First Monsanto took over our Congress, then our Supreme Court, and now they are trying to take over journalism. Without freedom of speech and fair reporting, none of us would ever know just what hideous deeds these monopolizing corporations were up to. In Monsanto’s latest inexcusable move, the company is trying to have a veteran reporter fired for reporting on genetically modified organisms fairly.
Reuters’ journalist Carey Gillam has covered issues pertinent to GMOs for the past 16 years. This is no easy task with the growing GMO controversy and its polarized pro- and anti-GMO perspectives. She has tried to present a balanced argument, giving voice to both GMO supporters and anti-GMO activists.
In an April 9th Reuters article, “Bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states,” Gillam wrote:
“Advocates of labeling say consumers deserve to know if the food they eat contains GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. . .Makers of biotech crops and many large food manufacturers have fought mandatory labeling, arguing that genetically modified crops are not materially different and pose no safety risk.”
Most would say this is far from sensationalized and presents both sides of the GMO argument, but that’s not good enough for Monsanto and the biotech bullies.
Gillam’s article was attacked later by Val Giddings, former executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), who stated that Gilliam was seeking ‘astroturf’ for her anti-GMO campaign.
Giddings also criticized Gillam for writing that “some scientific studies warn of potential human and animal health problems, and GMO crops have been tied to environmental problems, including rising weed resistance.” Giddings wrote: “the claim is false and flagrantly so.”
The truth of the matter is that there are rooms filled with peer-reviewed studies on the dangers of GMOs. There are farmer testimonies and pictures provided by Seralini, showing huge tumors in rats who ate RoundUp Ready GMO corn. Any journalist who ignored these things would lose credibility entirely.
Any Midwestern farmer can support Gillam’s claims that biotech has caused a huge increase in superweeds, too. They simply can’t spray and forget any more. Glyphosate has changed all that.
The attacks are coming from academia too. Bruce Chassy, a retired professor of food science at the University of Illinois, has attacked Gillam’s coverage of GMOs. He even gave her a big red ‘F’ on an article he wrote, stating:
“This statement is simply factually incorrect:
1. There are many scientific studies that show that GM crops are safe.
2. There are a handful of discredited and flawed scientific studies that claim GM crops are not safe but these have been widely rejected by the scientific community.
3. There is a broad scientific consensus, supported by 18 years of real-world experience by tens of millions of farmers who have planted billions of acres of GM crops, that GM technology presents no new or different risks and is as safe as, or is safer than other modalities of breeding. The vocal misrepresentation of fact by a few well funded hardcore dissidents by whom Ms. Gillam’s views are apparently informed do not change these facts.
4. Ms. Gillam also claims ‘Notably, millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed weed resistance due to heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand dousings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and the subsequent heavy use of Roundup.’ As is true with all herbicides, weeds with elevated resistance to glyphosate have emerged and have caused concern in 15-40% of planting locations, the challenge this presents to farmers can be controlled by better stewardship practices. The claim that crops are doused with Round-Up is emotionally loaded but equally inaccurate.
For these reasons Academics Review have to assign this report a grade of F.”
I hope Chassy dines steadily on the GMO food he seems to be such a huge fan of.
Chassy has no right to claim Gillam’s science is lacking. Last October, a group of 93 international scientists issued a statement saying there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims the biotech industry was making about a ‘consensus’ on safety.
On Twitter, another attacker, Keith Kloor, accused Gillam, “You are willfully ignoring the scientific consensus on this.” He dismissed the group, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, as “a smattering of outliers and GMO opponents.”
Funny, since ENSSER members include Hans Herren, Ph.D., founder and president of Biovision Foundation and winner of the World Food Prize; Angela Hilbeck, senior scientist at the Institute of Integrative Biology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and David Schubert, Ph.D., professor and director of cellular neurobiology, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, among others.
What is happening now with journalism, and the scape-goating of Gillam, is no different than what biotech has done in other arenas. Their decades-long history of contaminating this planet and its people with dangerous chemicals is well known, in part due to efforts like those of Gillam, and other writers like myself who are willing to stay staunch when shills and puppets try to take the heat off Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, etc.
