Standing up to Goliath: March Against Monsanto

Monsanto

So, if you are keeping score: it’s Justin: 1, Monsanto: 0.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article where I not only compared the mega-corporation to Nazis, but I also called them evil geniuses who: “took a break from counting their money to poison you.” For anyone who just thought: “Gee, that’s harsh,” you might want to strap in for what is going to be a fun-filled super-slam festival of epic proportions …

Now, in my first article I talked specifically about the GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) situation that Monsanto is perpetrating against humanity and the planet. Long story short, back in the 80s Monsanto started developing seeds that were genetically modified to be resistant to things like pesticides and herbicides as a way to, according to their multi-million advertising campaign: “End World Hunger.” So basically, they claimed that unless you get over your aversion to eating something cooked up in a lab and sprayed with some of the most toxic stuff known to man, kids in Third World countries will die.

So, if ending hunger is at the heart of their intentions, they must give the seeds away for free right? Nope. In fact, they went a couple of steps further. First they made the plants sterile, so that farmers have to buy them again the next year, instead of planting natural seed from the previously harvested crops. Then they found a way to make the plants basically “grow themselves to death.” According to Emma Must from the World Development Movement, “by peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals will lock the world’s poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom.” Another fun little side effect of GMOs is a cool trick called “drift”, where the run-off from their herbicide-resistant seeds makes its way to a natural crop and kills it. Like in 2012, herbicide sprayed in the San Joaquin Valley of California drifted and damaged cotton fields as far as 100 miles away.

That’s part of the reason why on May 24th, I will be joining the March Against Monsanto.

MAM is “a global call to action aimed at informing the public, calling into question long-term health risks of genetically modified foods and demanding that GMO products be labeled so that consumers can make informed decisions.” The movement is aimed at:

-Protecting our food supply, local farms and environment
-Promoting organic solutions
-Exposing cronyism between big business and the government

The fight against GMOs is going global, and if you want to find out what you can do to get involved, please check out the March Against Monsanto website.

Now, the last time I talked about Monsanto and GMOs, an employee from Monsanto showed up to comment on my claims, and made a 3-4 hour attempt at discrediting what I had to say. So, to be fair, I’ll quote a one of March Against Monsanto’s International Directors about the whole situation:

“If we continue to think that the fight against Monsanto is only about GMOs, we have already lost.”

-Kelly L. Derricks, president and co-founder of the Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance, and March against Monsanto’s Agent Orange Education Director

Guess what? She’s got a point. When it comes to harming humans, Monsanto has been at it for over 100 years …

Let’s fire up the Monsanto Poison Train and head back down the track to 1901 when they created Saccharin. Originally it was sold as an artificial sweetener for the Coca-Cola company and the canned food industry. So what’s the big deal with Saccharin? It’s made from coal tar. The FDA has questioned the effects of Saccharin since 1907 and the FDA’s very first director said “He thought he was eating sugar, when in point of fact he was eating a coal tar product totally devoid of food value and extremely injurious to health.” Remember, that was 107 years ago. In the 70’s any product with Saccharin was required to have a warning label, but with deep, deep pockets, 30 or so years later, Monsanto managed to get the requirement for the label removed. Apparently, letting people know that your product was made from coal tar and caused cancer in lab rats was bad for sales.

Next stop on board the Monsanto Poison Train is the 1940s, where having apparently gotten bored with the coal-tar additive business, Monsanto switched to the oil-based plastics game. Thanks to their efforts, we now have polystyrene, or as it is lovingly known: Styrofoam. Harming people wasn’t bad enough; they had to give us a good old-fashioned environmental disaster made from non-renewable resources that is basically indestructible. Thanks, guys!

