Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

lee h oswald

I am appalled that someone can use these products and still claim to be 'organic'... What do you have to do to not be organic? It makes a mockery of everything. There should be a law against it... in fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't even in the U.S Get your brainless-feetless steroidal, irradiated, four legged organically grown, glow in the dark chickens here!
Shocking innit, O?

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I am appalled that someone can use these products and still claim to be 'organic'.

Grieves, within twenty years, GMO's will be acceptable under all organic certifications.

Some petroleum oils are listed under OMRI rules as Certified Organic.

I used some glyphosate to kill poison ivy in the woods. Big whoop. Crucify me.

Valid. Monsanto does have an inordinate level of influence within American politics.

Valid. Monsanto's inordinate level of influence within American politics give it an advantage over others.

Possible. There has been evidence of infertility in livestock as the result of GMO feedstock.

Possible. Colony Collapse Disorder is a big concern, and roundup/other pesticides remain a major suspect.

the word "inordinate" is subjective.

Grieves your link doesn't support your claim that Roundup or glyphosate is a problem.

The article refers to some researchers who claim a non-monsanto pesticide used as a seed treatment may be part of the reasons for bee problems. However, they exposed the bees not to the treated seeds, which are planted UNDERGROUND, but to much higher levels of the pesticide directly, not levels which might be found on the seeds planted underground or within the plants that grow.

Sounds like another "overdose" study where they give "inordinate" amounts of a substance to show an effect.

I get a kick out of the comments below the article which says CRUCIFY Monsanto, FEED MONSANTO TO KIM JONG IL!
The truth is that Monsanto doesn't make that pesticide.

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Lee said:
Because it's obvious to me that you're trying to grow the wrong crop.

Well, it's very obvious to me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, Lee.

I found exactly the crop of corn I needed to grow.
One input.
A seed.
The right seed.
A genetically modified seed.
Created by Monsanto.

Millions of farmers made the same choice, and get happier about it every year.



Senior Member.
The monopoly myth persists because it fits their beliefs.

I was chatting with a friend who owns a farm in Ark, on Sun and she does plant some GM crops including cotton. Her cotton is dryland farmed and her yield went up significantly when they went to round up read cotton.


Senior Member.
Originally Posted by JRBids
You make it sound as if the fields are being sprayed by planes or something. We used to use round up around the vines in our vineyard and you have to be very careful how windy it is an how you apply it.

No doubt they were your 'organic' vines lol. Most big operations spray it all over the place but assume it is safe because it is done early on when the crop is young. That is incorrect. It does lasting damage

Oxy, if you "spray it all over the place" you'll kill the crop too.
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Mick, thank you for removing both Lee's scatological provocation and my similar (Monty Python quoting) retort. Very fair.

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
^^^ Obviously does not own a farm.

Typical city folk, always trying to tell farmers how to run their business and what they should do with their land.
Guess what? Farmer's don't listen to people who tell them to make bad decisions. Farmers make their own decisions often taking risks city folks know nothing about and would be paralyzed at taking.

Planting anything takes a certain amount of faith as well, often you fail no matter what you try to do. I have to pardon Lee and Grieves, they simply cannot relate to what farmers do. They live in a world in which they feel they know better than the farmers who take all the risk. They dislike capitalism where risk taken sometimes equals reward, they feel that they should be the arbiters of who gains and who loses because capitalism is corrupt and success is never the result of performance of hard work or making correct decisions. In their world, success comes at the expense of others. They are essentially 'Takers', wanting to take away people's property rights, patent rights, and even their right to succeed.

The attraction of farming to me was taking raw natural elements of sun soil and water and working with it to produce something out of nothing that I could hold in my hand, then sell to others who needed my products. I doubt that either Grieves or Lee have had that experience thus they simply cannot even begin to relate to it.

Why is it that people who know the least about a subject are usually easily misled about it?

Oops, I think I answered my own question.


Senior Member.
Yes her profits increased. If they hadn't, she would have planted something different. Her land is suitable for cotton, corn or soybeans. She usually plants some of all of them.

