Even the former head of Greenpeace Mr. Moore recognized this! o o 20 6 o • o Share › . . .

• Hawkman100 • a month ago o o Greenpeace and other environmental groups are very good at The Big Lie technique of spreading propaganda, which was perfected by the Nazis during World War II. Tell a big lie often enough and forcefully enough and people will start to believe it . Such is the case with genetically modified foods and the propaganda campaign against those foods led by Greenpeace. How unfortunate that there is no accountability on the part of Greenpeace. Monsanto has government regulation to hold it accountable to the public . Greenpeace has no accountability and takes full advantage of that . o o 8 1 o • o Share › . . .

o Erikxyz Hawkman100 • a month ago . . The cigarette industry and many other businesses motivated by money are also very good at the Big Lie. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . And the $50 billion organic food industry does what with their profits donate it to world hunger programs? For some perspective that 4X the money Monsanto made last year. . . 3 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . Total red herring. Face it, Robert. You are in over your head here. PS: Saw your website. I notice you do not post any peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. I conclude you are a paid shill for Monsanto. . . 2 3 . • . Share › . . .

. Rodimus Prime Erikxyz • a month ago . . There we go with the "paid shill" thing again. Anyone who opposes you airheads is being paid? I wish I were. We oppose you because we can't believe how naive you are....assuming you're adults. If you were teens I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. You follow the Suzukis and the Gores of the world in complete awe...... looking up at them as if they were angels...blindly believing...using environmental anti-GMO/corporate websites and as your sources. Greenpeace is fleecing you people (not to mention creepy old guy Suzuki). His time is coming....people are finding all about him, thanks in part to Ezra Levant. Poor David and the CBC will be controlling his interviews more carefully and his handlers probably got their pee pee's slapped after the Australia fiasco. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz Rodimus Prime • a month ago . . Here is what you don't get, buddy. You folks on your side of the debate are just as nutty, irrational and gullible as the hard-core Greenpeace/David Suzuki fans. Your citation of Ezra Levant is a prime example of just how narrow the spectrum of your capacity for thought really is. Both extremes are a menace to society and a danger to rational thought. . . 1 . • . Share › . . . . Rodimus Prime Erikxyz • a month ago . . Ezra's character and ideas have nothing at all to do with the fact that he exposed Suzuki as a fraud and a hypocrite. Why deflect? Ezra is who he is, and doesn't try to hide it. Suzuki on the other hand has spent his entire life conning people for profit, nothing more....."buddy". You obviously don't "get" it. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . You would be wrong. i am an academic who studies GMO's and public policy. I have never personally received a dime from any biotech company. look again at the references section of the website. cheers . . 1 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . Where are the peer reviewed articles??? . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion Erikxyz • a month ago . . where are yours? . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger BrianDavion • a month ago . . See above. See below. Look around. . . 1 . • . Share › • • •

. Hawkman100 Erikxyz • a month ago . . 2 wrongs don't make a right, except in your world obviously. . . . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz Hawkman100 • a month ago . . Your comment makes no sense. . . . • . Share › . . . . Hawkman100 Erikxyz • a month ago . . Neither does yours. . . . • . Share › . . .

• snowy • a month ago o o they do realize that all our foods most if not all pets are genetically modified right? o o 4 o • o Share › . . .

• KingsX • a month ago o o Myth, lies, political spin, half truthes, exaggeration, misdirection, all the bastiens of the anti-corporate, anti-forward thinking leftists. o o 10 3 o • o Share › . . .

o Roger KingsX • a month ago . . Forward thinking does NOT mean make as much money as possible and throw caution and science to the wind in a giant science experiment with the biosphere. Science is supposed to be slow and steady, and the scientific method assumes failure as often as success. Risk Assessment is supposed to be a part of science. IF they fail, even if the risk is small, the potential consequences are greater than if a single bad farmer somewhere sells raw milk to someone too dumb to know what "sour" smells like. . . 3 4 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Roger • a month ago . . GE crops have been going thru exactly what you say a slow steady evaluation process over three decades. After this time and over three trillion meals with food from GE crops there is not a single documented case of harm. How much better would you like the record to be? . . 9 . • . Share › . . .

. Adam Smith RobertWager • a month ago . . Nobody is saying it immediately makes you sick immediately. Rates of cancer, asthma, auto-immune deficiency, etc are all on the rise and we don't know why. But surely we should just rapidly change our food's genetic makeup because it's more profitable and assume these disease rates are unrelated. Very conservative of you there, making giant system altering jumps based on minimum evidence. . . 3 2 . • . Share › . . .

• RobertWager • a month ago o o Good on ya Trish. It is messy in the trenches. o o 8 2 o • o Share › . . .

o Roger RobertWager • a month ago . . Way to Go, Darier. Glad you never leave the trenches. . . 3 3 . • . Share › . . .

• Gyanendra Shukla • a month ago o o All the information related to farmer suicides in India due to Bt Cotton is incorrect. As a matter of fact more than 6 million farmers continue to grow seeds containing the Bt Technology. Are farmers fool? Opponents can do better by giving solutions rather than misleading the general public and causing harm to society at large. o o 3 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager Gyanendra Shukla • a month ago . . I agree. Here are a few numbers from the Indian Government to ponder. In 2006 the suicide rate was 13% in rural areas, 87% in urban areas. At that time about 15% of the cotton grown in India was Bt (A type of GE crop). Jump ahead five years and >90% of all cotton grown in India is Bt. The rural suicide rate is 10%. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

• Erikxyz • a month ago o o It has been discovered that Big Food (Coca-Cola, General Mills, Etc,) spent about $7,000,000 to oppose GMO labelling requirements in a Washington state vote this week. Much more was spent in California on the same issue a year ago. Why are all these champions of capitalism so strenuously opposed to informing the consumer about the contents of their products and letting them choose freely? o o 3 o • o Share › . . .

o BrianDavion Erikxyz • a month ago . . I imagine they're mostly converned with book keeping costs increasing. right now all they need to do is concern themselves with "is this rice?" and procureing that rice (just using rice as an example here) at the best possiable price. insituting mandatory listing of GM foods would require them to keep track of what they buy, decide if it's GMed or not, list what it is etc (geneticly modified craps I suspect we'd find has a bit of a grey area). I mean 7 million is a pittance when you're discussing big food in general. those companies are billion (if not trillion) dollar industries . . . • . Share › . . .

• RobertWager • a month ago o o "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” AAAS 2012 o o 5 1 o • o Share › . . .

o blue RobertWager • a month ago . . This is indeed wonderful news. Thus there should be no objection whatsoever from the GMO organizations to specifically and proudly identifying food containing GMO's. One would expect them in fact to lobby for this but quite the opposite is true, they strongly lobby against it, mystifying. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Hawkman100 blue • a month ago . . They lobby against it because they know that environmentalists will simply use this labeling to focus their harassment and propaganda campaigns against these companies. If environmentalists were truly interested in the objective truth, I would have no problem with GMO labeling. But the fact is, that environmentalists will latch onto any information, true or not, in pursuing their ideologically-based and sleazy propaganda campaigns. . . 3 . • . Share › . . .

• Clayne • a month ago o o Monsanto may not admit it, but they are ideological in approach, however their ideology directly conflicts with the ideology of their detractors. I do not trust Monsanto. This is due to their past behaviour with regards to things like Agent Orange. There is also something very suspect in that Monsanto does not want GMO foods labelled as such. I have listened to their arguments in the matter of labelling, but they are unconvincing. It is not because I am resistant to technology, it just that we must not assume that all new technology is helpful, and at times it can be destructive. It better to view the introduction of GMO's cautiously; not to simply dismiss it, but not to embrace it without due diligence. Do not tell me that some scientists believe GMO's are safe. GMO's have not existed long enough to conduct a study over a human lifetime or several generations. The fear of shifting the control of our food supply to corporations is valid. You really cannot completely trust corporations. That does not mean corporations cannot be extremely productive mechanisms to increase wealth and quality of life. However, history shows that a corporation really does exist first and foremost to create a profit to its shareholders, and that other stakeholders are secondary. I would deem this a balanced point of view, not ant-capitalist. o o 6 2 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager Clayne • a month ago . . So how do you feel about the corporations that control the vast amount of organic food you buy. Is that different so how? . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Clayne RobertWager • a month ago . . What kind of loaded question is that? Who said I buy organic food from corporations? Did you actually read my comment? I have looked at your replies to other comments on the this board, and many of them are of a knee jerk, sarcastic nature, which avoid the main points mentioned. I think your style is beneath someone who prides themselves on being a technician at a community college. You have, incidentally, misrepresented yourself as an "academic". While being a technician is an honourable job, you are not an academic How about talking about the broader issues surrounding GMO, rather than regurgitating your talking points? . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Clayne • a month ago . . I have been a member of the faculty at Vancouver Island University (formally Malaspina University College) for almost nineteen years. Which post I have made would you like to dispute for accuracy? If corporations are a worry for you then why only certain corporations involved in our food system? A straight forward question you did not answer. You do not like my "style" of challenging the myths people put forward about GM technology. You do not like the insertion of context into the debate. Oh well. Can't please all the people all the time I guess. Which issue would you like to start with? if you go to my website you can read many articles on a variety of issues in this area of science. i would be happy to elaborate on any of those subjects. . . . • . Share › . . .