All these companies do is harvest fear, not food.
154 thoughts on “Monsanto Wants 14-Year Reuters Veteran Reporter Fired for Talking About GMO Dangers”
Negative studies are suppressed. The livelihoods of those who do those studies are threatened and then the drones like Chassy say there are no studies to show GM crops are unsafe to consume.
Great scoop Christina – covered it well. I hope all these fools have serious health issues, but I wonder how many actually eat their own s**t!
If you want to support Carey Gillam. Write to Reuters.
No Gmo. Monsanto is considered one of the most hated corporations today. And for good reason. With all the money in the world, they cannot force us to eat their trash.
And yet, you likely eat some form of GMO every day.
I can proudly say I don’t. I live in Peru where they have put a 10 yr ban on Gmo.- I used to eat it when I lived in the states without ever realizing it.
You are one of the few lucky ones. That is if they can really keep GMO containing foods out of the country.
They do bring in a lot of gmo contaminated US imports. Luckily, most people here are very proud of their cuisine which is more natural. Ive lost 30 pounds living here and my hair and skin look healthier. If Monsanto comes to Peru, the farmers will fight them every step of the way. They live off the land and want to keep it that way without any corporate interference.
What do you do to avoid GM phude? Others who have no clue might benefit.
Had a cousin in the Navy and he loaded munitions onto planes spraying and dropping Agent Orange on the Jungles in Vietnam. Dies of a horrable Lukimia strain along with scores of others who were contacted by the same agent. The producer was Monsanto. On this alone how many lives were destroyed as well as those of their families. Of course the VA footed the bill for that, and we all know the type of care the Va gives people. Being a disabled veteran myself I can guarantee that it is very small. I have since treated myself with natural medicines and am a health care professional working with Natural Medicine, among other things.
So if we apply the Law, and I mean God’s Law, for non repentant wrong doers what is the penalty for death??? I mean why should they make substances that kill people and subject them to horrable diseases and conditions while the tax payer and the consumer foot the bill for thier criminal acts.
I say criminal becasue if a person has knowledge that an act or failure to act endangers the life of another then they are liable for the death and or serious illness or injury of another. Hiding the information by deceit and fraud makes not just a manslaughter situation, where the offending party failure to act or inform is excusible as simple neglect, it makes it homicide or murder because they knew and did not inform.
The days of strict liability and product liability being confined to civil matters need to be kicked up to criminal level with intentionally causing these horrific conditions upon others. In short hang a couple of these vermin and things will change.
I also have been educated in the law holding a bachelors degree and have celrked for a judge and several attorneys. These rats have created a system that insulates them from the law. Time we use our common law rights and hang them for harm caused. Forget the convoluted commercial law they try to keep everyone bound to. Harm caused is harm to be addressed. No one can make a law that allow these rats to harm others. That would be an unconstitutional law. The government is encroaching upon our rights in creating a block to a remedy at law. It is a lack of due process and access to courts.
Fifth Amendment; no person shall be deprived of life liberty or propety without due process of law. This is not limited to criminal trial where you are the defendant, it extends to civil trials where the governments rules creates an issue that affects you life and property
Seventh Amendment; in actions at common law involving twenty dollars or more you have a right to trial by jury. If government creates rules that limit access to you against corporations for damages they have interfered with your right. Actions under the common law may not be examined by anyother rule in any court.
Simple things, but there are no attorneys who know or use the common law rules anymore or at lest very few. It has been eliminated from the law schools and government because they have less control. So don’t think less of us folk who deman that the Constitution be followed to the letter. It is in our hands. We either stand still and let them strip us of our rights or we remind the servants that we are the masters and our rights come from God. They have reduced us to the condition of articles in commerce which they get to regulate.
Sorry for your cousin’s loss, but the Navy didn’t spray Agent Orange – it was the Air Force.