Moving forward on the Poison Train, we come to a nice combination of devastating environmental impact and human health decline. The 1960s and the war in Vietnam brought us Agent Orange, which was at one time called “perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man,” by Yale biologist Arthur Galston. The U.S. military used an estimated 18-20 million gallons of Agent Orange over 9 years in an attempt to kill the dense jungle that apparently made fighting a political war a little too much to handle. Even after admitting that they were aware of the lethality of the toxic cocktail which included the deadly dioxin, Dr. James R. Clary, a former government scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch said,” … because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy,’ none of us were overly concerned.” Considering that 4.8 million people were exposed to Agent Orange; resulting in 400,000 deaths and disfigurements, and 500,000 babies born with birth defects, not to mention the American soldiers that were exposed, which is still to this day, an unknown number, a little concern would have gone a long way.

Take GMOs out of the equation …

Even then, there is still a legacy of destruction and greed on a scale that rivals a James Bond super-villain. A legacy that spans a century. Again, I encourage you to check out the March Against Monsanto and COVVHA websites and get involved in your community’s events. It’s time that people realize that these companies almost never have your interests at heart, or the planet’s for that matter. Your wallet however is always at the forefront of their intentions. It’s time that, through education and activism, we take it back out of their hands.

Justin: 2
Monsanto: 0
The World:?

[poll id=”5″]
Recent Posts
Latest posts by Justin Gammill (see all)

Comments

  1. Thank you Justin for marching and informing. I always blamed agent orange solely on Dow, I had no idea Monsanto manufactured it too. Great campaign of obfuscation, score for the lawyers. Monsanto is clearly the Walmart of GMO seeds/pesticides/herbicides and general corporate douchery. I’m so over their assault on the individual farmers by means of bankrupting by suing.

    1. First off, you are welcome Michelle. I’m honored to be able to collaborate with and support the March Against Monsanto folks, they are a great group of people.

    2. Oh for heaven’s sake….Blame the government for contracting out agent orange and using it: Companies supplying Agent Orange to the government under the compulsion
      of the Defense Production– Dow,
      Monsanto Company, Hercules Inc., Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Uniroyal
      Inc., Thompson Chemical Company and Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company.
      Agent Orange was never made commercially available. And Monsanto is not at the top, the ‘Walmart’ of GMO seeds…there is also no assault on farmers.

      1. Brenda,

        The problem with simply blaming the government is, they just don’t care. Enterprise relies on consumers and their wallets to survive and will change their ways if enough pressure is put on them.

        Your comment implies that we should ignore the companies that produce these terrible products soley on the fact the government asked them to produce them.

        Sorry, but I find the company that produced Zyklon-B as guilty as those who used it. Oppenheimer himself took the blame for his actions although the government asked him to produce the bomb, “I have become death, the destroyer of worlds”he said.

        Monsanto and all the others like them need to own what they do and change.

        Aaron

        1. “Monsanto and all the others like them need to own what they do and change”

          Actually, they did. They were one of the first to note that something was wrong and discovered how the contamination was caused. As soon as they could they divested of all interest in even the ability to make such things and turned to much better products. They also learned from the past and do a lot of testing and due diligence on their current products.

          Really, if you want to make corporations better, use this effort on the move to amend, not a march on Monsanto. Heck, even a march on the actual Wal-mart would have more impact.

        2. The companies have extreme safety measures in place for those using their products. I will go back to GMO technology making the environment safer than it was 20+ years ago. I am not anti-organic, but that kind of farming can have negative effects on nature due to their methods –but the anti’s seem not to think so. If people want to be anti-chemical, they should be without being anti-gmo–those are two different things. I’ll just be ‘pro-farming’ in general, as long as the anti-gmoaners quit spraying their poison at the GM farmers.

          1. ” If people want to be anti-chemical, they should be without being anti-gmo–those are two different things.” Not always, as in when plants are genetically modified to produce “food” while being slathered with herbicides that kill the “weeds”. By the way, how does organic farming have negative effects on nature? What is your definition of nature?