. abgirl3 RobertWager • a month ago . . Please province web address. Thanks . . . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager abgirl3 • a month ago . . http://web.viu.ca/wager cheers . . . • . Share › . . .

. abgirl3 RobertWager • a month ago . . Knowledge is Power. Thanks. . . . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager abgirl3 • a month ago . . You are welcome . . . • . Share › • • • • DSB111 • a month ago o o GMO products are tested and have not shown to have toxicity. The issue is the way the corporations are influencing govts. and coercing farmers to buy their patented seeds. Under Sarkozy (right-wing) in France, farmers could not sell their vegetables at market unless they purchased the seeds from the giant ag-chem companies. They couldn't sell their tomatoes produced from their own seed. This is the problem. - Its not free enterprise. o o 7 3 o • o Share › . . .

• somebodyshort • a month ago o o If a farmer is trying to grow natural crop s next to a farmer grwing GM crops he is out of luck. Monsanto cannot and farmers using GM crops cannot stop the spread of pollen from their farms. Monsanto should have been forced to contain the pollen from GM crops from infecting other crops. The other issue is Monsanto can't control the evolution of the genes they are inserting into seeds. The genes they are inserting produce proteins and enzymes to have certain crop effects. The problem is no one knows the impact those may have further into the food chain. Is it likely? No Is it possible? Yes. The more it's done the odds go up it will happen. o o 13 10 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager somebodyshort • a month ago . . So pollen flow from GE crops to "natural" crops (there are none we have been manipulating the DNA of our food crops for 10,000 years) is bad but what about those inferior "natural crops pollen flowing to superior modern crops, is that ok with you? Farmers pay for superior genetics in theircrops so why should a farmer who plants inferior seed(natural) be allowed to have the pollen from hie inferior seed crop spread to the farmer who paid for the best modern seed (by your way of thinking) . . 13 . • . Share › . . . o RobertWager somebodyshort • a month ago . . You want risk free agriculture then. Ok lets look at recent history. 17 years of GE crops and three trillion meals made from them and not a single documented case of harm. Since 2011 there have been 17 recalls for pathogenic microorganism contamination of organic food with many deaths and thousands of with chronic kidney damage. . . 19 2 . • . Share › . . .

. SeaChange9898 RobertWager • a month ago . . Beware the 'organic' label and cook the crap out of it if you buy it. . . 9 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Allan Beveridge RobertWager • a month ago . . Your statement is not credible in terms of suggesting the crops are safe. You say that there are no documented cases of harm, but that cannot be proven. Harm can come in many forms. My father was a VP in the pharmaceutical business and they never tested their products sufficiently as short term studies were are still pretty much are all that is done. Further, no one knows what the impacts are as there are no independent studies allowed at all. "The Monsanto Protection Act, essentially both written by and benefiting Monsanto Corporation, has been signed into law by United States President Barack Obama. The infamous Monsanto Corporation will benefit greatly and directly from the bill, as it essentially gives companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds immunity to the federal courts, among other things. The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales." http://www.globalresearch.ca/m... I do not trust any company that refuses to allow testing of it's products and gets the government to assist them in blocking studies and grants immunity from prosecution. . . 3 5 . • . Share › . . . . RobertWager Allan Beveridge • a month ago . . The Farmer protection act did exactly what it was supposed to do stop activist judges from trying to override the considered scientific opinions of the government regulators on GE crops. Every single GE crop is tested according to UN-OECD, FAO, WHO food toxicology protocols, the companies doing the testing have zero say on what tests, how many tests, with what animals, over how long with what controls etc. If you think you know better than the world experts, please tell this forum what test not already done would you like to see added and why? . . 6 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger RobertWager • a month ago . . The pharmaceutical industry uses far more stringent requirements, why not use those? Since this is a food system that is going to infect, or affect, the entire biome, what would you suggest is good enough testing? How about a multi-generational study? Like the one that natural processes had to undergo? This is a re-writing of the genetic code by humans. How long did nature take to write it the first time, and how many organisms died in the process? Why is it that all they seem to be inserting in these plants is pesticide resistance for pesticide produced by the same company that is providing the seed? And herbicide resistance, ditto? That's not science, that's marketing. And Google "Superweeds". Weeds are responding faster than Monsanto. This is going to save the world's food supply? Huge doses of herbicide sprayed on crops? It won't affect the surrounding biome at all? Does that make sense? . . 2 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Allan Beveridge RobertWager • a month ago . . You are still wrong. No studies are released that have not been approved by Monsanto.That's a fact you cannot avoid. You can say what you like about protocols, but no peer reviewed study that isn't approved by Monsanto is available. Why not? If they are that safe let completely independent studies and peer reviews occur. That they won't allow this to occur is telling. . . . • . Share › . . . o Rodimus Prime somebodyshort • a month ago . . Shut up. GMO's will feed a starving world. Why would you fall for that Suzuki crap? . . 18 4 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion Rodimus Prime • a month ago . . Rodimus is his useal crude insulting and confrontational self, however his point isn't entirely wrong. given the trouble with feeding people, GM crops isn't a bad thing at all. . . 10 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger Rodimus Prime • a month ago . . Shut up. GMO's are bad science. Why would you fall for that marketing crap? There. Your incredible argument is incredible. . . 1 4 . • . Share › . . .

. KingsX Roger • a month ago . . Do you know and/or researched ANY of this topic, at all? Or are you just shooting from the hip, like some ignorant bozo? . . 8 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger KingsX • a month ago . . Responding to Rodimus in his own language, which you've properly labelled. Unlike GMO's. Have you noticed, as I have, that people in favor of GMO's like the term ignorant bozo more than they like facts? What are yours? . . 1 3 . • . Share › . . .