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
A case where a man's bees were seized in Illinois is being suggested as being instigated by Monsanto.
“Knowing that Monsanto and the Dept. of Ag are in bed together, one has to wonder if Monsanto was behind the theft to ruin my research that may prove Round-Up was, and is, killing honeybees. Beekeepers across the state are being threatened that the same thing may be done to their hives and livelihood. I was not treated properly, I don’t want to see this happen to anyone else in this state, and I want this type of illegal action to end.”
Content from External Source
If nothing else, certainly a case of faceless bureaucracy doing its ham-fisted usual.
There are 2 questions that Ingram wants answered:

1) Did the IDofA, a state agency, have the right to enter Ingram’s property and confiscate a suspected “nuisance,” before Ingram had his day in court?
2) Where are his bees? The “evidence” has disappeared, and the IDofA refuses to tell Ingram where they are, before, during, and after the hearing.

Content from External Source
The story is being picked up by conspiracy and anti-GMO sites, but the link to Monsanto is speculation only at this point as far as I can see. (This was a case from last year, but was posted on an anti-GMO site just recently.
Original story...

An ATS post that provides a different interpretation.

Kevin Kivikko on 22May2012 at 10:20 am Here’s another perspective from a person who knows Susan Kivikko very well. She’s my niece. I find ludicrous the notion that she’s in any way in the pocket of Monsanto or any other company. She’s as liberal and ecologically conscious as one can be. She grows and cans her own food, raises honeybees, and has fought for years for responsible and sparing use of pesticides and herbicides. She advocates crop diversity, railing against the monocultures that threaten our food sources. She’s a trained bee inspector for the state of Illinois. You seem to have taken the word of the beekeeper whose bees were destroyed. If Susan says his bees were diseased, I believe her. Would you be equally irate if you heard a farmer’s mad cow infected cattle were taken and destroyed? Diseased animals endanger all of us and especially any nearby food producers. I suggest you do a little more research into this issue. A good journalist checks every angle. I imagine a good journalist is what you strive to be.
E Balderson on 22May2012 at 6:11 pm These are the facts concerning the AFB affected hives:
1) An Illinois State Bee Inspector inspected the hives and found the presence of American Foul Brood. The inspector reported these findings to Supervisor Steve Chard, Illinois Department of Agriculture, and the initial findings were also reported to to the hives’ owner.
2) Mr. Chard sent another Bee Inspector to the apiary in question, along with original Inspector, who confirmed the presence of American Foul Brood.
3) Samples were taken from the hive and sent to the USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville Maryland. They confirmed that it was indeed American Foul Brood.
4) The owner was notified that he was in violation, was sent a copy of the USDA laboratory results and was told to destroy the hives in accordance with Illinois State statutes.
5) After numerous notices from the Illinois Department of Agriculture the owner refused to destroy the infected colonies.
6) The Department abated the nuisance, as specified by the Illinois Bees and Apiaries Act.
7) A hearing was held in Springfield. where the owner was present and was allowed to rebut any and all statements, plus allowed to ask any questions of Department staff present at the hearing. The State then issued a penalty to the owner for failure to abate the nuisance.

This was all legally under the Illinois Civil Statutes! There was no wrong-doing – except perhaps for the owner to keep hives with foulbrood and refuse to comply with the laws. Illinois has a mandatory registration program and a free bee inspection program to promote the health of Illinois bees. Foulbrood is the result of what is known as a spore-forming organism – a bacterium. It is highly contagious as bees visit the same flowers as your neighbor’s and it can transfer. It encapsulates itself into a spore and can remain viable for many 10′s of years! It can come back many years later under the right circumstances. This is why it is dangerous. This beekeeper is delusional regarding his alleged “research.”​
Following the Illinois Bees and Apiaries Act (510 ILCS 20/1 et seq.), Ingram received an IDofA “Apiary Inspection Site Report” in November that said on Sunday, October 23, 2011; Inspector Susan Kivikko examined his apiary.​
In the report, Kivikko commented that “foulbrood [was] present - Colonies weak.”​
“All combs, frames, honey and bees must be destroyed by burning . . . Hive bodies, supers, bottom boards, inner and outer covers may be salvaged by sanitizing with a scorching flame, such as a propane torch.” The notice was signed by Kivikko, and said Ingram must comply with the order by November 25, 2011.​
On a return trip to your apiary [Dec. 8] to verify that you had complied with the instructions specified by the disease notice, Ms. Kivikko found that the infected colonies had in fact not been destroyed.”​
Two more Apiary Inspection Site Reports were produced by IDofA, stating that on Tuesday, Jan. 10 and Thursday, Jan. 19, Kivikko had revisited the apiary to check on Ingram’s compliance of previous notifications.​

So his hives were inspected on October 23rd, 2011, found to be infected, and Ingram did nothing about it. He not only jeopardized his own colonies, but also any surrounding ones. That's irresponsible.
The Illinois Department of Agriculture didn't just one day decide to take his bees. He had well over four months to comply.