      2. Just a thought, Brenda: should any of the companies that produced agent orange be let off the hook when they absolutely knew what they were making and how it was going to be used? Because they did. In my opinion when someone offers you a contract to make a toxic poison that kills everything it comes into contact with, and you agree to make it, then it becomes a matter of responsibility. They knew what they were doing and did it willingly.

        1. Kind of like the government putting women to work building munitions and aircraft?? Darn those women for helping us beat Hitler!!!

  2. Thank you for your good article. Believe or not, I could talk even LONGER then you, about Monsanto! The conversation would be cancer, toxic poisons that they are dumping on everyone, the food that affected along with the animals that eat it, and the humans that eat those animals. It goes full circle. A Giant it is! Along with stopping Monsanto, I would also like to stop all of the lawn chemicals that are along the same line as Monsanto. They are dumping poisons on those who are in town, like us in the country also. People look back now and see what DDT did to us, but somehow still allow the chemicals that they continue to use. Maybe, 40 years from now they will look back and think the same thing. But, by then they will have replaced it with another toxic chemical.

    1. well, we’ll either look back and think what could have done, or we’ll all be gone because Monsanto unleashed the zombie virus…Totally feasible, right?

      1. Thank you Justin! Articles like yours at least brings out the points that everyone should know, but don’t. Keep it up!

    2. This seems extremely hypocritical considering how much money Earth911 has taken from Monsanto over the years don’t you think. In fact, check out the label on RoundUp and see for Earth911 greenwashing Monsanto for yourself.

      1. Yep. And we are really straining our brains to figure out what to do with that 14 cents.

        Do you really think if Monsanto was paying us money, that we would spend so much time, money, and effort giving them a solid bitch-slapping?

        Don’t be so Naive….

          1. I’m going to be 100% honest. It’s memorial day weekend, and this particular argument (a generic phone number on a label, and a 4 year old snap shot of a website) can wait until tuesday. I am in no way shying away from this discussion, but I have a very personal tie to our service men and women, and I’m quite literally not in the mood for irrelevant arguments.

          2. Playing Devil’s advocate I have to say that ‘Truth Sayer’
            makes a valid point. Aaron, I’m sure you’re genuinely interested in making a
            difference. However anyone with half a brain would be wary of a person,
            business or ‘non-profit’ who promotes the elimination of any target while at
            the same time ‘strategically partnering’ with said target. Making ‘15 cents’ even
            1 cent is too much. If you’re going to promote an initiative which calls for
            the elimination of a company you do not eliminate the target by incorporating
            them into your battle plan. I highly recommend that you read ‘The Art of War’
            and ‘Moltke’. The truth of the matter is all of the companies to which ‘Truth
            Sayer’ has referred are in fact controlled by Rockefeller and Rothschild. The
            very families who have created the GMO hazard and control the ‘Go-Green
            initiative’ e.g., Greenpeace, etc.

            “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people
            believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Green Peace

          3. Sorry Dane, quoting Paul Watson won’t get you very far around here. He’s the same guy thank thinks 6 billion people have to get off the planet. The same guy who referred to “humans as the aids of the planet”. If we want to save the planet, and the only way to do so is to get rid of 6 billion of us, then whats the point. The same guy who takes his fleet of fossil fuel burning ships and chases other fossil burners all over the antarctic.

            You had me listening right up to when you quoted someone I feel should be the first person on the list to go.

            Misguided activism costs lives, it hurts people. GMO’s hurt people, I care more about people than anything else, and in that regard Paul Watson is on my list of things we don’t need. There are some GMO’s out there that serve a purpose, that is to save lives… sometimes I can see past my own beliefs and even understand and tolerate them , radical human hating people like him … never.

            Aaron

        1. Ah, delete the comment so no one knows….good strategy. I’ll just post it on the March Against Monsanto Facebook page.

          1. Actually, We don’t delete comments. Even the comments like the one that was posted that told me, quite literally to “kill myself”, in reference to an article about the coal industry…

            The truth is, I was saving puppies from a burning crack house.