. Rodimus Prime Roger • a month ago . . Let us know the facts then genius. How are GMO's poisonous? Why is Greenpeace against beneficial products like golden rice? Show us the statistics. Or is it just that your anti-corporate bias clouds what little vision you have. It's really all about sh-tting on big corporations, Monsanto being the front and center whipping boy. Never mind how these products could revolutionize food production and a shrinking food supply...... it's still just a matter of eco-enviro/socialist ideology for your types. Anything you people can do to throw a wrench into government, free markets and for-profit incentive. One big hippie commune won't solve any problems. The world won't survive on organic tofu and E.I. Quit listening to what your friends with signs and The Nature of Things tell you. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger Rodimus Prime • a month ago . . The risk assessment isn't complete, Rodimus. You see, when genes are inserted into cells, they aren't targeted. Sort of like blasting a coherent statement with a lot of words and hoping that a proper novel is formed. That means unintended consequences can happen, and words that mean things you don't intend. Now, when that's done in a lab, or in a tank where vaccines are created using organisms that can't escape into the environment, you can study it and control it. Turning that technology loose in the environment is akin to driving ninety miles an hour down a dead end road. It's not a problem at all... Depending on if you stop and when. Kind of like how smoking doesn't cause cancer... the first time. What's missing are long term risk assessments. A "ninety day study" is in fact industry standard... On a system four billion years old that we don't completely understand. Yes, I doubt very much that all the ramifications are understood. Can you guarantee that a problem won't happen? No. Then there's too much at risk. I don't want to take part in Monsanto's global science experiment. The truth is that sustainable farming is being studied at most of the Land Grant colleges in the United States, and is now offered as a four year major. Such things as Integrated Pest Management, Intensive Pasture Management, season extension practices and organics are in fact proving that they CAN feed the world. Your research is dated. And your hippies have been replaced by educated scientists. Quit listening to marketing and listen to reason. Tell me... Why are you defending the use of plant and animal poisons on food that have NEVER been tested together? Can you be sure that they won't do anything used in concert? Can you be sure of ANYTHING that is produced solely for the pursuit of profit? Did you have any investments in toxic bank assets lately? Why is your trust so blind, and your ideology so canned? It isn't working anymore. Look at your arguments and look at mine, Rod. People are Googling every thing we both say. Thank you. May Canada ban this crap for the good of it's citizens, as 26 other nations already have. see more . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Rodimus Prime Roger • a month ago . . Those nations didn't ban GMO's for the good of the people, doughhead. They were banned because eco-terrorists like David Suzuki (who's been proven to know squat about GMO's) and Greenpeace have convinced voters that they're "poisonous". Governments in Europe (to the anguish of European scientists) have drafted policies based on making voters happy. People are Googling everything we both say? Good. Only the smart ones will be able to go to credible sites.....with information that can be confirmed. You must research online the same way conspiracy theorists do research. How naive are you anyway?http://www.euractiv.com/scienc... This is the one and only time I will post a "link"...... only because you teenage brained eco-followers and your blind stupidity makes guys like me angry. . . 1 . • . Share › • • •

. Roger Rodimus Prime • a month ago • • If David Suzuki has been proven to know squat about GMO's, then where is your advanced degree in the matter? Don't trip on those links. Did you read to the bottom of your article? The part where the rebuttal was given from the University of Cambridge in New Zealand? To quote: "Research shows that Europe is reducing pesticide use and increasing yields – without GM crops. This contrasts starkly with GM-hungry countries like the US and Canada, who find themselves stuck on a pesticides treadmill. It is a great shame that the EASAC fails to recognize this and instead comes out with rather out-dated arguments." “Instead of wasting time and money promoting a failed GMO technology that nobody wants, the scientific establishment should back practical, sustainable solutions. Europe needs more small-scale farming systems that protect biodiversity, increase soil fertility, provide good food and tackle climate change." Let me guess... EU data supporting GMO's is better than New Zealand data coming up against it. Are you calling yourself "right wing conservative" for defending technology that's not as old or as proven as the computer tech you're typing on?? What kind of a world changing leftist are you? The fact is that BOTH sides have science, but GMO science is less than a generation old, backed by a lot of money, and not very well tested. All of GMO is not as old as a single Phase III FDA approved pharmaceutical study for a vaccine or a new antibiotic. And THOSE technologies only affect a single individual, not possibly the entire biosphere. And that's a problem. One side of the argument is urging caution and less risky methods, much the way traditional telephone companies complained about cell phone brain cancers, and the other is all about going ahead full speed. You see... Corporations will urge moderation or acceleration regardless of the science. It's about where their money is. see more • • 1 • • • Share › o o o

• Erikxyz • a month ago o o The issue is not simple. Nothing in nature is. Monsanto's products do increase farm yields by protecting the products destined for human consumption.It's opponents can't deny that. This capacity of GMO's to increase farm yields is why Monsanto is anxious to have individual farmers be part of it's front line advocacy project. But it's supporters betray the real problem without meaning to. Monsanto’s insect-resistant eggplant seed grown in India, has eliminated the need for heavy spraying of insecticides. By adding to the seed Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) — “a protein from the soil that’s in the room right now, crawling around on our boot soles” — insect larva are killed without the need for insecticides. “It’s biological, organic preservation of the eggplant, using a protein.” Monsanto's GMO's work by killing other life forms. By so effectively killing these insect larva, and most other life forms, GM seeds and products such as products such as Monsantos Roundup brand herbicide, kill the food of birds, animals, and other life forms leaving fields in which the only living things are the GM plants. Huge components of the spectrum of life are wiped out. So we are not talking about a simple trade-off here; use GMO's to produce more food for a hungry planet which is Monsanto's argument. Monsanto's openness extends to this question and no further. The real trade-off is whether to produce more food and set off a complex and largely unstudied sequence of events with much broader potential implications for many other life forms; a question which Monsanto would rather not discuss. It also happens to be the question that the world needs to understand o o 2 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . So the use of broad spectrum insecticide instead of Bt is somehow better? There is no such thing as impact free agriculture. The trick is to get the maximum yield with the minimum impact. in that regard GE crops ave been very beneficial to the environment (according to the national Academy of sciences 2012 report 'Impact of GE Crops on Farm Sustainability in the US" . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . " The trick is to get the maximum yield with the minimum impact." Precisely, and Monsanto needs to participate fully and honestly in this dialogue; something it has steadfastly REFUSED to do for the last 20+ years. You start by saying," So the use of broad spectrum insecticide instead of Bt is somehow better?" I never said that. The "logic" behind your implication is the sort of flawed logic that originates with Monsanto's paid supporters. . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . So then why are farmers around the world adopting this technology, are they dumb and can not see these alleged negative effects from using GE crops? . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . Simple, the benefit of increased yield is an immediate cash benefit whereas the long term threat to biodiversity is harder to quantify; and is in fact made harder by Monsanto's rigid refusal to share data or co-operate with research they do not control. If there truly is no down-side to GMO's Monsanto needs to open up all aspects of it's research to independent review. Remember GMO's are pretty much completely banned in Europe where industry does not control the political system the way they are able to in North America. I was interested to note that Monsanto actually hired a guy, who made his mark working for the tobacco lobby, to help in the fight against the Proposition which would have required labelling of GMO ingredients in foods. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . Who said anything about NO down side? All agriculture has impact on the environment. Agriculture in general is by far the largest threat to biodiversity but what can we do people must be fed. The EU's highest court recently struck down the ban for lack of evidence of harm to humans or the environment. The globe must almost double the amount of food we produce in the coming decades. that means we must grow more on the same land unless people are OK with destroying the remaining wilderness to feed people. GE crops are only part of the solution, they are not a panacea nor are they the evil so many have come to believe by being myth-informed on the internet. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . Oh! Just thought of this! Where can I see a copy of the standard form contracts which Monsanto uses when selling seed to farmers and which farmers must sign? . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . So Monsanto will share ALL it's research results with the public? Or does it want to keep secrets? . . . • . Share › . . .

• Marshall Leetan • a month ago o o Stop your coffee drinking and chose something grown within national borders if you need the caffeine. I have been part of agriculture for work and was involved in a monsanto seed crop failing miserably then a small apologetic payment from monsanto nowhere near what a good crop wouod'ddve been worth for the year... Evil? I wont go so far to say that. Supp[ort local agriculture, whether organic or not in this huge landmass there is much that can be grown, manufactured and exported. Stop dependence on imports and manufacture in sovereign borders! o o 3 1 o • o Share › . . .

o Rodimus Prime Marshall Leetan • a month ago . . Yeah....cuz up here in Canada I'll just hop out to my orange tree in the back yard and then sprint out to the front yard for some pineapples and pomegranates.....then over to the neighbor's to pick some bananas. Wait a minute....there's a big bad Safeway store down the street. But I'll do without...because holy sh-t, wouldn't want Marshall to find out I'm supporting the corporate Satan. . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

o Robmax Marshall Leetan • a month ago . . The population is not going to be enslaved to your backwards communist tyranny. . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

• Murdo42 • a month ago o o Left wing socialist drivel. Profits funds R & D, R & D fund invention, invention helps keep the world fed. Try living on rice cakes. o o 4 3 o • o Share › . . .

• David Philip • a month ago o o I remember the "Adventure Thru Inner Space" attraction at Disneyland when I was a teen. It was sponsored by Monsanto. The corporate branding had a positive effect on me at the time because it was fun. It wasn't long before I grew up and paid attention to what this company was about. It probably would have closed anyway, but even as a child, I would have boycotted that attraction if I had known what I know now about Monsanto. o o 5 5 o • o Share › . . .

o SeaChange9898 David Philip • a month ago . . What do you know about Monsanto....really? . . 10 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger SeaChange9898 • a month ago . . More than your thirty second marketing sound bite. . . 4 . • . Share › . . .