Foulbrood is a serious disease.
Content from External Source
So, perhaps not such a violation as it seems, but interesting how the story is being used now.


Senior Member.
I did some more checking on that and it seems that the bee keeper had a disease and claimed he didn't, even though tests said he did. Then he started changing his story and saying that if left alone the disease would not be spread. I posted that somewhere on here, but I don't remember which thread.


Active Member
I am appalled that someone can use these products and still claim to be 'organic'... What do you have to do to not be organic? It makes a mockery of everything. There should be a law against it... in fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't even in the U.S

Well then maybe you should read the US Law on what is Organic - The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), enacted under Title 21 of the 1990 Farm Bill. And maybe what the Canadian, UK and EU laws say as well. Here is an excerpt from the USDA website linked below:

What are organic production systems and practices?

“Organic farming entails:

Use of cover crops, green manures, animal manures and crop rotations to fertilize the soil, maximize biological activity and maintain long-term soil health.
Use of biological control, crop rotations and other techniques to manage weeds, insects and diseases.
An emphasis on biodiversity of the agricultural system and the surrounding environment.
Using rotational grazing and mixed forage pastures for livestock operations and alternative health care for animal wellbeing.
Reduction of external and off-farm inputs and elimination of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and other materials, such as hormones and antibiotics.
A focus on renewable resources, soil and water conservation, and management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological balance.”

Transitioning to Organic Production. USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), 2006.

“Organic Principles. There are several compelling principles that characterize certified organic farming. They include biodiversity, integration, sustainability, natural plant nutrition, natural pest management, and integrity. Most organic operations will reflect all of these to a greater or lesser degree. Since each farm is a distinct entity, there is a large degree of variation.” Organic Crop Production Overview, by George Kuepper and Lance Gegner. ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service

Organic production is not simply the avoidance of conventional chemical inputs, nor is it the substitution of natural inputs for synthetic ones. Organic farmers apply techniques first used thousands of years ago, such as crop rotations and the use of composted animal manures and green manure crops, in ways that are economically sustainable in today's world. In organic production, overall system health is emphasized, and the interaction of management practices is the primary concern. Organic producers implement a wide range of strategies to develop and maintain biological diversity and replenish soil fertility.”
(emphasis is mine)

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I did some more checking on that and it seems that the bee keeper had a disease and claimed he didn't, even though tests said he did. Then he started changing his story and saying that if left alone the disease would not be spread. I posted that somewhere on here, but I don't remember which thread.

Yeah I should have made my post more thorough before posting - fixed it.

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.

GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left
Don’t worry. Genetically modified corn isn’t going to give you cancer.
By Keith Kloor|Posted Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2012, at 5:15 AM