Btw, Monsanto was only one of about 10 companies that produced Agent Orange. These companies manufactured it under contract to the Department of Defense. If you have a beef with anyone, it’s the government, not Monsanto.
Oh I would say our beef is also with Monsanto, the creators of food that
kills instead of nourishes.
Proof for your claim?
Who cares which branch of the military primarily sprayed poison over Vietnam? No one. Your “correction” is appropriately called IRRELEVANT PARTICULARIZING. BTW, On that practically meaningless issue however I would have a hard time believing it was only one branch.
Who cares which branch of the military primarily sprayed poison over Vietnam? Your “correction” is appropriately called IRRELEVANT PARTICULARIZING. On that practically meaningless issue however I would have a hard time believing it was only one branch.
This is a forum for well-read folks to share what they already know. If you’re not well-read on the topic already you’re on the wrong forum. This is not first grade. Or you’re a shill (my experienced guess) with the intent of disinforming concerned people and keeping them distracted and divided — the standard shill MO. Do you really expect lists of study references in this format? Do you really expect to get your research information from a commentary page? Of course not, you are being disingenuous! All the xenobiotic chemicals associated with the mutation industry kill living organisms, some slowly, some quickly, from worms to rats to humans. There are myriad studies corroborating this, as I believe you very well know.
If the forum is for well read folks. You should not have ben allowed to post.
But Orange was transported by ship, and Navy personal handled is, and many times it was spilled on them from 50 gal drums. It was then taken to air fields and then loaded on spray planes.
They shouldn’t have created it, DDT, Dioxin or PCBs in the first place, read this.
They didn’t create it. Try researching.
of course they did
Are you even capable of honesty
more than a corporate psychopath would be 🙂 I oppose any and all corporate monopolies and corporate supermergers, their stocks are rightly tanking
more bunk from a liar. I have never supported any individual corporation as a blanket policy. I only support them if they are correct on an issue. They are all correct on the GE safety issue. As the excellent safety record bears out. BTW congrats to Reuters for getting rid of Gillam. They should have done this sooner. Now if someone would fire saarich.
The problem with honey bee and monarch butterfly die off thanks to Bayer neocortinoids is a big problem
No, it is not. Europe’s ban backfired and led to large crop losses and the varroa mite and associated mites are the largest stressors of hives.
monocultural farming is no good- it leads to the usage of more pesticides not less. There are better solutions which don’t require chemical intervention
You don’t even know how to define monoculture. All intervention is chemical. And growing large fields of the same crop is efficient. That is why so many can afford food.
that’s the problem, it’s efficient but bad for the environment.
No, efficient farms require less land to grow the same amount of crops as inefficient ones. thus leaving marginal lands to nature.
we need crop and plant biodiversity
We have both and expanding the use of GE crops will assist with that.
yes, I remember talking to you a year ago about nonprofits developing new crops that do not need any pesticides, that’s the real advance
Non profit? Leftist bias.
whats wrong with non profit? it’s good to see people with interests other than money
another straw man. I never said there was anything wrong with non profits. Plus they are interested in money. Just cut off the funding of one and listen for the screams.
well they need money to survive of course, but do not seek to become billionaires. I respect that. I’m the same way. I give a lot to charities and do not believe in keeping more money for oneself than one needs.
You might do more good if you made a lot of money and started your own charity and thus could control the use of the money.
I’m talking about giving to charities like the American Cancer Society- they’re pretty mainstream
and a few autism charity organizations to fund research
some of the research on autism and cancer is fascinating, it indicates that the pollution near big cities is increasing the rates of both, because pregnant women act like sponges when they inhale toxins and it ends up affecting the unborn fetus.
you said “bias” NPO are inherently free of the bias associated with those who have to answer to shareholders.
no, they have their own biases. That is why greenpeace has paid for ecoterrorism and lies about GE crop safety.
greenpeace isn’t involved in scientific research though, that’s what makes them have an agenda. I was referring to nonprofit university and college research
greenpeace has done some good work, so let’s not throw them out completely, they exposed illegal Russian drilling in the Arctic
I sent you a few articles and studies about how the lack of biodiversity in agriculture is impacting the environment
OK, we must shut down all farms because they effect the environment.