            Kidding, we were just enjoying a glass of wine, while we plotted and schemed how to spend all of our Monsanto money.

            Right now, the current vote in the office is to get a gum ball, and try to cut it into small enough pieces for all of us, but my vote was for a vending machine mood ring that we can take turns wearing.

      2. Truth Sayer,
        “greenwashing” I so like the term.

        For the record, Here at Earth911 we run a website for the sole purpose of increasing awareness of all things sustainable and environmental. We write what we think and report the facts regardless of who pays us money. In fact we have actually written many articles about our advertisers that were in no way flattering. They don’t see them before they run and we totally ignore the fact that these advertisers pay us money when we research and publish the stories.

        You implication of “hypocritical behavior” is so naive that I almost ignored it completely. Your second comment that we simply deleted it is as false as the first assumption. I can assure you, there is nothing about our ethics that would not fair well under scrutiny, and nothing in your uneducated comment that would make us even contemplate not approving it.

        Lots of people pay us money, they don’t all pay us money because they agree with us, the do it simply to put their name in front of the 8 million people that visit here each year. Sadly, if they didn’t you would not have had something to complain about.

        Oh, in passing, As far as I know, Monsanto has never paid us a dime, at least not since I’ve been here, and I know everyone who does.

        Hey everyone, please make sure you recycle the plastic bottle the Monsanto poison comes in, if you don’t know how, our phone number is on the back.

        Aaron

  3. Its nice to see fiction writing is still strong. If you had any facts against companies like Monsanto, you would not need to fearmonger marches, you would present facts.
    I will be sitting on my sofa in support of science. You have fun with your march.

    1. Kip,

      The facts are there, they always have been. White papers with a long list of facts would not have achieved the goal of getting you to read it. At least it appears you turned your TV off long enough to actually read the sensationalist article, and it made you think enough to want to comment on it.

      So head on back to your couch, and keep an eye out for the next one. Here’s the bit thats going to fester, for the first time it sounds like you spent at least a minute thinking about this, our goal is to get 400 million others to do the same.

      Welcome to the family

      Aaron

      1. And the conclusion jumping contest winner is: Aaron.

        The funny thing is, being on my sofa will be as unusual for me as marking will be for you and your few fear inspired friends.

        You say there are white papers. You know papers are not YouTube video right ;)

        Where were they published?

        1. Kip,

          So the conclusion of “sofa sitting” was wrong huh, i just took it from your comment “I will be sitting on my sofa in support of science”.

          You are quite right, I don’t “mark”, however, i don’t like youtube and I don’t like academia, period. The continual propagation of pre-published ideas and thought are simply a job retention program for those who no longer do, but simply teach.

          Original thought is not a new concept, and speaking to the general population in a manner and fashion they can understand has been a catalyst for peace and knowledge since Queen Elizabeth 1st, stated the bible should be available in english.

          White papers on the effects of chemicals on human health are everywhere. I am even certain you could find one on youtube and if you like try sofa sitting and watching at the same time, there will be thousands, even academics use it to drone out their lectures.

          Kip, you proceed to a false assumption. I am a rather educated man myself, I have spent many a year in the halls of learning, and have more letters after my name than I care to share.

          Making it personal is not why we are here. So if you didn’t like the article don’t read it, if you don’t like the style don’t watch.

          Aaron

          1. Someone who can’t hit the shift key when typing i (sic) should not try making fun of a typo :)

            Yes, as I said, sofa sitting will be an unusual occurrence, just as your little march will be. I will do it in protest of your protest. You can try to stir up fear all you want, but more and more people will see it for what it is, simple demagoguery.

            I am glad you are now for GMO tech. If you say “chemical” are bad, you must also know that many GE strains use a lot less chemical input than regular strains. And much safer ones than organic farmers use. As you have letter after your name, you must know the LD50 for roundup. How does it compare to caffeine and table salt?

            So again, if you have evidence of GMO being harmful, please show it.