. Cinguettante SeaChange9898 • a month ago . . Enough..., really. . . 4 . • . Share › . . .

• Erikxyz • a month ago o o Monsanto's lines of argument resemble those of Big Tobacco too much for my liking. The issue is not simple. Nothing in nature is. Monsanto's products do increase farm yields by protecting the products destined for human consumption.It's opponents can't deny that. This capacity of GMO's to increase farm yields is why Monsanto is anxious to have individual farmers be part of it's front line advocacy project. Individual farmers can earn more planting GMO's That creates a powerful constituency But it's supporters betray the real problem without meaning to. Monsanto’s insect-resistant eggplant seed grown in India, has eliminated the need for heavy spraying of insecticides. By adding to the seed Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) — “a protein from the soil that’s in the room right now, crawling around on our boot soles” — insect larva are killed without the need for insecticides. “It’s biological, organic preservation of the eggplant, using a protein.” Monsanto's GMO's work by killing other life forms. By so effectively killing these insect larva, and most other life forms, GM seeds and products such as products such as Monsanto's Roundup brand herbicide, kill the food of birds, animals, and other life forms leaving fields in which the only living things are the GM plants. Huge components of the spectrum of life are wiped out. So we are not talking about a simple trade-off here; use GMO's to produce more food for a hungry planet which is Monsanto's argument. Monsanto's openness extends to this question and no further. The real trade-off is whether to produce more food and set off a complex and largely unstudied sequence of events with much broader potential implications for many other life forms; a question which Monsanto would rather not discuss. It also happens to be the question that the world needs to understand as we consider the trade-offs which are now being made with less than adequate knowledge. see more o o 3 2 o • o Share › . . .

• usamitch • a month ago o o Monsanto is a lying company. They mislead, twist data, buy politicians and dance all the way to the bank. The products scientifically proven to make us sick. Anyone on the side of this criminal company is damaged beyond repair. o o 4 4 o • o Share › . . .

o Hawkman100 usamitch • a month ago . . And of course you don't have one single solitary shred of evidence to support your position. But that's okay, people are just supposed to believe you. . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

. usamitch Hawkman100 • a month ago . . Here you go: http://www.responsibletechnolo... . . 3 . • . Share › . . .

. Hawkman100 usamitch • a month ago . . Oh yes, an enviro website. The least reliable source of credible information on earth. This source is laughable. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion usamitch • a month ago . . you don't belive me!? well belive a random website that says the exact same thing with likewise no proof to back it up! that'll convince you . . . • . Share › . . .

. Rodimus Prime usamitch • a month ago . . Oh no....really? What are you....a sixteen year old girl? . . . • . Share › . . .

. Robmax usamitch • a month ago . . All nonsense. . . . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager usamitch • a month ago . . From the very Heart of the anti-GMO industry. Already see that so-called "information" . . . • . Share › . . .

o Rodimus Prime usamitch • a month ago . . Show us the science. Who's sick....on which products. Youtube....right? . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

o RobertWager usamitch • a month ago . . More myths, there is not a single documented case of harm ever recorded from GE crops. This according to world food safety experts, world health experts and world scientific bodies. But the internet will tell you different. Further is no scientifically defensible hypothesis of how GE crops would cause harm . . 2 2 . • . Share › . . .

. barmon777 RobertWager • a month ago . . I love eating bread and have all my life. But I have become gluten sensitive and I do not know why. Last night I ate some "normal" bread in spite of my intolerance. I slept only 4 hours and continue to have an upset stomach. In the worst moments I had extreme gastronomical pain. I had to pace the floor and sit on the throne, time after time. Mind you I ate quite a bit of normal bread - maybe 40% of a loaf. The upset is proportional to the quantity of normal (gluten included) bread consumed. It's not a joke. Menu selections in a restaurant become quite limited. I have met quite a few new members to the gluten intolerance group. The numbers are increasing exponentially. Is this because of GMO? Who knows? Better labelling would help a lot. Maybe GMO could cure this? But GMO cannot become the cure without recognition of the problem and the need for better labelling. If Monsanto ignores this, over the medium run they will lose money. The marketplace will downgrade GMO grain because the market is contracting due to Gluten intolerance. If people cannot eat the grain there is a big problem. You might be next. I realize I am only one person and I do not know why I can no longer eat the breads I love so much. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager barmon777 • a month ago . . No there is no GE wheat on the market today. But there are some good research programs using GE technology to reduce the gluten protein in wheat for those who suffer from gluten tolerance. They will be a bit before they reach the market though as the safety testing takes years. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Hawkman100 barmon777 • a month ago . . I would bet that your gluten intolerance is psychosomatic, to put it politely. . . . • . Share › . . .

• Mahou Shoujo • a month ago o o Un-inventing something once it exists, cannot be done. Progress will happen, that cannot be changed. The way people see and respond to change is adaptable, a bit of research in that area would help. o o 2 1 o • o Share › . . .

• Anopheles • a month ago o o The farmers all have a choice. Nobody is forcing them to use GMO seeds. They are most welcome to reap the savings in seed cost by using non-gmo seeds. However they will lose FAR more because of substantially reduced yields. How many people reading this will voluntarily take a 30-40% pay cut because a greenie, with no proof, says something is bad? Please, step up or shut up. o o 2 1 o • o Share › . . . o JohnFrodo Anopheles • a month ago . . tell to the people of Fukusima who knew nothing could go wrong . . 2 3 . • . Share › . . .

• master-yoda • a month ago o o IMHO, the left gets it wrong 19 times out of 20, you's guys have really poor batting percentage. Corn has been crossed hundreds of times in the last 2 thousand years, yes they have been "genetically modifying" corn that long...Got milk? o o 2 1 o • o Share › . . .

o Roger master-yoda • a month ago . . The left gets it wrong... Perhaps. But is it truly conservative to jump on the bandwagon of bad ethics? . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. master-yoda Roger • a month ago . . Well, you can stop eating their product. It is your choice. Personally, I am much more concerned with the level of toxicity from pollution in our environment. IMHO, that is where most of our attention should turn. . . . • . Share › . . .

o Roger master-yoda • a month ago . . Selective breeding is not genetic level manipulation. Many, many plants didn't make the cut. And the failures didn't have any unintended consequences the way modern techniques so often do. Seen a drug recall lately? . . . • . Share › . . .

. master-yoda Roger • a month ago . . Ah yes it is, that's just semantics. To hybrid IS genetic manipulation. . . . • . Share › . . .

. Roger master-yoda • a month ago . . Which is to say, to text and drive is still just driving. Just semantics. But one is irresponsible and uncontrolled. . . . • . Share › . . . . master-yoda Roger • a month ago . . When one looks at the overall bigger picture and weighs the pros and cons, it's not so bad, notwithstanding the evil money making corporation. . . . • . Share › . . .

• sayitaintso • a month ago o o I have a solution. Ensure that all GM foods are produced by government controlled corporations who employ public sector union members. I think all the debate over the viability and safety of the products would disappear overnight. o o 2 1 o • o Share › . . .

o Clayne sayitaintso • a month ago . . The relationship with the US government and Monsanto is quite cozy. Many former biotechnology executives now have senior roles in food regulation departments in the US. So your statement is closer to reality than you think. Government does not produce the goods, but they are enablers. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

o Erikxyz sayitaintso • a month ago . . No. Then the ReformCon/Tea Party types would jump in with their unique brand of hysteria. . . 3 . • . Share › . . .