Genetically modified corn harvested near Rockton, Ill.
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.
I used to think that nothing rivaled the misinformation spewed by climate change skeptics and spinmeisters.
Then I started paying attention to how anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods. You might be surprised at how successful they've been and who has helped them pull it off.
I’ve found that fears are stoked by prominent environmental groups, supposed food-safety watchdogs, and influential food columnists; that dodgy science is laundered by well-respected scholars and propaganda is treated credulously by legendary journalists; and that progressive media outlets, which often decry the scurrilous rhetoric that warps the climate debate, serve up a comparable agitprop when it comes to GMOs.
In short, I’ve learned that the emotionally charged, politicized discourse on GMOs is mired in the kind of fever swamps that have polluted climate science beyond recognition.
The latest audacious example of scientific distortion came last week, in the form of a controversial (but peer reviewed!) study that generated worldwide headlines. A French research team purportedly found that GMO corn fed to rats caused them to develop giant tumors and die prematurely.
Within 24 hours, the study's credibility was shredded by scores of scientists. The consensus judgment was swift and damning: The study was riddled with errors—serious, blatantly obvious flaws that should have been caught by peer reviewers. Many critics pointed out that the researchers chose a strain of rodents extremely prone to tumors. Other key aspects of the study, such as its sample size and statistical analysis, have also been highly criticized. One University of Florida scientist suggests the study was "designed to frighten" the public.*
That's no stretch of the imagination, considering the history of the lead author, Gilles-Eric Seralini, who, as NPR reports, "has been campaigning against GM crops since 1997," and whose research methods have been "questioned before," according to the New York Times.
The circumstances surrounding Seralini's GMO rat-tumor study range from bizarre (as a French magazine breathlessly reports, it was conducted in clandestine conditions) to dubious (funding was provided by an anti-biotechnology organization whose scientific board Seralini heads).
Another big red flag: Seralini and his co-authors manipulated some members of the media to prevent outside scrutiny of their study. (The strategy appears to have worked like a charm in Europe.) Some reporters allowed themselves to be stenographers by signing nondisclosure agreements stipulating they not solicit independent expert opinion before the paper was released. That has riled up science journalists such as Carl Zimmer, who wrote on his Discover magazine blog: "This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science. It speaks badly for the scientists involved, but we journalists have to grant that it speaks badly to our profession, too. ... If someone hands you confidentiality agreements to sign, so that you will have no choice but to produce a one-sided article, WALK AWAY. Otherwise, you are being played."
Speaking of being played, have I mentioned yet that Seralini's book on GMOs, All Guinea Pigs! is being published (in French) this week? Oh, and there's also a documentary based on his book coming out simultaneously. You can get details on both at the website of the anti-biotetch organization that sponsored his study. The site features gross-out pictures of those GMO corn-fed rats with ping-pong-ball-size tumors.
It's all very convenient, isn't it?
None of this seems to bother Tom Philpott, the popular food blogger for Mother Jones, who writes that Seralini's results "shine a harsh light on the ag-biotech industry's mantra that GMOs have indisputably proven safe to eat."
Philpott often trumpets the ecological and public-health dangers posed by genetically modified crops. But such concerns about GMOs, which are regularly echoed at other left-leaning media outlets, have little merit. As Pamela Ronald, a UC-Davis plant geneticist, pointed out last year in Scientific American: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops."
So what explains the lingering suspicions that some people (even those who aren’t Monsanto-hating, organic-food-only eaters) still harbor? Some of these folks are worried about new genes being introduced into plant and animal species. But humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals pretty much since we moved out of caves, manipulating their genes all the while. The process was just slower before biotechnology came along.
Still, being uneasy about a powerful, new technology doesn’t make you a wild-eyed paranoid. The precautionary principle is a worthy one to live by. But people should know that GMOs are tightly regulated (some scientists say in an overly burdensome manner).
Many environmentalists are concerned that genetically modified animals such as “Franken-salmon” could get loose in the wild and out-compete their nonengineered cousins, or lead to breeding problems for the wild members of the species. But even the scientist on whose research the “Trojan gene” hypothesis is based says the risk to wild salmon is “low” and that his work has been misrepresented by GMO opponents.
Another big concern that has been widely reported is the “rapid growth of tenacious super weeds” that now defy Monsanto’s trademark Roundup herbicide. That has led farmers to spray their fields with an increasing amount of the chemical weed-killer. Additionally, some research suggests that other pests are evolving a resistance to GMO crops. But these problems are not unique to genetic engineering. The history of agriculture is one of a never-ending battle between humans and pests.
On balance, the positives of GM crops seem to vastly outweigh the negatives. A recent 20-year study published in Nature found that GM crops helped a beneficial insect ecosystem to thrive and migrate into surrounding fields. For an overview of the benefits (and enduring concerns) of GM crops, see this recent post by Pamela Ronald.
The bottom line for people worried about GMO ingredients in their food is that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs pose a health risk.
Even Philpott, in his charitable take on the Seralini study, admits that, "no one has ever dropped dead from drinking, say, a Coke sweetened with high-fructose syrup from GMO corn." In the next breath, though, he wonders: "But what about 'chronic' effects, ones that come on gradually and can't be easily tied to any one thing? Here we are eating in the dark." Despite the study being a train wreck, Philpott's takeaway is that it "provides a disturbing hint that all might not be right with our food—and shows beyond a doubt that further study is needed." What's beyond a doubt here is Philpott's unwillingness to call bullshit when it's staring him in the face.
I single out Philpott not to pick on him, but because he represents the most reasonable, level-headed voice of the anti-GMO brigade (whose most extreme adherents don white hazmat suits and destroy research plots). The same goes for Grist, which calls the French study "important" and says "it's worth paying attention to what Seralini has done.”
Such acceptance by lefties of what everyone else in the reality-based science community derides as patently bad science is “just plain depressing,” writes a medical researcher who blogs under the name Orac. He compares the misuse of science and scare tactics by GMO opponents to the behavior of the anti-vaccine movement.
The anti-GM bias also reveals a glaring intellectual inconsistency of the eco-concerned media. When it comes to climate science, for example, Grist and Mother Jones are quick to call out the denialism of pundits and politicians. But when it comes to the science of genetic engineering, writers at these same outlets are quick to seize on pseudoscientific claims, based on the flimsiest of evidence, of cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting, ecosystem-killing GMOs.
This brand of fear-mongering is what I've come to expect from environmental groups, anti-GMO activists, and their most shamelessly exploitive soul travelers. This is what agenda-driven ideologues do. The Seralini study has already been seized on by supporters of California's Proposition 37, a voter initiative that, if successful in November, would require most foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such in the state.
What's disconcerting is when big media outlets and influential thought leaders legitimize pseudoscience and perpetuate some of the most outrageous tabloid myths, which have been given fresh currency by a slanted 2011 documentary that is taken at face value at places like the Huffington Post.
In a recent commentary for Nature, Yale University's Dan Kahan lamented the "polluted science communication environment" that has deeply polarized the climate debate. He writes: “People acquire their scientific knowledge by consulting others who share their values and whom they therefore trust and understand.” This means that lefties in the media and prominent scholars and food advocates who truly care about the planet are information brokers. So they have a choice to make: On the GMO issue, they can be scrupulous in their analysis of facts and risks, or they can continue to pollute the science communication environment.
Content from External Source