          2. I can’t see how you came to the conclusion I am pro GMO, but, then again I doubt it will matter.

            The primary purpose of our discourse was the content and style of the article, how about we just leave it here and agree to disagree on GMO, Protests and editorial style.

            If the world felt as you did we would all still be English subjects, women couldn’t vote and the Vietnam war would still be going. There are times when we should talk, and times when we should act. I think you should thank those who take the time to act, it provided you the rights and opportunity to make the comments you do today.

            In the famous words of George Bernard Shaw, “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”

            Enjoy the weekend

            Aaron

          3. I note, you still have not provided any evidence of harm. Just poor and frivolous ad hominem and obfuscation of the facts.

            There is a small problem with your quote, you are on the wrong side of it. In 50 or 100 years, you will be remembered much as we remember luddites, well meaning but deluded by fear.

            Agree to disagree on GMO? Sure, but that entails you do not try to foist your fear on the rest of us with your political but unscientific march.

          4. Ok, so since you are like a dog with a bone and continue to infer we are simply obfuscates of the facts, here is some light reading that may take the very large chip off your shoulder and remove the rose colored glasses from your face.

            Unlike you, we try to refrain from using the rather officious tones in our writing, because we have always found that its better to talk to someone than talk at them. Probably why I do this of a living and, yes this may be another assumption, you do not.

            Now go sit on your couch and spend the next 100 hours reading this stuff just as Justin did. I would pick on someone else’s work, he is so far out of your league. Oh and yes, some of it is on Youtube so you can just lay back and watch.

            “Adoption
            of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.” ERS/USDA Data. Web. 12 May 2012.
            .

            “A
            Collaborative Initiative Working to Ensure the Sustained Availability of
            Non-GMO Options.” The Non-GMO Project. Web. 06 May 2012.
            .

            “Dangers
            of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture.” Dangers of Genetic EngineeringCampaign
            for Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
            .

            Diamond,
            Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin,
            2011. Print.

            Gammons,
            Nancy. “Four Sisters Farm.” E-mail interview. 30 Apr. 2012.

            “Label
            GMOs-California Committee For The Right to Know.” LabelGMOs. Web. 03 May 2012.
            .

            Lapidus,
            Jennifer. “Genetically Modified Food Should Be Labeled.” Genetically Modified
            Food. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2009. 31-36. Print.

            Leopold,
            Aldo. “The Land Ethic.” The Environmental Responsibility Reader. London: Zed,
            2009. 22-27. Print.

            Nacci,
            Giuseppe. “Genetically Modified Food Can Cause Disease.” Genetically Modified
            Food. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2009. 24-30. Print.

            “Organic
            Foods.” : Understanding Organic Food Labels, Benefits, and Claims. Web. 04 May
            2012. .

            Pollan,
            Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York:
            Penguin, 2006. Print.

          5. Oh sorry I forgot to mention, The Luddite reference was a classic, It really was the best bit and I chuckled for at least 10 minutes from it, well done very Justin…esk. But since were doing this over the internet i think rather the contrary.

          6. Good morning, someone has been busy.

            Firstly, when I pasted the links I pasted lots of them, some agree with Justin’s stance and some don’t. Some show the dangers and some don’t. This is well balanced and as it should be.

            We have written in favor of some issues that other environmental groups appose, Nuclear Power for example. We push for consumer responsibility, Starbuck Cup etc. When we look at a subject we do it with an open mind and make our determination by what we find not what we thought going in or to side with a single group or opinion that is making the most noise.

            In this case, we feel quite strongly that GMO and its ramifications are not only suspect at best but in all reality will cause many unknown problems in the future, as has everything else where man has made “improvements”, and the risk is just too high for something we do not need.

            I am also flattered that you have made a reference to us as “liars” I took you for being a little smarter, now I realize you are simply being dogmatic and have no intention of conversing, simply attacking what you disagree with.