No we have some great farms up here in the NE that do not do that
All farms have an effect on the environment. The simple act of clearing for a farm replaces the ecosystem that was originally occupying that land. That is why the term naturally grown is balderdash
It depends on what techniques you use. I can only use myself as an example. I seek to buy food that has been treated with as few pesticides as possible, and meat that’s free of hormones and antibiotics. It’s becoming pretty widespread these days especially if you see how even fast food places are serving such food.
As an example, Perdue Chicken uses Oregano instead of antibiotics on their chickens.
I gotta go close the greenhouses and plant more seeds.i
Alrighty! It’s that time of year already.
Have yourself a good evening, I’m off to cook dinner, will be back later if you are around.
a good analogy is humans subsisting on just one type of food. It’s just not good, even if it’s efficient.
Humans do not subsist on one type of food. The closest we have to that are likely the Inuit and their diets have almost nothing to do with agriculture.
no I’m making that analogy with respect to bee farming – the closest analogy to why it isn’t working is because bee farmers are making them subsist on one type of food.
You said humans, not bees.
yes the analogy of what we’re doing to bees by making an analogy to what would happen if we did the same to our own diet
Still not relevant. Especially as honeybees are now suspected of spreading diseases to native bees
ah those must be the genetically altered honey bees
Nope, There are no GE honeybees—yet.
No not that kind, I mean the ones that were combined with African Honey Bees- the more aggressive kind that escaped from a lab years ago and have been migrating north since then.
I like GE food too- the kind that doesn’t require any pesticides, so we don’t have to rely on glyphosate or anything else.
No seeds require pesticides. Different locations and pressures is what requires pesticides.
GE that gives the plants natural immunity against pests is a better option and avoids the pesky issue of pest resistance which eventually pops up with every pesticide
Resistance can still develop in most cases.
you need crop rotation
Most farmers and all good farmers rotate crops.
not the ones in Georgia were reporting weed resistance to glyphosate
Some of my suppliers are in Georgia. Farmers in Ga. rotate crops. resistance can show up in spite of rotations.
that makes the research into GE that do not require any pesticides even more important.
an analogy would be developing immune therapy drugs and how they work around antibiotic resistance, we’re developing something similar as a work around to pesticide resistance
There are naturally occurring pesticides in most everything.
Yes, those are better
No, sometimes they can kill.
It depends on which ones you’re talking about. Organophosphates are dangerous, but there are other much less dangerous natural pesticides being used our farms here.
Organophosphates are not naturally occurring.
Anatoxin-a(s), a naturally occurring organophosphate, is an irreversible active site-directed inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase (EC 126.96.36.199).
People don’t spray mushroom toxins or eat them on purpose. Not relevant.
but again some naturally organic pesticides are much safer than others
I like the work done by independent scientists who have no financial stake in the matter, who are working to produce GE food that doesn’t need glyphosate or any other pesticide
All scientists have a financial stake as they all have funding sources
yes but government and universities is a different ball game
No, they are not. All people have biases. And BTW industry studies as regards biotech have been shown to be reliably accurate.
do you remember the NY Times article illustrating how Ken Folta got paid a nice sum of money for advocacy of the industry? a big scandal right there
Yes, I remember that dishonest crappy piece of nonjournalism. Folta was paid no money and the content of his educational program was and is factual.
do you favor megamergers like the one possible between Monsanto and Bayer?
I favor more competition and breaking down large companies into smaller ones.
So, you favor using the gov’ts thugs to destroy businesses. Very bad Alex. Competition is offset by economies of scale.
I dont like where we are going with dirty oil pipelines and a gagging of EPA and USDA scientists by Trump. I converted to solar a few years ago and never looked back.
Oil pipelines are less risky than tankers. Lowering risk is a good thing.
problem is the oil they are shipping is dirty, it’s not really even oil.