. sayitaintso Erikxyz • a month ago . . I never thought of that. You're right! But it might be fun to watch a different game for a change...... • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion sayitaintso • a month ago . . it'd be amusing simply to watch the fast portion of the left suddenly supporting GE food with the right decrying it as the devil yes . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

• Oskie • a month ago o o Why is that gmos were introduced without letting people know? If so proud of them, why are not being labeled? Why is monsanto, pepsi, coca cola, nestle, dow, du pont, kraft, general mills, donating millions of dollars in the US to avoid labeling of gmos? If gmos were designed to feed the world, why are they being banned in more than 60 countries around the globe? Germany rejected gmos Italia, France UK Greece Russia Ireland Australia Japan Mexico Peru Bolivia Ecuador And many other countries have done the same thing! Why not label them? If they are so very proud of them! Everybody would know they are made by monsanto(aka monsatan) Would people buy them if they knew they are modified products? Why is that in more than 50 countries around the world, that's more than 400 cities people is protesting against monsanto? This is more than 2 million people protesting at the same time, the same day. Why gmos? why monsanto don't spend the money in organic everything? and teach people to cultivate their products? Oh I forgot, it is because monsanto IS NOT A AGRICULTURAL COMPANY! It is a CHEMICAL COMPANY creator of very dangerous pesticides that harm life from the cellular being to the whole food chain up to human beings. They say they are very safe but I haven't seen their CEO or any of those paid clowns that are paid to defend this company have a sip of one of their products!! Why? Come on guys! monsanto is going down! People is getting to know what it is doing, that's why they have to come up with another strategy like lie right in your face since what they are doing in secret is being more public everyday that passes. see more o o 3 3 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager Oskie • a month ago . . You can scratch every EU country off that list. The EU High Court of Justice recently struck down the ban for lack of evidence of harm to humans or the environment. . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

o RobertWager Oskie • a month ago . . Which breeding methods for food crops have been put on labels in the past. I must have missed those labels. . . 2 2 . • . Share › . . .

o Robmax Oskie • a month ago . . They are not labeled because guys like you run around making up stories that aren't true and try to frighten people. . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

• Roger • a month ago o o Quite simply put, Genetic Modification is a chance ridden science. Genes cannot be targeted to certain parts of a chromosome, they are just blasted in. This can create unknown side effects that can't even be predicted, and may not show up in every case. The fact that "national agencies" review the product's short term scientific studies doesn't mean much when the potential damage is long term and the reviewers are past employees from the organizations that are making the money. The fact that smoking was a long term carcinogen was long debated... 50% of the population once smoked, and now less than 10% does. Public parks even ban it in some places. What's scaring Monsanto, is that the public makes the choices in the end, not farmers. That's why they're trying so hard to stop labeling, and look down on independent studies that discredit their position. Because it's not a good position, it's the opinion that somehow greedy people know best. o o 4 6 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager Roger • a month ago . . Sir you are reading too much activist literature. The fact is every single GE crop has the location of the inserted gene known, its expression patterns in every tissue of the plant know, the effects (if any) on neighbouring genes know, the effects of the GE plant known on the agronomic characteristics know, the effects on the nutrients (if any) known, on anti-nutrients (if any), Etc My question to you sir is what test not already done, would you like to see added to the evaluation process for GE crops and why? Thirty years of research into the safety of GE crops has not found any risks beyond the usual risks of other plant breeding methods. . . 7 2 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger RobertWager • a month ago . . Can you provide the genetic map of a particular genetic crop with it's marker sites labelled? Since research into genetic mapping is still ongoing it seems unlikely. Effects on neighboring genes is known? How? Can you find a study cataloging the effect of every gene in a food plant, as well as it's interaction with all neighboring genes? Please do share this. It's a leap in agricultural science greater than what I remember from genetics in college. It doesn't seem to be on your website? What independent peer reviewed study that Monsanto has allowed? Why does one corporation get to keep all the information? The effects of the GE plants known on the agronomic characteristics know what? I don't think that's a complete sentence, Robert. Thirty years is slightly longer than ONE study to get to a Phase III trial of a new medicine in pharmaceutical research, Robert. That's before it's allowed in humans commercially by the FDA. For instance, it took twenty years for Wyeth Biopharma's Bapinuzemap to fail, it's Pfen-Fen was removed from the market after twenty years of research and many years in the marketplace. You believe that Monsanto's redesign of the entire world food system is not as important as that? Or that it's as well tested and proven? How about replicating the Putszai work with proper controls? How about a multi-generational study using human volunteers with controlled use of the growth? . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion Roger • a month ago . . what about conventional breeding? isn't that likewise dangerous with potentail dangerous long term side effects too? . . . • . Share › . . .

. Roger BrianDavion • a month ago . . I don't know, let me go test. Just kidding. Conventional breeding doesn't change genetics. I just mixes up what's already there. This is a whole different scale. . . . • . Share › . . .

o RobertWager Roger • a month ago . . One more point Roger, new techniques do in fact allow for site specific insertion. Look up TALEN, zinc finger nuclease and Crisper technologies soon even the marker genes used in GE crop generation will no longer be needed as efficiency rates will reach 50% in the initial transformation events. . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger RobertWager • a month ago . . Such restriction enzymes are yes, ten or twelve years old. Didn't you say Monsanto had been doing this for thirty years? . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

• usamitch • a month ago o o Everyone please watch this video from topdocumentaries web site. its free and explains why and how GMO foods make you sick and why Monsanto is in fact the worst criminal organization of all time. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com... o o 3 4 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager usamitch • a month ago . . Or they can go to my website and read the world health, world food safety and world science opinions of GE crops and food. http://web.viu.ca/wager cheers . . 2 1 . • . Share › . . . . Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . No peer reviewed articles there!!! . . 2 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . If you read the EFSA report on Safety and Nutritional Assessments of Food derived form GE Crops:Animal Feeding trials you can read over 300 peer reviewed studies. or you can go to Biofortified.org (genera site) and read over 600 peer reviewed documented and i can supply thousands more if you like, just ask. cheers . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . Food safety is only part of the issue; environmental impact is something not addressed at all. Plus why are so many of the people who support GMO's such virulents critics on the science of global warming??? . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . If you want to learn about the environmental impact read the National Academy of Sciences 2012 report "Impact of GE crops on Farm Sustainability in the US" This is what they said: }In general, the committee finds that genetic-engineering technology has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S. farmers compared with non-GE crops in conventional agriculture. Generally, GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally. The adoption of HT crops complements conservation tillage practices,which reduce the adverse effects of tillage on soil and water quality. Insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant (Bt)crops. . . . • . Share › . . .

• StephenHarpersChinada • a month ago o o a list of a few things that Monsanto (the most dangerous threat to the human species) has created. DDT aspartame Agent Orange PCB's Polystyrene Nuclear Weapons. just to name a few of their wonderful contributions to the human species. o o 5 10 o • o Share › . . .

o KingsX StephenHarpersChinada • a month ago . . This is exactly why this side of the argument has zero credibility. They can make up anything they want, like this post above, when a simple google will tell you that Monsanto had nothind to do with them. But they counter argument with "oh, but it's a conspiracy they don't want you know know about"...give me a break. . . 11 . • . Share › . . . . Roger KingsX • a month ago . . Er... From the Monsanto website?: "From 1965 to 1969, the former Monsanto Company manufactured Agent Orange for the U.S. military as a wartime government contractor. The current Monsanto Company has maintained responsibility for this product since we were spun-off as a separate, independent agricultural company in 2002." They didn't invent it, but they did make it. Also from their website: "Equal and NutraSweet (Aspartame) (1985-2000) Monsanto has not produced or sold aspartame for more than a decade. In 2000, we sold the NutraSweet Company to J.W. Childs and sold Equal to Merisant. Both of these companies continue to manufacture and market these products. For more information on aspartame, we recommend visitingwww.aspartame.org." GD Searle of Chicago invented Nutrasweet. For the rest? "Faith, Hope and $5,000 - The Story of Monsanto - The Trials and Triumphs of the First 75 Years," by Dan J. Forrestal, Simon and Schuster, NY, 1977" It's a corporate success story book, written when the 1980's was all about success. Written long before the invention of GMO's, so I doubt it's just propaganda and conspiracy theory. OR maybe the anti-GMO crowd went and wrote the book in a giant conspiracy theory? Did you know about the book? Had nothing to do with them? REALLY? Are you sure? Did you actually Google it yourself? see more . . 1 3 . • . Share › . . .

o BrianDavion StephenHarpersChinada • a month ago . . they where the driving force behind none of these things however. . . 11 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager BrianDavion • a month ago . . Nuclear weapons? Are you for real? . . 5 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion RobertWager • a month ago . . they where indeed involved in the Manhattan project. this apparently is "proof" the company is evil. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Scott1945 BrianDavion • a month ago . . Nukes? LOL! . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion Scott1945 • a month ago . . apparently the division of Monsanto was involved directly in the Manhattan project, personally I see nothing wrong with this, but yes they where involved in the development of the first atomic weapons. Not that I see any problem with that myself, the Manhattan project likely has a suprising number of "peace dividends" . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Scott1945 BrianDavion • a month ago . . "Apparently"? Everyone that mentions Monsanto being involved in the Manhattan project has yet to produce ANY proof, of even details, as to what they did. Agreed, there was a few spin offs from it, just like any other cutting edge technology developments. . . . • . Share › . . .

o Camarelli StephenHarpersChinada • a month ago . . The FACT is that Monsanto did NOT created any of those things. You just need f***ing google it. Jesus . . 12 1 . • . Share › . . .

o Scott1945 StephenHarpersChinada • a month ago . . Nuclear weapons? LMAO!!!! . . . • . Share › . . .