            The dissemination of ideals to sway opinion is the very definition of Propaganda. Whilst you may see it as bad we see it as a part of everyday life. It starts at home when your a baby, continues through school and all the way through your life and has been used for good far more than for bad. To brand us with that label is a compliment that we will take and proudly hold as we have done for years.

            The fact is, if we were trying to deceive anyone as to whom we were, everyone would write under a non-deplume, the fact is they don’t and the internet removes all masks, even for ESL Teachers in Taiwan.

            We are proud of what do and what we have achieved, and as with everything we can all agree to disagree and not make it a personal attack on our work and integrity. ( I apologize for the Academia comment, should have known you were part of that establishment) I trust you enjoy your employment as an ESL Teacher in Taiwan, and hopefully what you do makes a difference, I only trust you just teach English and not rhetoric as that really would be a one-sided argument that i’m sure you’d win.

            Aaron

          7. Hi. Well, lets see.
            “The dissemination of ideals to sway opinion is the very definition of Propaganda”. The problem is, that is counter to the truth and leads to an us vs them fallacy.

            The problem with your links are many. First, none of them work. I seen now that some of mine don’t either. Copy from FaceBook seems to truncate them.

            But, I asked for evidence of harm, or a mechanism that GE could lead to harm where other breeding methods can’t. None of your links seem to show that at all.

            “we feel” and “unknown problems in the future,” are opposite of facts. And then you prove my Luddite quip true by offhanded claiming all advancement is bad : ” as has everything else where man has made “improvements”” This is simply not true. You are right now working on on of those very improvements.

            The question (as was put to Ham and Nye) is: what would change your mind. For me, my answer is the same as the Science Guy, evidence. There is a lot of evidence out there for GMO safety. Would any of it change your mind? or will you continue to wait in vain for the evidence you just know is out there?

            As for my current job, yes, it’s great thank you. I wonder though if you were researching me looking for evidence of the mythical shill beast :P Much as I would like a job at Monsanto, or arctic apples, I am under qualified. I am just a fan. I do hear great things about working there and the more I research Monsanto and their distractors, the more happy I am they are on our side.

            Because you are wrong, we do need GMOs. Just the added efficiency of less total input and more resistant to global warming effects and the uncertainty that berings would be enough. But Golden rice and things like show the potential for so much more. We need to keep at it, make it more efficient and even more safe, not smash the test fields and march to hold back progress.

          8. Kip, We are both right about one thing. Neither of us is going to agree with everything the other says, as it probably should be. Debate is debate and I love it.

            I have a bigger problem right now than this, my wife is starting to become annoyed that I’m still working on this long weekend. I promise I will continue this Tuesday… Fair enough?

            Aaron

          9. Sorry, I just can’t follow those links. Did you copypasta them from an anti site? Please try again.

            Like this:
            In general, there’s nothing dangerous or bad about the principle of GM foods and crops.

            Genetically modified crops are not killing the honey bees (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23533634 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22194811 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24039838 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18183296 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22868904 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22364780).

            In addition, Monarch butterflies are not harmed by GM crops (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11559839 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11559842).

            Overall, “The risks potentially posed by transgenic plants, especially Bt crops, to the environment have been extensively assessed worldwide over the past 10 years, and no scientific evidence has shown that the cultivation of Bt crops has caused sustained environmental harm to communities of soil organisms, such as nematodes, earthworms, collembolans or mites” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3628874/).

            In order for the genetically engineered (GE) crops to be successful, a reduction in biodiversity is to be expected. Still, according to a review of 1,783 research papers, “On the other hand, higher reductions on biodiversity is generally expected with non-GE crops and herbicide/insecticide applications, because the chemicals used are often more toxic and persistent in the environment” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244 ,http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/…/Nicolia-20131.pdf).

            Ultimately, most studies find that GM foods don’t have a significant impact on animal health (http://www.agbioworld.org/…/bio…/peer-reviewed-pubs.html ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19073230 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17050059 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21967780 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933942 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18029807 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24312218 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570744 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22250399 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155268 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531449/).