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
One of my favorite sites: is under fire from the anti-Monsanto folks (NaturalNews) because Ted issued a letter clarifying their position not to have presenters who offer up pseudo-science.

Here is the link to the article on NaturalNews

Allow me to be the first to announce that TED is dead. Why? Because the group that organizes so-called "TED talks" has been thoroughly hijacked by corporate junk science and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine, or even the subject of how food can help prevent behavioral disorders in children. All these areas of discussion are now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.

This is openly admitted by TEDx itself in a little-known letter publicly published on December 7, 2012.
Content from External Source

and here is an excerpt from the letter by Ted Talks

The consequence of bad science and health hoaxes are not trivial. As an example, Andrew Wakefield’s attempt to link autism and vaccines was exposed as a hoax last year. But while his work was being investigated, millions of children went without vaccines, and many contracted deadly illnesses as a result.

We take this seriously. Presenting bad science on the TEDx stage is grounds for revoking your license.

The letter below has three sections, and is designed to spark conversation. It focuses on 3 areas:

1. A short definition of bad science / pseudoscience.

2. Common warning signs of bad science and health hoaxes — above and beyond the science itself — how can you spot trouble?

3. Topics to watch out for, because in the past they have attracted bad science to TEDx events ....
Content from External Source

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
The San Diego conspiracy promoters have organized yet another protest, based on the usual misinformation and scare-mongering that has been debunked.


In Syd Steven's (SoCal Skywatch) other profile he is trying to conflate the chemtrail BS with the anti-Monsanto rhetoric:


Many of my friends are activists and their knee jerk reaction is to be supportive of anyone else that labels themselves an activist, and sadly they buy into the BS from the local conspiracy promoters without looking into the claims of evidence. It is so simple to just Google 'GMO claims debunked', but they cannot imagine that people spread bunk intentionally, particularly other 'activists' they believe to be friends.

