With a history of making such toxic chemicals as PCB’s, Polystyrene, DDT, Dioxin, Agent Orange, Petroleum Based Fertilizers, Glyphosate, Aspartame, Bovine Growth Hormone, etc. it’s time to take down the biotech behemoth and their partners in crime, before the living web of biodiversity is terminated. Monsanto’s claims of feeding the world, greater crop yields and less herbicides and insecticides have all been proven wrong, in fact it’s the opposite. Since the introduction of GMO’s our health as a nation has been in decline. GMO crops have been banned, or at least labeled, in over 64 countries. Gene-altered foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. Ninety percent of processed foods contain GMOs.

Given the near-dictatorial control of Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association over Congress, the White House, the FDA, USDA, EPA, and state legislators, consumers must demand change and boycott all GMO products. The fundamental weakness of Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and the biotech industry is consumers’ right to know. If GE-tainted foods are labeled in supermarkets and natural food stores, a massive rejection of chemical and GMO foods will take place, transforming the marketplace and supercharging the organic and local foods revolution and restore the public trust in our foods. Be a part of the food revolution, take action now for your health and the health of future generations and the planet. . . .

On a personal note, “I have been blocked from the so called “Monsanto Conversation” and their FB page for trying to have a conversation with them. Their “paid internet shills” are laughable and cannot be taken seriously. The ads they produce are a joke and a white wash. Profit is their only motivation at any expense, a truly evil corporation”.

It’s long and I am still working my way through it myself, but it seems to me to be grounded in science from a non-hysterical source. I have been on the fence about GMOs for a long time, but I am in favor of labeling as I don’t think there have been enough long-term studies. Many foods are labeled for a variety of other things now so that consumers can make a choice. If the corporations marketing GMO foods are so confident of their safety, I don’t understand why they are so resistant to labeling other than their concern over lost profits. Let those that don’t care buy the GMO foods and they can be the test group for those who are not convinced of their safety. Thanks!

From Academics Review

• Section 1—Top 20 Urban Myths about GM Grops
  • 1.1—Pusztai’s Flawed Claims
  • 1.2—GM Tomatoes Proven Safe
  • 1.3—Bt Corn Statistics Don’t Lie
  • 1.4—These aren’t even GM Potatoes!
  • 1.5—Bt Cotton is Safer for workers than pesticides
  • 1.6—Bt Cotton is Safer for sheep than pesticides
  • 1.7—No evidence that pollen causes disease
  • 1.8—Mycotoxins cause reproductive failure
  • 1.9—A classic logical fallacy about Bt corn
  • 1.10—Rats fed Roundup Ready Soy – no effect on liver
  • 1.11— Rats fed Roundup Ready Soy —no effect on pancreas
  • 1.12— Rats fed Roundup Ready Soy —no effect on testicular cells
  • 1.13—Rabbits can eat Roundup Ready Soy too
  • 1.14—Ermakova’s findings defy logic
  • 1.15—Eating soybeans increases soybean-specific IgG antibodies
  • 1.16—Rats fed Roundup Ready Canola have healthy livers
  • 1.17—Fast growing birds can eat Liberty-Link Corn
  • 1.18—GM Peas Are discontinued
  • 1.19—Animals Graze Where There’s Feed
  • 1.20—High Doses of Tryptophan Cause EM
• Section 2—The Devil is in the DNA
  • 2.1—Any DNA Insertion can cause a mutation
  • 2.2—The use of tissue culture in plant breeding is not new
  • 2.3—GM Breeding is More Precise than other methods
  • 2.4—Promoters are precise tools
  • 2.5—Promoters can insert naturally into DNA
  • 2.6—Breeders produce genetically stable crops
  • 2.7—Mobile DNA drives evolution
  • 2.8—Food Contains Lots of Novel RNAs
  • 2.9—All Plant Breeding Causes DNA Scrambling
  • 2.10—Chemical Composition of crops is highly variable
  • 2.11—Biological variability is typical of crop varieties
• Section 3—Allergy Assessment Works As Planned
  • 3.1—GM soybeans are no more allergenic than conventional soybeans
  • 3.2—Today’s food allergy criteria are more accurate
  • 3.3—Bt crops are less likely to cause allergies or illness
  • 3.4—Whole Bt-producing bacteria are safe (that’s why organic growers use it!)
  • 3.5—Starlink corn was successfully recalled, caused no allergies
  • 3.6—Barnase in GM crops will not cause kidney damage
  • 3.7—High-lysine corn shown to be superior to conventional
  • 3.8—Cooking high-lysine corn will not produce toxins
  • 3.9—Disease-resistant crops do not cause human diseases
• Section 4—New proteins are carefully tested
  • 4.1—GM Proteins are tested
  • 4.2—Transgenes are safe, widespread in nature
  • 4.3—Genes rearrange naturally all the time with no ill effects
  • 4.4—Proteins are carefully characterized
  • 4.5—GM plants contain minute amounts of harmless new proteins
  • 4.6—Plant biology is better understood than Smith seems to think it is
• Section 5—DNA transfer is common and, widespread in nature
  • 5.1—DNA fragments in the gut are plentiful, but cause no problems
  • 5.2—GM does not affect gene movement into bacteria
  • 5.3—Transgenes are destroyed in the gut
  • 5.4—Transgenes are not incorporated into our bodies
  • 5.5—GM foods are irrelevant to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria
  • 5.6—The 35S promoter has been thoroughly researched
  • 5.7—Bt-genes don’t move from plants to bacteria
  • 5.8—DNA moves between microbes in the mouth and throat
  • 5.9—Plant genes don’t move to gut microbes
• Section 6—GM crops protects the food chain
  • 6.1—The safety of glufosinate herbicide tolerant crops
  • 6.2—New herbicide-tolerant crops help the environment, reduce agricultural impacts
  • 6.3—Many foods contain phytoestrogens
  • 6.4—GM crops have fewer toxins than non-GM crops
  • 6.5—Disease-resistant crops are safe for humans
• Section 7—GM food additives are known to be safe
  • 7.1—rBST-treated milk is the same as conventional milk
  • 7.2—rBST has nothing at all to do with twinning
  • 7.3—FDA-approved food additives are known to be safe
• Section 8—Better nutrition helps mothers and babies
  • 8.1—GM foods safe for mothers-to-be
  • 8.2—Mold-free food better for babies