            Specifically, GM foods do not affect the reproductive system in animals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23828972 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24012644 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24309144 ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15053558).

            A detailed review concluded that DNA from GM food cannot be incorporated into our DNA, and that the proteins encoded by the genes inserted into GM crops are not toxic or allergenic (http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/…/Nicolia-20131.pdf ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244). Just to be safe, “pre-screening of transgenic proteins through bioinformatic analyses contributes to avoid the introduction of potentially toxic, allergenic or bioactive proteins into food and feed crops” (http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/…/Nicolia-20131.pdf ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244).

            Food acquired from GM crops have not affected the health of the world-wide population, even after 15 years of consumption by millions of people (http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/).

            Even the European Union has declared, “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” (http://ec.europa.eu/…/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo…).

            Broadly speaking, genetic modification is nothing new. While many people think of crossbreeding as natural, it is still – at its core – genetic splicing. Like it or not, hybridization changes the DNA. Name one crop that has never been modified in any way, by humans, in the history of us being farmers. Nearly all foods found in supermarkets and even the local organic farmer’s market have been highly genetically manipulated to produce the most desirable traits.

            The only difference is that when it’s done in a lab, we know exactly what’s happening at the genetic level (especially for species where the entire gene code has been sequenced), and are actually more likely to end up with the exact results we want.

            It’s unreasonable to argue that genetic engineering is in any way more harmful when the opposite is more likely to be true. With modern genetic engineering, single genes are added, altered, or removed specific to known desired result. With artificial selection, hundreds of genes are altered in ambiguous and unpredictable ways.

            Basically, there’s no reason why the GMO discussion should be inundated with panic. Let’s look at the GMO debate with a clear mind.

            Also, If GMO labeling is required, why not receive a book of information with each food you buy? I want information about the levels of pesticides, fungicides, type of protein present, the kind of plant variety used, the source (Mexico, India, etc.), type of soil the plant was cultivated in, and the kind of fertilizer that was used. of pesticides, fungicides, type of protein present, the kind of plant variety used, the source (Mexico, India, etc.), type of soil the plant was cultivated in, and the kind of fertilizer that was used. This article is a good counter against GMO labeling (http://www.latimes.com/…/la-le-0510-saturday-food-label… ).

          10. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_30250.cfm

            “Also, If GMO labeling is required, why not receive a book of information with each food you buy?”..they can just remove the “all natural” sticker and replace it with GMO or non-GMO…less letters so it’s cheaper!

            “The only difference is that when it’s done in a lab, we know exactly what’s happening at the genetic level (especially for species where the entire gene code has been sequenced), and are actually more likely to end up with the exact results we want.”..Really? Then why do they have to keep changing the amount being used? How many tweaks will it take to get it right..if ever?

            I am not fearful as you think or in panic..I am angry.

    2. I did have fun on the march, for the record, and I met a lot of people who feel the exact same way as I do when it comes to this subject. We marched from city hall to the Dallas farmer’s market, and there was not a single farmer there who was pro-gmo, at least that I could find.

      As far as “fiction”, would you care to elaborate on which aspect of what I wrote was fictitious?

    3. Not to jump on a hot topic late, but I was out and about all weekend, and wanted to take a minute this morning between memorial services for a couple of fallen Marine Corps buddies to ask a quick question:

      You stuck to your gun really hard on the GMO stuff, but what about the 3 other topics I broached? Was that part of the “fiction” as well?

      1. Well, I focus on that part as it is the most dangerous fallacy you have. There is no evidence of harm and growing consensus of safety. Only by making with propaganda and anti science fear can you hope to “win” this one. I really wonder why? Does BigOrga pay so well?

        http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/05/27/gmo-science-denialists-ensser-challenges-who-national-academy-of-sciences-on-gm-safety/#.U4ZY3PmSxvB

        Saccharin is one of the few things Monsanto did create in the big meme of evil Monsanto is supposed to have done. And it has an odd history, mostly because no actual evidence of harm has been found. Now, you imply that Monsanto payed for it to be approved, a vase and well hidden conspiracy is in operation to keep it approved and that it is really bad. With no evidence.