Right, because they make so much money not shipping oil.
shrugs, I have solar so I avoid this dirty mess altogether.
Nope, you have a vehicle. thus are responsible.
it’s a low emission vehicle
The gagging story turned out to be a lie. Perhaps one of ted miner’s
that’s not what I was talking about I meant what Van Jones said on CNN
I don’t watch CNN. No cable TV.
an excerpt Keystone XL is not just another pipeline moving “oil.” It would carry chemically treated tar sands. A few years ago this tar leaked into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Three years and $1 billion later, the Kalamazoo may never come back.
Tar sands is not traditional oil. It is a pipe-eating, planet-cooking, water-fouling goo that nobody knows how to get out of our water.
Keystone will not make us energy independent. The foreign company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, itself admits that the pipeline is key to getting tar sands to the world market. The company made no promises to sell any of that oil to the United States.
The Keystone XL pipeline will bring dirty fuel through America, not to America.
As for the jobs we were promised, the president’s own State Department says Keystone will create only 35 permanent jobs.
And all of that has nothing to do with the dingbat gillam getting fired as she deserved. Nor firing saarich, as she deserves.
what did they say? I never read them
If Monsanto is responsible for the firing, they’d better worry more about their tanking stocks and the cities of San Diego and Seattle suing them for PCB contamination heh
If Monsanto is responsible for the firing. They need to be congratulated. More likely the editors saw all the comments coming in and posted after the articles the loser wrote, double checked the facts and got rid of a liability before they found the word defendant typed after their names regarding a libel suit.
The journalists might be biased, I don’t follow them, but Monsanto has their own problems to deal with in terms of lawsuits. I support GE but not large domineering corporations that seek to control entire industries
Forgive me for not having more sympathy for corrupt multinational corporations that pollute the environment and then try to cover it up. They are getting their just desserts with all the lawsuits against them.
Strawman argument. No one asked you to have sympathy for a corrupt corporation.
I don’t. But I don’t support the journalists either, they were using fear tactics. I can see wrong on both sides.
It’s rather funny for them to get all upset over a couple of journalists LOL it shows how thin skinned they are. When you bully the bullies around and watch them squirm- there isn’t a better feeling in the world- except suing them and taking away the only thing they care about in the world- their money.
they are not journalists. They are dishonest propagandists. Attack my business in such a fashion and you will very quickly learn that the folks at the biotech companies are very thick skinned.the biotech folks are not the bullies here. They are telling the truth. USRTK, saarich, etc. are the offensive bullies. Your allegations regarding what folks care about displays your ignorance. Biotech companies are not a monolith. they are made of individuals. Some of whom pay their bills, love and feed their kids, and rumor has it actually are kind to their dogs.
Unfortunately these are techniques journalists use these days aka “fake news” Some biotech companies are bullies, have you read about super fund sites and how they tried to cover up the disposal of toxic substances near farms? Ren did a huge piece on it
If they use these techniques. They are not journalists.
well they aren’t the kind of “writers” I would ever read at any rate. But you get this kind of bias from both sides
It’s not ignorance it’s called what money does to people aka corporate psychopathy- it’s an actual psychological condition they have- read about it 😉
read the horror stories on his site about superfund coverups. It’s why we sue these companies.
I was a kid when the superfund sites were being found. Not all were due to large corporations. Gov’t and even mom and pop dry cleaners were also guilty.
yes, there are thousands of them now unfortunately
if the link doesn’t come through just look for renchemista on wordpress here is the beginning of it The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare
By NATHANIEL RICHJAN. 6, 2016
Just months before Rob Bilott made partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister, he received a call on his direct line from a cattle farmer. The farmer, Wilbur Tennant of Parkersburg, W.Va., said that his cows were dying left and right. He believed that the DuPont chemical company, which until recently operated a site in Parkersburg that is more than 35 times the size of the Pentagon, was responsible. Tennant had tried to seek help locally, he said, but DuPont just about owned the entire town. He had been spurned not only by Parkersburg’s lawyers but also by its politicians, journalists, doctors and veterinarians. The farmer was angry and spoke in a heavy Appalachian accent. Bilott struggled to make sense of everything he was saying. He might have hung up had Tennant not blurted out the name of Bilott’s grandmother, Alma Holland White.