If you could debunk the specific points in this video I would appreciate it

Such a debunking might help me convince a strong pro GMO person I know.

Also this coming monday there is a radio call in show from 7 to 8 pm called City Visions in San Francisco. The number is 415-841-4134. The topic as I understand it is “how are you going to vote on the various propositions”. I hope you call in.

You are right that consumers rarely benefit from the specific methods by which their foods were produced — they can’t tell the difference either way. I don’t think I was “demanding” that consumers must benefit from GM foods — I was sharing my opinion on why I think there is more of a knee-jerk negative reaction against GM foods. People’s first instinct is to say “NO!” to any kind of change (at least if they didn’t perceive of a need for a change — if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). Especially if they don’t understand the change. GMOs do sound really scary if you’re just hearing about them and don’t understand the technology. So why would they accept GMO foods when they can’t perceive a difference and you can’t even sell it with a tangible benefit, like improved flavor or increased nutrition?

I just meant to describe a few reasons why I think GMOs are unpopular — I didn’t mean to insinuate that I agree with these reasons.

PERSONALLY, I am grudgingly in favor of Roundup-Ready crops because they seem better for the environment on the balance. I only came to this conclusion after a lot of research, way more research than most people are willing to do. On the face of it, it sounds like Monsanto paired a proprietary seed with a proprietary herbicide; it’s hard not to be cynical about that, especially when you already harbor a natural distrust of corporations anyway. But I am much more excited by the potential of GMOs like the aphid-resistant wheat being developed, or the Bt crops that are already having so much success. I’m operating under the assumption that the fewer inputs, the better, assuming that these “fewer inputs” don’t result in your crops being destroyed by insects or pathogens, of course. If GM can give us crops that require fewer inputs (and it has and it can continue to do so), then I think that’s a good thing.

You make good points about the difficulties inherent to “open-source” technology that isn’t backed by huge corporations with deep pockets. It does seem to be a catch-22 — many people are distrustful of Big Ag and what they see as corporate control of the food supply, but also aren’t in favor of publicly funded research or the types of regulations that would make it easier for smaller companies to pursue this work. I guess the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is funding some humanitarian GMO research, but it seems that the potential there is largely untapped.