        Then, you use things like “its made of Coal Tar!” to add fear mongering to your discussion. This is very poor on your part. Its as bad as trying to make honey sound bad because it is insect vomit. Or that Dihydrogen Monoxide will kill you. Baseless propaganda pure and simple.

        Then the is agent orange. You seem to know what the issue was with it, and could have used it as a great example of how science should never be overruled by politics, even military. But no, that does not fit your agenda. Instead you try to blame all of it on Monsanto. You ignore the fact that the whole program was ran by the government and Monsanto neither created the problem nor were they they only ones that could manufacture it. In fact, they were probably the ones that identified that dioxin was an issue and how it was getting into the mix.

        So, what did Monsanto do after that incident? Did they keep up with military contracts? No, they changed the whole company and sold any rights they had to make more. They completely reorganised. Blaming them now is like blaming Volkswagen for all of WWII. Or blaming George Bush because Nixon was a crook. Its just no longer true.

        That is why, if you want to say the 6th largest seed company is big enough to buy off all the US government and many international organisations, you need prof. If you think GMO is so bad, show proof. In fact, for any of your claims, is there any proof at all?

        No, but there are some great conspiracy stories.

        1. Hey Kip,

          Firstly, sorry for not getting back to you Tuesday I was out with the flu, and no I don’t think Monsanto did it.

          In the spirit of fairness, and to show we are really quite impartial (well most of us) I have a proposal for you, you write a legitimate rebuttal and ill publish it.

          Let me know what you think. Just comment back and I’ll set it up. Feel free to take a swing at Justin, he won’t mind as long as its funny.

          Aaron

          1. Even if it’s not funny, I can handle it. It’s not like it’ll be the first swing taken at me.

          2. Aaron, will you pay Kip to write the piece?

    1. Thank you, Sharon. Might not have been as funny as some I my others, but then again, it’s not really a humorous subject.

  4. Afternoon, If we were trying to keep it a secret, we wouldn’t have posted it on CNN, we answer and approve all comments (less the naughty and vicious stuff) I would have approved it anyway without the threat, I was out for a few days and this is one nobody else knew how to answer so they didn’t hit approve.

    We are happy to have Jeff with us and he brings a wealth of experience and skills we can all use everyday. Your concerns and opinions while important and valued, are in this particular case
    unwarranted.

    Thanks for the post, we appreciate it.

    Aaron

  5. Hey, I see the irony, I understand how it looks and how it sounds. The fact is sometimes it’s just unfortunate that things look like they aren’t.

    I can tell you, “CANNED” no, …careful, … yes. “Cronyism” not a chance. I am certain of one thing though, Jeff will appreciate you referring to his Real Estate Office as big business, and thinking he can wield political influence in Washington to help us out, In fact if he could, I would drive him there myself.

    Oh, and since when was making money a bad idea, try this out. The next time you go to by your groceries hand them a macramé plant holder or a IOU and see how far you get. The fact that we need to earn money to pay our bills should not seem so nefarious. If I had to choose between a businessman or a anti-money radical to help us to actually make enough so our staff can feed their families, I would choose the businessman. I am not saying you are either, just saying we have to live as well. If we can’t pay the bills we can’t spread the word, a simple ironic fact.

    Sorry I didn’t reach out and give the last guy a little love slap earlier, I was trying to catch up on my work, I promise the next time I reply, I will do so in Aaron’esk” fashion.

    Happy now, and by the way… loved the comment well written, need a job?

    Aaron

    Aaron

  6. Great article! It seems some people can’t let go of the “They have science, so they know what’s best for us, not their wallet” way of thinking.

Leave a Comment