White had lived in Vienna, a northern suburb of Parkersburg, and as a child, Bilott often visited her in the summers. In 1973 she brought him to the cattle farm belonging to the Tennants’ neighbors, the Grahams, with whom White was friendly. Bilott spent the weekend riding horses, milking cows and watching Secretariat win the Triple Crown on TV. He was 7 years old. The visit to the Grahams’ farm was one of his happiest childhood memories.
When the Grahams heard in 1998 that Wilbur Tennant was looking for legal help, they remembered Bilott, White’s grandson, who had grown up to become an environmental lawyer. They did not understand, however, that Bilott was not the right kind of environmental lawyer. He did not represent plaintiffs or private citizens. Like the other 200 lawyers at Taft, a firm founded in 1885 and tied historically to the family of President William Howard Taft, Bilott worked almost exclusively for large corporate clients. His specialty was defending chemical companies. Several times, Bilott had even worked on cases with DuPont lawyers. Nevertheless, as a favor to his grandmother, he agreed to meet the farmer. ‘‘It just felt like the right thing to do,’’ he says today. ‘‘I felt a connection to those folks.’’
If the folks who did wrong are alive. Go after them. The folks who did no wrong are not responsible.
Yes, they did, these are some of the court cases and the background on how the evidence was obtained. It’s actually from the company’s own papers that they were required to divulge to the attorneys.
new sci paper shows our sealevel rise is way ahead of projections, our coastal cities will be underwater within 100 yrs- this is what I mean by the need for independent science, free of corporate interference.
If true, that has nothing to do with corporate funded studies.
Regardless of how you feel about GMOs, as a journalist, you don’t get to have an opinion. Her job isn’t to impregnate her stories with popular anti-science mantras, it is to report on the facts. She is leaving out many important facts in favor of ideology. I know, because I’ve been interviewed by her and have been on the receiving side of her “attempts” to include a statement from someone she disagrees with (calling the office phone at 5:30 on a Friday and leaving a message for a deadline that evening and not calling my cell number on my voicemail and then reporting that “so-and-so could not be reached for a comment” is NOT making an effort to be balanced.) She’s not doing her job as a journalist and Reuters should know that.
We don’t need Reuters to point out the garbage that are GMO. Let those who want to be misinformed, they should go ahead and believe what they want to believe. The rest of us can read the labels and research studies.
Perhaps Gillam is sloppy but that doesn’t mean the GMO argument is as Monsanto and their lackeys state it to be.
I guarantee you that the people who own the evil corporation called Monsanto do not eat the nasty food they create. They in fact eat clean organics, clean filtered non fluoridated water etc .Do not support this company, vote with your money by not buying their dirty food, help get the world out, we the people are worth saving from these fools.
You’re right. They don’t eat their own heinous creations.
Welcome to corporate America, and will continue to get worse as we do nothing.
Monsanto bought ‘Blackwater’ ( who has changed their names numerous times: Xi, an agency most noted for their mercenary soldiers for hire, but also their intelligence work against: dissidents’.
Citation for your claim?
We have a troll. Keywords: citation or source. LOL And trying to hide as a farmer. Nice try troll.
Reminds me of the “global warming” debate. Anyone who correctly points out that the cooling trend in the earth’s climate is linked to solar electrical activity cycles is called a “denier”.
You cite Serlini, instant loss of all credibility
Wrong. All disputations of that study have been discredited. It is you who now has no credibility. Keep up on it.
“First Monsanto took over our Congress, then our Supreme Court, and now they are trying to take over journalism.”
This is psycho nutbar babble!
Monsanto does it’s own testing then tell the FDA that everything is safe, and then the FDA puts out a report that altered crops are safe for human consumption! FDA does no testing. Oh by the way, the head of the FDA is a former CEO from Monsanto.