• Bishamonten • a month ago o o Congratulations to anyone pursuing personal research about GMO's to learn more about the health "benefits or risks" associated to them regarding food consumption! If adamant and curious, inherently we all eventually learn about the high probability of unnatural, mutated-gene expressions and the plethora of unknown outcomes that may result from this premature science. These very questionable outcomes are an entirely unknown frontier to geneticists as sufficient scientific research has yet to actualize to provide any acceptable answers. Yet with all the unknowns about this science, GMO's have been elusively and abusively deployed into the human food supply... all in concert to compliment the use of deadly, toxic chemicals by unethical, capitalist corporations, exhibiting blatant disregard toward human health. Why? I would want to know wouldn't you? Hence to utilize human logic and basic common sense in one's research, one would definitely become knowledgeable about this very critical aspect regarding the unknown dangers associated to GMO's in their foods. Particularly, if one actually did research and learned the truths about the highly questionable health risks of GMO's and were relentlessly defending GMO's on an online forum, its pretty crystal clear that they are either directly associated to the GMO culling and/or are a hired minion promoting the shameless cowards producing them. The GMO apostasy is in plain sight! o o 3 6 o • o Share › . . .

o Rodimus Prime Bishamonten • a month ago . . If you really want to know...... ask Mr. Suzuki himself. He'll give you the facts. . . 3 1 . • . Share › . . .

o Robmax Bishamonten • a month ago . . You can dream up all you want that doesn't exist, and spend years trying to prove it doesn't exist. It's up to you to prove it exists, and so far it doesn't. . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

• RobertWager • a month ago o o Here are a few quotes fro European Science authorities: —A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research 2001-2010 Food Safety: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups is that biotechnology and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”... Environmental: “Now, after 25 years of field trials without evidence of harm, fears continue to trigger the Precautionary Principle. But Europeans need to abandon this knowingly one-sided stance and strike a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the technology on the basis of scientifically sound risk assessment analysis.” European Academic Science Advisory Council "There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding. There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy." (2013) o o 2 3 o • o Share › . . .

• Masdar • a month ago o o For years, Monsanto has been the favorite whipping boy of activists opposed to genetically modified crops, and the seed company has typically shied away from going head-to-head with its critics. Clearly they shy away from any discussions on the matter because they know that the product they are trying to push is wrong in so many ways. There has been no long term testing currently most lab test on animals usually ends up with the subject dieing. Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and passion.But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals - research showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops – and he has now changed his position. o o 2 3 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager Masdar • a month ago . . Your statement is completely false: Ab s t r a c t The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 1134–1148 . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

o Hawkman100 Masdar • a month ago . . No, they shy away to avoid the kind of unprincipled and sleazy harassment campaigns that they would have to undergo from environmentalists who have no other evidence to prove their case but to shout the loudest. . . . • . Share › . . .

• jeff cake • a month ago o o 1)Is Monsanto an evil corporation. They help develop the nuclear bomb during world war 2 (Daytona)Fat boy and won of there employee cant remember his turn traitor and help russian accelerate their nuclear project/guessing 10 years. 2)Gmo crop could be used for both good and evil just as nuclear power can produce energy. what happens is one of their warring bio technologies get in wrong hands Pause and think. This company is not just about BT cotton Gmo soybean seeds. 3) One man in indiana 75 years had an early finish crop of soybeans and decided that there might be enough time to get another crop off the the land that year. But there was a big risk that it might fail if winter came early. So inorder lower the monetary risk he just bought soy bean from grain silos. and sprayed fields herbicides pesticide plant those seed (basicly took a chance that they may not germinate because of the spraying) rather than buy top notch seed from monsanto. the crop was a success. Monsanto go wind of it and charge him for a patent infringement and took him all the way to supreme court and sue him for 75000 dollars ruthless not evil o o 2 4 o • o Share › . . .

• JohnFrodo • a month ago o o If you do not think Monsanto should be winning the prize sign the petition. http://thinkingaboot.blogspot.... o o 2 4 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager JohnFrodo • a month ago . . So where is the congrats petition I would sign that. This technology is definitely needed if we are going to almost double the food supply in the coming decades without plowing under the remaining wilderness. . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. JohnFrodo RobertWager • a month ago . . Incredible claims should be backed up by incredible facts, and there is no proof GMO foods offer a sustainable boost to yield. Its possible they will produce GMO resistant creatures and bacteria that will prove the law of unintended consequences . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager JohnFrodo • a month ago . . May I suggest you read the National Academy 2012 report "Impact of GE crops on Farm Sustainability in the US" where you can read these facts: }In general, the committee finds that genetic-engineering technology has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S. farmers compared with non-GE crops in conventional agriculture. -Generally, GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally. -The adoption of HT crops complements conservation tillage practices, which reduce the adverse effects of tillage on soil and water quality. -Insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant (Bt)crops. . . . • . Share › . . .

• BC Mike • a month ago o o Greenpeace's double nightmare: 1. The truth 2. Spoken by a women who knows some genetics o o 1 1 o • o Share › . . .

• robster123 • a month ago o o There are risks in anything we do. The real question to my mind is, given current and projected global population growth, how the heck are we going to feed everyone on the planet? Seems to me science is going to have to play a major role here. We can't go back to good old days and just "live off the land" and the farming technology of yesteryear won't meet the growing global demand for food either. Unless we're prepared to let a whole pile of people starve to death, the status quo is not an option. o o 1 1 o • o Share › . . .