Marching Against Monsanto? What You Need To Know First

Marching Against Monsanto? What You Need To Know First May 14, 2014 By Manny Schewitz 28 Comments On May 8th,
Content from External Source
Vermont became the first US state to require labels on food with genetically modified ingredients, a historic landmark for anti-GMO, anti-Monsanto activists. In the anti-GMO/Monsanto campaign, I see a lot of misinformation, scare tactics and an opportunity for organic food companies to expand their market reach. Scaremongering and relying on easily digestable talking points has been the modus operandi for manipulating the uninformed masses since the beginning of human civilization, and it’s rather interesting that people who say that they just “want people to know what’s in their food” in the name of transparency are using misinformation to accomplish their mission. Industrial farming is indeed a very real problem for both our health and the environment. The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone seen in this video is an ecological disaster caused by fertilizers used in industrial farming as well as runoff from those perfectly green, manicured lawns from subdivisions across the Midwest. In addition, herbicides and pesticides are also hazardous to us, as well as the rest of the ecosystem. We have facts and scientific research to show that herbicides and pesticides are indeed harmful. But what we don’t have is any real evidence out there that GM plants themselves are actually toxic to human beings, despite all the science-ignoring signs about “Frankenfood” that we see both on Facebook and at anti-Monsanto rallies. Yes I said it, when it comes to the science on vaccines or Monsanto, the left has a problem with ignoring science just like they accuse the right of when it comes to climate change. To go further, I’d be willing to bet that quite a few people in the upcoming “March Against Monsanto” could not name another company that also produces genetically modified seeds. Many also have little to no knowledge of how genetic modification works or that it has actually been done since the first humans began farming. I’m not by any stretch of the imagination a supporter of Monsanto, nor any other major corporation that seeks to create a stranglehold on a market. However, the false information and hysterical comparisons to Frankenstein aren’t going to make me jump on the anti-GMO bandwagon unless I see some consistent scientific data that shows an actual health risk from the product itself. As I previously wrote: Let’s get one thing clear — I’m no fan of Monsanto. As a health conscious, gluten-intolerant person who tries to follow a mostly organic diet, I don’t like the idea of companies trying to hide their suppliers and ingredients, but some of the absolutely insane conspiracy theories pushed by for-profit entities against Monsanto and others only hurts the legitimacy of a worthwhile cause. It’s incredibly frustrating to be called a shill for Big Pharma or Monsanto when all I’m trying to do is lend some common sense to the argument. Over and over again, we hear people talk about “chem-trails” or how food companies are trying to poison us while citing some fear-mongering website like Infowars or Natural News as “proof” that the Illuminati or other secret society is behind it all. (Source) As people loudly celebrate the new labeling law that was passed in Vermont (which will certainly run into legal challenges that cite the commerce clause), let’s take a look at who will benefit from this if it is upheld. It will certainly affect companies that rely on GM plants from Monsanto and other companies as part of large scale industrial farming. It will also very likely will drive consumers who are already fearful of a tomato genetically engineered to ripen more slowly to demand “natural” grains and vegetables which will in turn drive food costs up. Why? Because “organic” products cost more and labeling something as having ingredients which have not been scientifically determined to be harmful will cause uninformed people to abandon products with a label forced upon it by legislation. Who stands to benefit from this market upheaval? The “organic” food industry, that’s who. And while I fully support locally-grown, organic foods, I also have a serious problem with people using misinformation and scare tactics to undermine the competition and bolster their cause. Before you start drawing your “Frankenfood” signs and posing for photos next to your local grocery store, please take what I have said into consideration. Yes, we should be concerned about what is in our food and yes, we should always research every product that goes on the market as much as we possibly can. But making broad, uneducated statements based off NaturalNews or some other company that is trying to sell you another product is asinine and it only detracts from a movement. We need independent research, not funded by either organic food companies or Monsanto, that once and for all decides which, if any, genetically modified organisms are harmful or safe. And no, one retracted study on GMO corn does not count as proof. As the world’s population continues to grow, we are going to have to find ways to both feed the planet and not completely poison it at the same time with herbicides, fertilizers and other chemicals relied upon by industrial farming operations – and uninformed, emotion-only activism isn’t going to get us there. In fact, it could only make things worse.

Content from External Source

Furthermore, on the wikipedia page for the March against Monsanto, they state (and provide citations):

There is, however, broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[14][15][16][17][18][19] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.
Content from External Source
Last edited:


News of the march was trending (on the side bar) on my FB earlier. No longer listed in the top trends though.

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
The San Diego conspiracy promoter, Syd Stevens (Socal Skywatch) was thrilled to be captured in the RT post of a youtube video of the San Diego March Against Monsanto, one of the comments offered extensive information regarding GMO-safety studies.


Here is the comment with the studies and rebuttal.


2 days ago

+Electrical Universal I guarantee I have a fucking shit load more data and science that is actually valid which I can access through my compute on the subject of gm crops that show them to be just as safe as any other crop compared to the bullhshit misinfoationand out right lies that would have been feed to the sheep that attend such fear mongering hate rallies to insight hysteria

if anyone anywhere could produce any science at all that can stand up to the severe criticism it will receive that shows gm crops as a group have any different in any aspect of the health and wellbeing they proved then by the FDAs own labelling laws there would be a substantial difference and they would require labels to provide consumers with this information, if a scientist does not think some extraordinary claim is going to require solid repeatable open good evidence they are fucking deluded, science is harsh, if you cannot stand up to the criticism openly debate you data and findings and answer questions its usually a sign you are a crack pot

and if such science did exist i would fully support GMO labels on all products containing any ingredient from any gm crop or other organism, but until then all i could support are label that tells you how a product has been changed when those changes are relevant to the health the product provides, such as a allergen free nut or soy, nutritionally enhanced, or slower ripening, non browning, etc, but to put gmo labels on any product with any gm crop ingredient does not make any sense, we do not have such labels for any other crop breeding technology so if does not have any difference in risk why label it, what information exactly are you wanting from such labels? just insisting on a right to know is not a valid answer by the way any crack pot could claim they have a right to know anything.