No, the head of the FDA is Margaret A. Hamburg, a Harvard-trained physician with a distinguished career in public health.
The FDA requires applicants to pay for and provide their own testing, which the FDA scientists review.
The alternative would be for the government to do all the testing at taxpayer expense. Would you want to pay for testing for a private for profit enterprise? Didn’t think so.
Monsanto Exec Heads FDA, and the Obama Administration’s Revolving Door Politics http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving-door-fda-and-the-monsanto-company/
In 2009, in a classic revolving-door move, President Barack Obama appointed former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner for the FDA — the board tasked with regulating Taylor’s own industry.
elmer is meaning Vilsack of the USDA and you know it. But hey, let’s take a tiny mistake and run with. BTW, what “distinguishes” Margaret A. Hamburg in your eyes?
“The alternative would be …” independent third-party lab testing PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT, not DONE by the applicant, perhaps OVERSEEN by the government, also at the expense of the applicant. Get it? This is about HEALTH, not about who pays for what, except when bribery is involved. Sadly though and regardless of whether it’s in print or not, “FDA” really means Fatal Defects Allowed. There are decades and dozens of illustrations that make that THE most accurate description of a bureaucratic entitiy that paints itself with the deceptive facade of protecters of the population. The paint is cracking now and has large gaps through which one can hear whistles blowing.
Yes we would actually, and we would remove Monsanto’s ability to make profit, after all the bad they’ve done, they have forfeit their rights to make profit.
Yes we would actually, and we would remove Monsanto’s ability to make profit, after all the bad they’ve done, they have forfeit their rights to make profit.
And you’re somehow forgetting the $10 million lawsuit they lost.
Only because you are a disingenuous know-nothing in disguise. You know nothing about Pompeo, nothing about SCOTUS judge Thomas, nothing about the intimidation and firing of journalists who report scientifiic truth. Why type when you know nothing? To prove you’re a fool? No, to make it all the more obvious you’re a troll. Good job.
Really? Is that why they were caught redhanded dumping PCBs?
Beware of internet trolls, hired to post things that are contrary to the truth. They are out in force. Probably funded through back channels of Monsanto.
And beware of fluoride, vaccines, chemtrails, wifi and sasquatch!
Said like a true troll!
Beware “JoeFarmer”, the inauthentic all-knowing denialist.
You’ve heard of HBGary and what we did to them? You should read up.
You’ll find chassy on the payroll of monsanto or one of its major share holders,Rockefeller foundation ,Jp Morgen , etc. Controversy not withstanding people have the right to know what type of products are in their food . Some people like suger and to some its a dangerous additve,depends on the individuals needs and health condition, but the ingredient sugar must be listed on the products list of ingredients because it’s the consumers right to know what he and his family are eating,its that simple,and let him decide whether GMO is the same as natural. The labeling obstruction is actually a marketing tool being used. Our elected officials are actually helping to market GMO’s for monsanto by” business favorable labeling techniques”,subverting the true purpose of labeling which is consumer choice information. GMO products can be cleverly advertized in such a way that makes them APPEAR natural and by keeping product ingredient labeling incomplete the producer/advertizer gets away with the fraud.
We really need to expand our argument against GM crops/foods. Health is just one aspect of engineered foods. The environment and corporate control of the food supply (aka: human race) is just as important and in many aspects, more important. They are using ‘science’ as their argument for GM, but if we talk about control of basic human necessities, we have one huge soap box to stand on. As for science: when we elevate science to a status of infallible oracle it’s an expression of our insecure compulsion to feel that there’s some kind of measurable, universally predictable objective world ‘out there’ we can rely on. Anyone truly in science knows this is not true.
This author is no humanitarian. Neither are those who oppose modern efficient agricultural technology. This negligent author used no legitimate sources. Nor did she fact check. ENSSER is an anti g.e. lobbying group. Serralini is involved with this. Why does that matter? Because his stupid “study” was done with rats that almost always get tumors.