• Carlos Pronsato • a month ago o o Many companies hope to send an employee into a government agency to influence regulation. How much better if the employee can actually shape government regulation to promote and sell a specific product! Monsanto seems to have accomplished this — and much more. Michael Taylor is among a number of people with Monsanto ties who have worked in government in recent years. He worked for the Nixon and Reagan Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s, then became a lawyer representing Monsanto. In 1991, he returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy under George H. W. Bush, and helped secure approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine (cow) growth hormone, despite it being banned in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. This was only a start for Taylor. He also did not like some producers advertising their milk as bovine-growth-hormone-free. That seemed to put Monsanto’s product in an unfavorable light. So in 1994 he wrote a guidance document from within the FDA requiring that any food label describing the product as bovine- growth-hormone-free must also include these words: “The FDA has determined ... no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from [BGH] and non-[BGH] supplemented cows.” It apparently did not concern Taylor that this new pronouncement by the FDA was unsupported by either Monsanto or FDA studies. A private company making any such unsupported claim could have been charged with fraud. But since it came out of the FDA, milk producers would place themselves at legal risk by not printing it on their label. Taylor moved to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the mid-1990s. During this period, he tried to persuade the FDA and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take a further step and make it illegal for dairies to make any claim to a bovine-growth-hormone-free product. Failing in that, he reached out to state governments to make such a claim illegal at the state level. This was finally blocked by a court decision in Ohio that there was indeed a “compositional difference” between BGH and non-BGH-treated milk. Long before this 2010 ruling, Taylor had returned to Monsanto as a vice president, and then returned to President Obama’s FDA, first as Senior Advisor on Food Safety and then Deputy Commissioner for Foods.[1] Taylor’s story, however, is not just about milk, or even mainly about milk. During his second posting at the FDA, as Deputy Commissioner for Policy 1991– 1994, Agency scientists were grappling with questions about the overall safety of genetically engineered foods (often labeled Genetically Modified Organisms). As Jeffrey Smith notes, [Internal] memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard to detect allergens. [Staff scientists] were adamant that the technology carried “serious health hazards,” and required careful, long-term research, including human studies. ... The Agency, under Taylor’s and later under others’ leadership, simply ignored these findings. No human studies were required. GMO foods were allowed to enter the food supply unregulated by the FDA and barely regulated by the USDA, which views them as an important US export product. By 2012, in the US, 90 percent of sugar beets (representing half of overall sugar production) was GMO, 85 percent of soybeans (which are to be found in 70 percent of all supermarket food products), and 85 percent of corn, including the corn used to make high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener used in most soft drinks and processed foods. The few scientists trying to conduct independent research on GMO often found their careers damaged. Most food research, conferences, and fellowships are funded by “Big Food” companies including Monsanto, which has a chilling effect. Even sympathetic colleagues may be reluctant to back those who dare speak out. Those who persevered in conducting independent research, often abroad, reported worrisome findings. An Austrian study found that mice fed GMO corn seemed fine in the first and second generations, but by the third were sterile. A Russian study of hamsters fed GMO soybeans found a similar result. Could human beings exhibit a similar, delayed response? No one knows. Another, unrelated study showed that the pesticide used in large quantities on engineered Roundup Ready crops is toxic to male testicle cells and threatens both testosterone synthesis and sperm count. $19.00$12.95 At the same time that the FDA tries to remain as silent as possible about GMOs, the US Department of Agriculture and other parts of the US government are doing everything they can to promote them. The USDA under both George W. Bush and Obama has sought to accelerate what is already an automatic rubberstamp for new GMO products, to “deregulate” them (including grasses such as alfalfa that cannot be restricted to the planted area), and to provide immunity from lawsuits over the spread of GMO crops to adjoining organic farms. Immunity from lawsuit was especially ironic. For years, GMO producers had threatened, intimidated, sued, and in every imaginable way attempted to bully adjoining farmers. If any of the patented seeds drifted and were found on the neighboring farm, that farmer would be charged with “theft.” The clear message: buy the patented seeds or face destruction through legal costs. Remarkably, courts were buying this specious argument. But finally the persecuted began to counter-sue successfully, and the USDA immediately rushed to provide legal immunity to the GMO producers in the form of an insurance policy that organic farmers would have to buy and that would be their only available form of compensation.[2] Although we have chosen to focus on the remarkable revolving door career of Michael Taylor at the FDA and Monsanto, because it has potentially affected the future health of hundreds of millions of people, stories like his are not uncommon. A Chicago Tribune article from 2012 is headlined: Chemical Firms Champion New EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Expert. It describes how Todd Stedeford worked at the EPA from 2004–2007 under the George W. Bush administration, then joined chemical firm Albemarle Corp. While at Albemarle, which makes flame retardants, he defended chemicals used in many products and even suggested that the standard set by the EPA for flame retardants was 500 times too high. Having returned to the EPA in 2011, under President Obama, he is now “in charge of a ... program studying whether dozens of industrial chemicals, including flame retardants, are too dangerous.”[3] One must ask: what was the EPA thinking when it made this appointment? Bill Ruckelshaus, twice EPA head, once said that “at EPA you work for a cause that is beyond self-interest. ... You’re not there for the money, you are there for something beyond yourself.”[4] But on leaving the EPA, he himself became a Monsanto director. Meanwhile the Geneva-based Covalence group placed Monsanto dead last on a list of 581 global companies ranked by their reputation for ethics.[5] A look at some Monsanto representatives and their positions in government: see more o o 1 1 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager Carlos Pronsato • a month ago . . And the rest of the world's food safety authorities that agree 100% with the US government agencies risk evaluation for GE crops and food. ? Did Monsanto pay them all off as well? How about the global health authorities and the global National Academies of Science, They all see the same safety data and all come to the same safe conclusions. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

o Hawkman100 Carlos Pronsato • a month ago . . Nice piece of fiction. . . . • . Share › . . .

• ottb • a month ago o o Bought MON in 2009. It's my second best stock to date, trailing just behind MO. o o 1 1 o • o Share › . . .

• BrianDavion • a month ago o o I thought the most evil corperation was EA! the internet said so! :) o o 1 1 o • o Share › . . . • coco • a month ago o o Monsanto-born to kill. o o 2 7 o • o Share › . . .

o mrbuddhafreak coco • a month ago . . Coco is a cookoo selling caca. . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

• DSB111 • a month ago o o Just ask the farmers who have been coerced into using their seed, or else. If you don't, they take samples of your crop. The pollen from their GM seed blows in from other fields and fertilizes your non-GM crop. Then they sue the farmers' pants off, and even if he's innocent, they bankrupt him with court fees. And all the farmers get the message: buy from us, or we'll ruin you. I've worked with many large corporations, most of them are hard-working ethical people - not Monsanto. o o 1 3 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager DSB111 • a month ago . . A complete myth. read this court document and see no such lawsuit has EVER happened. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/c... . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. DSB111 RobertWager • a month ago . . It happened in Canada. (I never mentioned the US) I saw the interviews with the farmers that were impacted. I've also worked in the chemical industry supplying chemicals to agriculture and its absolutely common knowledge with all the chemical companies. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager DSB111 • a month ago . . So please give this forum a citation or a court docket. "common knowledge' like all the other GE myths? . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. DSB111 RobertWager • a month ago . . Ask anyone in the ag-chem industry. I don't have time to do your research for you. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion DSB111 • a month ago . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... I assume that's the case you're refering to. first off only certin aspects of it where settled out of court. other parts of the case went all the way to the supreme court of Canada. this wasn't a case of some seeds getting blown into a guys feild, he harvested em and then got sued. this was a case of a guy finding some seeds, harvesting them, and then planting them the next year to make up his ENTIRE CROP. I can't say I blame Monsanto for sueing him. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Hawkman100 BrianDavion • a month ago . . Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. ANYBODY can change a listing. . . . • . Share › . . .

. Hawkman100 DSB111 • a month ago . . If you are such an expert, you should have the citation at your fingertips. But you are not an expert, are you? You are just another green propagandist. . . . • . Share › . . . o Robmax DSB111 • a month ago . . When you look into these cases you find that the farmer is guilty of patent infringement, and no one is forcing the farmer to buy anything. . . . • . Share › . . .

. DSB111 Robmax • a month ago . . Facing financial ruin by looming court costs, the farmer 'settles out of court'. He signs a contract saying he used their patented seeds, they 'drop' the charges, he agrees to buy their GM seeds from now on. That's what happens when a company with lots of money and legions of lawyers sues an innocent farmer. The farmer cannot afford the drawn-out legal costs, and has to give-in. (It happens all the time. The party with the most money and lawyers doesn't need to win the battle, just extend the legal case and bankrupt the smaller party with legal costs.) . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion DSB111 • a month ago . . you make it sound like predatory legal practices is unique to Monsanto . . 1 . • . Share › . . . . Robmax DSB111 • a month ago . . He agrees to buy their seeds if he wants to grow with there product, and not steal it. . . . • . Share › . . .

• Guest • a month ago o o Nobody could love you more than a corporation, they are the most wonderful species of human on the planet. Mom's friendly robots! Love me as only a corporation can to my very last penny! o o 1 4 o • o Share › . . .