An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research
Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2013 Sep 16
a massive meta study evaluating over 1700 published research reports on gm crops

GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA).
a complied list of over 600 published papers on gm crops

15 years, 81 projects, 400 teams and at least €130 million had been spent by European Union taxpayers on issues relating to GMO safety overview of studies on GMOs funded by the EU over 25 years that concludes that "there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms:"

Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50: 1134-1148.

list of Learned Societies and National Academies Endorsing Safety of Genetically Modified Crops
American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Medical Association
• American Society for Microbiology
• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• British Medical Association
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
• European Commission
• European Food Safety Authority
• Federation of Animal Science Societies
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
• French Academy of Science
• Indian National Science Academy
• Institute of Food Technologists
• International Council for Science
• International Union of Food Science and Technology
• Italian National Academy of Science
• Mexican Academy of Sciences
• National Academies of Science (United States)
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
• Pontifical Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• World Health Organization Bodies Afffirming Safety-TMY.PDF

since 1996, 59 different countries have granted a total of 2,497 approvals, of which 1,129 are for food use, 813 are for feed use and 555 are for commercial planting. The United States has the most approvals, with 196. Other countries have the following number of approvals: Japan, 182; Canada, 131; Mexico, 122; Australia, 92; South Korea, 86; New Zealand, 81; European Union, 67; Philippines, 64; Taiwan, 52; and South Africa, 49

In regards to the regulatory process, GM crops on the market have gone through all required regulatory approval processes in all countries where they are grown or used. In the United States alone:

• USDA conducts a mandatory review of GM plants to assess whether or not they will impact the environment and will be safe to grow.

• EPA conducts a mandatory review of GM plants that are insect resistant or herbicide tolerant to assess whether or not they will impact the environment. The EPA also regulates the use of all crop protection products that control weeds and provide protection against insects and disease that are used on crops grown in the United States.

• FDA conducts a voluntary review to assess if GM plants are safe to eat. All GMOs on the market have gone through this process.

(and the same poster's follow up comment. )


1 day ago

+Electrical Universal this is not a protest its a hate rally to insight fear hatred and violence using propaganda misinformation and out right lies, i have just provide you with a shit load of data showing gm crops to be as safe as any other crop. but you will instantly dismiss it as it does not conform to your confirmation bias and you are scientifically illiterate and cannot critically evaluate data for your self so you go along to such rallies and eat up all the bullshit you are being feed
Content from External Source
Sadly no one seemed interested in the actual facts and the sourced studies that the debunker presented.


Senior Member.
If your concerned about something which the people who DO keep Panda bears have extensive studied knowledge about and have established is not a concern in the animals' survival, you should not stop being concerned for the Pandas, but you should change your concerns.

Since you mention Pandas specifically, the types of rocks used in their zoo enclosures has been a thing activists raise alarm about. Biologists and zookeepers have never found reason to follow the expense of having Asian rocks imported rather than using local sources, and no Panda has come to harm due to their refusal to use imported rocks. It's reasonable to believe the rock concern is baseless without suggesting people should stop being concerned for the species as a whole.

Colony collapse syndrome equally affects bees which do and do not have access to GM crops, and its onset in an area previously unaffected has never coincided with the introduction of a new GM crop. Hence the people who do keep bees are not concerned with GM crops, and if you are you're going to have to explain to a group of people who handle potentially deadly animals that you know more about their job than they do because internet.


New Member
Just reading through this thread and I decided to sign on, it seems a lot of this board is from other areas of the world. In the United States, I think most people, myself included, just wanted to know if a product is or is not a GMO product. There are laws that require the ingredients of a product to be listed so why should there be protection over whether a product is or is not a GMO product. It is about the right to choose. And the reason that right isnt being granted and wont be granted until more people press government here for GMO labeling is because the EPA and FDA, as well as congress are heaviliy infiltrated by current and former monsanto employees. But people do have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies and it should be their responsibility, not governments.


