Replies

The risks are much more than simply harm from FrankenFoods. These companies are claiming ownership over all living organisms and they have already sued farmers for their negligence when cross contamination occurred and yet are exempt from suit for contamination.

Monsanto has already produced "terminator seeds" that are genetically sterile. Their website promises that Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile" seed technology in food crops." If such a modification were to get into the wild, it could destroy entire species.

The US is one of the only first-world countries that doesn't mandate labeling GMOs--because the FDA has decided consumers are too stupid to understand that GMO foods are "materially the same" as natural organisms.

Genetic engineering, like any science offers benefits and risks. Everyone should be allowed to make informed decisions on what they ingest. The jury is not out on GMOs; frankly it's never convened. I am pro-science and free market, but I am for integrity and trust first. The fact that people are unreasonably frightened of my product doesn't grant license to lie or omit "inconvenient" facts.

The article is pure propaganda. The best analogy is getting your water tested and the results come back as “water” ignoring all the other factors.

Pure glyphosate is not used on crops. Rather, formulations with other compounds to prompt its uptake into the plants are utilized.

Any analysis of GM & glyphosate which does not address formulations - since GM in this case makes plants tolerant of application of the herbicide formulations - is deliberate misdirection, aka straw man to the toxicity debate.

Thus arguing a debate from a position intentionally-ignoring key data is no different than what climate alarmists do to defend their position.

This is a very complicated subject made worse by the fact that the underlying premise of GM - the central dogma, i.e. predictability in GM/GE - was destroyed when they mapped the human genome. This is evidenced by pest tolerance to the effects of not only glyphosate, but Bt as well.

Worst of all, the willingness of the public to submit to higher & higher tolerances of compounds the human body was never exposed to individually or combined (synergy) is an abomination of the conservative principle, particularly given that this crap is being promoted as safe by our government and intentionally-ignoring formulation & synergistic factors.

Arguing that resistance to the status quo will result in use of more toxic compounds is criminal in the face of alltime-high use of pesticides in the face of herbicide tolerance and Bt resistance.

Argue to my face that I and/or my family should ingest higher & higher levels of chemicals because they are “simple salts” or that “the human body adapts” will earn a knuckle sandwich or worse.

Fair warning: I have 100 hours researching this topic for my book and entered the morass with an open mind: The GMO debate is as chock full of obfuscation, lies & hyperbole as “collusion” & “uranium one,” to state nothing of the “climate-change” debate. I take no pleasure in calling out ignorance, but there is a heap of it at FR.

Here’s the meat: Argue for the safety of GM based on the low toxicity of glyphosate used in agriculture and I have a challenge:

Go apply glyphosate formulations at a local farm for a season without PPE and get back to me.

Refusal is utter hypocrisy.

ALL of the honest studies on the topic of GMO state “more study is needed,” not “more chemicals are safe” just because of biased recommendations and EPA exemptions on “inert” ingredients in formulations. A normally-intelligent person - typically Conservative - would be quite offended at the notion, not submissively-compliant to physical assault.

The US is very pro business freedom. This sounds wonderful. And I’m ok with caveat emptor in general. However, my life is totally taken up with dealing with people with severe brain damage which influences my passions for business freedom now.

There are too many neurotoxins in our environment. All the brain damage from birth or early childhood, all of the brain damage in our elderly, is DESTROYING a whole circle of people around each affected loved one. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to have the freedom to “pursue happiness” when you are a caregiver for special needs kids or parents.

Therefore I’d like to see the US prioritize neurological health over toxic foods and products, even if it controls the abject freedom of companies selling products or foods for our personal consumption (including laundry and garden products because our skin and lungs consume as easily and as riskily as our mouths).

Artificial food colors have DRAMATIC effects on children’s thinking and behavior. They are not allowed in MANY countries.

The neurotoxins in dryer sheets, the round up, these products are dangerous to our brains and the beget ie effects might not be seen until old age or even the next generation. Wombs of young teen girls are already filled with bisphenol A.

There is no benefit to populations “feeding hordes” with neurodegenerative toxins. Health is too important. Let’s not play with our health just to increase profits.