• Allan Beveridge • a month ago o o Yes, there are what appear to be significant benefit's to GMO's; however, people can say all they like them but until their is independent testing of it I do not believe the company. And independent testing is not permitted. They have successfully lobbied the government to block it and make farmer's sign an agreement that they won't do it or share any of the crops with anyone. When you go to these lengths to block independent studies about the safety of your product there is something fishy going on. o o 1 4 o • o Share › . . .

o Thomson1 Allan Beveridge • a month ago . . There is not shortage of independent, peer reviewed scientific studies on the safety of GM seeds, the idea that farmers are somehow captive to herbicides and pesticides through advances in seed technology is absolutely ludicrous. It is up to individuals to think critically and review the material for themselves. For whatever reason, these self-righteous anti-gmo activists jump to any claim, regardless of the accuracy or source, that supports their position. Through tag lines lake agent orange and third world suicides, misinformation and outright nonsense is reinforced and perpetuated as fact. Any academic study can be dismissed because it is somehow allgned with commercial bad guy interests. Unfortunately, an anonymous Reddit blog carries more weight than a peer reviewed scientific study. Again, do the research yourself. . . 8 1 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger Thomson1 • a month ago . . From "The Nation", Walden Bello and "Foreign Policy in Focus". "The GMO wars escalated earlier this month when the 2013 World Food Prize was awarded to three chemical company executives, including Monsanto executive vice president and chief technology officer, Robert Fraley, responsible for development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The choice of Fraley was widely protested, with eighty-one members of the prestigious World Future Council calling it “an affront to the growing international consensus on safe, ecological farming practices that have been scientifically proven to promote nutrition and sustainability.” Monsanto’s Man The choice of Monsanto’s man triggered accusations of prize buying. From 1999 to 2011, Monsanto donated $380,000 to the World Food Prize Foundation, in addition to a $5 million contribution in 2008 to help renovate the Hall of Laureates, a public museum honoring Norman Borlaug, the scientist who launched the Green Revolution. For some, the award to Monsanto is actually a sign of desperation on the part of the GMO establishment, a move designed to contain the deepening controversy over the so-called biotechnological revolution in food and agriculture. The arguments of the critics are making headway. Owing to concern about the dangers and risks posed by genetically engineered organisms, many governments have instituted total or partial bans on their cultivation, importation, and field-testing." see more . . 3 3 . • . Share › . . .

. Roger Roger • a month ago . . Sorry, I did it for them. Did you? They're busy, you know, corporate sound bites play well to people who don't have time to do the research. . . 2 2 . • . Share › . . . . Allan Beveridge Thomson1 • a month ago . . Really? "The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms." http://www.globalresearch.ca/g... . . 1 1 . • . Share › . . .

• barmon777 • a month ago o o Technologies can be used well or used poorly, used for benefit or detriment. You can have nuclear power or nuclear bombs. But the rush to profits can compromise the requisite diligence required. We have an explosion of gluten intolerance as many people are now unable to digest grain proteins after eating wheat and other grain products all their lives. What is the cause of this? We should know and we don't. That's the issue. Maybe GMO is the cause, but perhaps it could be the cure. This requires realism and the right kind of dialogue. PS: The new emerging group of gluten intolerant people don't eat gluten free food because it tastes better or because it is "healthier". They eat it to avoid digestive pain while continuing to eat some variation of grain based food. Gluten free bread is not cult driven or a fad. It's because for some people, after years with no issues, eating bread containing gluten now puts a hurt on them. It literally causes them digestive pain. o o 1 5 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager barmon777 • a month ago . . There is NO GE wheat commercialized anywhere in the world at present. . . 4 1 . • . Share › . . . . Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . Because buyers don't want it. Monsanto has been trying to get it approved for use. . . . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion Erikxyz • a month ago . . maybe but the point robert was making is that barmon was trying to imply it was the fault of GE food in bread for his health problems, but that this is almost impossiable given the reality . . . • . Share › . . .

o King Tut-Tut barmon777 • a month ago . . A lot of "gluten intolerance" is faddish. If you are actually having pain in your gut every time you eat a meal you need to see a doctor and get some lab tests done. It's quite possibly H. pylori which is a whole different kettle of fish. . . 4 1 . • . Share › . . .

• usamitch • a month ago o o GMO = BAD, MONSANTO CRIMINALS: http://www.responsibletechnolo... o o 1 7 o • o Share › . . .

o BrianDavion usamitch • a month ago . . none of those arguments are particularly good, or even fact based . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

o Rodimus Prime usamitch • a month ago . . That sounds very Ed/Mike like...... • . Share › . . .

• coco • a month ago o o pesticide pushers. o o 6 o • o Share › . . . o Scott1945 coco • a month ago . . Cuckoo coco...... 1 . • . Share › . . .

• Punditslayer • a month ago o o A Monsanto promo piece. Should have been in the advert section. o o 2 o • o Share › . . .

• blue • a month ago o o In principle I distrust Monsanto. The labeling issue alone is sufficient to abhor their stance. All food should be properly labeled so we can make informed choices. If they are supppressing labeling because it will reduce sales then there must be something wrong with the product. o o 1 o • o Share › . . .

o RobertWager blue • a month ago . . "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved....The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed risk assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. These assessments are thorough, they have not indicated any risk to human health. WHO 2013 . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

o RobertWager blue • a month ago . . Food is properly labeled according to the exact ingredients. GE is a process to breed a crop it is not an ingredient any more than ionizing radiation mutagenesis is an ingredient found in some organic food. Maybe we should label the organic food with that label then . . 2 . • . Share › . . .

. blue RobertWager • a month ago . . Robert Whilst it may be that these foods have passed risk assessment there is certainly a question as to the whether the risk assessment has indeed identified all of the risks. Certainly according to the standard presently in place but here again is the standard adequate and has it identified all of the risks. Time and time again we see that as time passes and science understands more we find that things that were considered free of risk at the time are in fact extremely fraught with risk. My point is simply that as a consumer I would like foods labelled to show whether or not they contain GM elements. It is then my choice to consume these or not. The issue of Monsanto et al of trying to suppress labeling as to whether or not foods contain GM elements smacks of deceit. This is what I am objecting to. Too often companies are able to circumvent issues by hiding behind outdated regulations. And yes by all means label organic food to show ionizing radiation mutagenesis. The consumer can then make an informed choice. . . . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager blue • a month ago . . Every likely risk and even some very unlikely risk has been examined and the determination is food from GE crops are as safe or safer than food from other 'traditional ' breeding methods. We label food based on what is in the food not how the food crop was made in the first place. to do what you request would involve a significant re-development of the food distribution/tracking system and that cost would be passed on to the consumer for NO added safety. When this fact is presented to most people they do not support process based labeling. Go to my website (google me and Food Biotechnology) and read "No Label Required' then come back and we can discuss how to label a loaf of bread truthfully. Cheers . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

. blue RobertWager • a month ago . . All well and good and I am not disputing that the tests conform to existing requirements and that labeling also conforms. My point, which you totally ignore, is that the GM foods should be so labeled so that the consumer can make an informed choice on whether to buy or not. Labeling requirements thus need to be changed and this is of course opposed by the GM food producers as they know it will reduce their sales. . . . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager blue • a month ago . . Again why should one breeding method be singled out? If you want all breeding methods for all food on labels fine i would support that but singling out one s not legitimate. Do you think "made with ionizing radiation mutagenesis' labels would bother the organic food producers? Do you think most people would want to know their food is partially made from crops that were made by ionizing radiation mutagenesis? . . . • . Share › . . .

. BrianDavion blue • a month ago . . except robert's point is that GE food is basicly a matter of breeding. this is like demanding to know the breed of cattle your steak comes from . . . • . Share › . . .

. blue BrianDavion • a month ago . . Yes I would like to know that when I pay for Aberdeen Angus steak that it is indeed from that breed. With todays technology this information is simple to provide. In Austria they already tag meat from the individual animal to the supermarket package. Why not here. The resistance is quite suspicious and one must wonder what the producers are trying to hide. Overall there is too much resistance amongst producers in North america in providing information to the consumers. For example: we are so concerned with obesity and yet there are no calorie amounts on alcoholic drinks, presumably because they have a strong lobby and tax revenue is very lucrative. . . 1 . • . Share › . . .

• Erikxyz • a month ago o o Check out this video to see a GE cornfield; http://youtu.be/uRvS6WEOjEc o o o • o Share › . . .

o BrianDavion Erikxyz • a month ago . . mass extinction is a bit of a poor term honestly, as he said 2 years after when the feild was replanted with something else everything came back. the conclusion is just that the insects moved to "better pastures" . . . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz BrianDavion • a month ago . . Can we go back if we rely on GMO's to enhance yield without triggering massive food shortages. GMO's are like steroids for food. . . . • . Share › . . .

. RobertWager Erikxyz • a month ago . . What are you talking about? If any crop does not perform in development it is eliminated from commercialization, GE or non_GE are the same in that regard. . . . • . Share › . . .

. Erikxyz RobertWager • a month ago . . You missed the point. I'm not going to bother explaining. . . . • . Share › . . .