Senior Member.
Just reading through this thread and I decided to sign on, it seems a lot of this board is from other areas of the world. In the United States, I think most people, myself included, just wanted to know if a product is or is not a GMO product. There are laws that require the ingredients of a product to be listed so why should there be protection over whether a product is or is not a GMO product. It is about the right to choose. And the reason that right isnt being granted and wont be granted until more people press government here for GMO labeling is because the EPA and FDA, as well as congress are heaviliy infiltrated by current and former monsanto employees. But people do have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies and it should be their responsibility, not governments.

@Boik14 what exactly do you mean by "infiltrated?"

El Duderino

New Member
Just reading through this thread and I decided to sign on, it seems a lot of this board is from other areas of the world. In the United States, I think most people, myself included, just wanted to know if a product is or is not a GMO product. There are laws that require the ingredients of a product to be listed so why should there be protection over whether a product is or is not a GMO product. It is about the right to choose. And the reason that right isnt being granted and wont be granted until more people press government here for GMO labeling is because the EPA and FDA, as well as congress are heaviliy infiltrated by current and former monsanto employees. But people do have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies and it should be their responsibility, not governments.

I hear many people claim that the FDA and certain educational institutions are infiltrated, paid off, etc by Monsanto. It seems that anyone who hasn't found GMO foods to be a health risk is infiltrated, taking payments, etc from Monsanto, hmmm..... If it's a persons responsibility to know what they are putting in their body, why is it the governments responsibility to require labeling? Shouldn't the company selling the food product decide whether or not to label it and not the govt.? Shouldn't the consumer who doesn't want to eat GMO foods only buy food from companies who label their product "non-GMO" (or just grow their own food), rather than wanting the government to require all GMO foods be labeled? There are many food items labeled non-GMO, however this seems more like a marketing gimmick rather than a safety concern.


Senior Member seems a lot of this board is from other areas of the world.

Welcome and yes there are a variety of "time-zones" represented. My experience has been that this is a natural result of the World Wide Web...aka, Internet. (For those who are lucky enough to have access, anyways...).

In the United States...

Myself, born and have lived here all my life. No problems so far.....(Pacific Time Zone atm, in case were wondering).

....I think most people, myself included, just wanted to know if a product is or is not a GMO product. There are laws that require the ingredients of a product to be listed so why should there be protection over whether a product is or is not a GMO product.

Well, that's that, then....innit? (Sorry..."isn't it"...I have picked up a bit of slang from other countries, as I've traveled).

Frankly, I do not see the "concern" over GMO. There are many, many other things to be grabbing attention (and NO! I do not, nor ever have, worked for Monsanto). Now, show some actual irrefutable evidence that GMO foods are "worse" than the typical diet that is a result of expediency, with added natural 'sugars' (AKA, corn syrup) and sodium that has contributed to an obesity epidemic in most Western industrialized countries?

Speaking of a "type" of GMO...does it qualify as "GMO" when you eat a banana? Because, you of course realize, that the 'modern' banana is the result of Human intervention in the plant, by selectively breeding it in a way to arrive at its current form.
ONE article: History of the Banana.html

But more about the derivation from the "native" plants to its current (common) form:
Farmers in Southeast Asia and Papua New Guinea first domesticated bananas. Recent archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence at Kuk Swamp in theWestern Highlands Province of Papua New Guinea suggests that banana cultivation there goes back to at least 5000 BCE, and possibly to 8000 BCE.
Content from External Source
I recently heard on NPR an interesting story about how some scientists at University of California, Davis are working to make strawberries better, and more tasty. It is a BIG business, strawberries (here in Southern California).

Ah, here is a link to that story, for reference (and interest):
Last edited:


Just reading through this thread and I decided to sign on, it seems a lot of this board is from other areas of the world. In the United States, I think most people, myself included, just wanted to know if a product is or is not a GMO product. There are laws that require the ingredients of a product to be listed so why should there be protection over whether a product is or is not a GMO product. It is about the right to choose. And the reason that right isnt being granted and wont be granted until more people press government here for GMO labeling is because the EPA and FDA, as well as congress are heaviliy infiltrated by current and former monsanto employees. But people do have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies and it should be their responsibility, not governments.
The fight to label food with NO-GMO has nothing to do with the safety or freedom of choice. It has to do with corporations wanting more market share and using fear to achieve it. Some are already willing to lie and use the NO GMO tag to sell their product. Even when their product cannot be genetically modified. Since it has no DNA to modify.

If they do ever require labeling in my state, I'll make sure to support science with my purchases.