Monsanto, proud marketer of saccharin, pcb’s, and DDT, says GMO's are GREAT.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:21 PM - Edit history (2)

That its Roundup brand of pesticide and ALL GMO’s are perfectly safe. (And GMO's shouldn't be labeled.)

Because science.

(Shh! And because money.)

http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/12/monsanto-dirty-dozen/

"When you take a moment to reflect on the history of product development at Monsanto, what do you find? Here are twelve products that Monsanto has brought to market. See if you can spot the pattern…"

1. Saccharin
2. PCB’s
3. Polystyrene
4. Atom bomb and nuclear weapons
5. DDT
6. Dioxin
7. Agent orange
8. Petroleum based fertilizer
9. Roundup
10. Aspartame
11. Bovine Growth Hormone
12. Genetically modified crops
13. Terminator seeds


https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Toxic/monsanto_pcbs.php

Monsanto Fined $700 Million for Poisoning People with PCBs

Lawyers for more than 20,000 plaintiffs in federal and state trials over PCB pollution in Anniston reached an agreement Wednesday with the companies accused of chemical contamination.

The $700 million settlement, announced in federal district court in Birmingham, would resolve all outstanding Anniston PCB litigation.

http://leaksource.info/2013/01/29/monsanto-fined-93-million-for-agent-orange-pollution/

Yet another similar lawsuit regarding Monsanto as the defendant has taken place, and this time it’s coughing up big bucks to the many plaintiffs.

On Friday, a judge finally settled a lawsuit against Monsanto that was originally litigated in the 80’s and was followed up again in 2008. After years of court battles, thousands of West Virginia residents now are jubilant over the court ruling.

Last February, a $93 million settlement was contrived after WV residents complained about Monsanto contaminating their community with burning waste from Agent Orange production.

Now almost a year after, the corporation agreed to pay $84 million for medical monitoring as well as $9 million for the clean up of 4,500 homes. Additionally, Monsanto accepted to pay for the legal fees as well.

[leftofcool]

1. I think I will just let the GMO advocates have this one.

[mmonk]

2. The anti-labeling movement is about protecting products,

not fighting anti-science. They don't want consumer choice on the table.

[pnwmom]

3. They're pushing a bill right now in the Rethug Congress that would

ban states from enacting their own labeling laws.

[mmonk]

17. Yep. It amazes me really that people can't see through the corporate law rights

over citizen rights for sunshine laws as if their profit motives were contrived solely on the public interest.

[Moliere]

71. Yet again the GOP cherry picks when

Federal Law is the rule vs when States' Law. The hypocrisy is infuriating

[Faryn Balyncd]

177. + 1 billion

[Archae]

4. Fortunately, somene has found a picture of the Monsanto labs...

Of course, *ALL* labs that make GMO's are the same.

Meanwhile, we've found pictures of *ALL* organic farmers...



Guess what.
Pure...bullshit from the GMO hysterics.

To date, not one credible source can be pointed to, that says GMO's are unsafe.

But, feel free to cite Jeffrey Smith, or Mike Adams, or Joe Mercola.

[pnwmom]

6. Washington State University Professor Charles Benbrook

is among the many scientists who have differed with the Monsanto-paid minions.

http://cahnrs.wsu.edu/news-release/2012/10/01/pesticide-use-rises-as-herbicide-resistant-weeds-undermine-performance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/

[ND-Dem]

12. that's pretty significant.

Pesticide Use Rises as Herbicide-resistant Weeds Undermine Performance of Major GE Crops, New WSU Study Shows


PULLMAN, Wash. — A study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops — cotton, soybeans and corn — has actually increased. This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook’s analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.

In the study, which appeared in the the open-access, peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Sciences Europe,” Benbrook writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory in herbicide use. Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.

“Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.

[pnwmom]

15. It's win-win for Monsanto. Sell the pesticide; sell the pesticide-resistant-GMO seeds,

sell MORE pesticide.

[ND-Dem]

16. vicious circle commerce. yeah, win win, until it's not.

[Faryn Balyncd]

178. The only "hysterics" visible are the anti-labeling hysterics, and those that attempt to peddle guilt

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

... by association, such as equating intellectual humility with being an "anti-vaxer" or being akin to "Mike Adams or Joe Mercola".

In contrast, most of those who anti-labeling advocates proceed to label as "GMO hysterics" actually have an open mind, and, rather than making unsubstantiated claims, realize that unintended consequences to technologies generally are not evident until the passage of time, and that the possible adverse consequences of GMO's are not limited to whether or not they are "safe" for human consumption, but that ecological effects such as those shown regarding bees and monarch butterflies are also relevant.

Dogmatically screaming "Mercola" and "GMO hysteric" at open minded, thoughtful Democrats seems less than appropriate.

[Archae]

5. And...

[pnwmom]

9. Right. You think vaccines and GMO's are equally safe and valuable

because scientists developed both of them.

Just like vaccines and saccharine are equally safe.
Or vaccines and pcb's.

Because science.



Monsanto supporters think they've got a winning strategy now: piggybacking GMO's onto the known need for and safety of vaccines. But all science -- and all the products of science -- aren't created equal. Some are good, some are bad. Each has to be judged on its own.

[NuclearDem]

104. Not the point.

An ignorant anti-scientific meme used against vaccination is still an ignorant anti-scientific meme when used against GMOs.

It's not to say GMOs and vaccines are the same thing; it's to say the fallacies and tactics are.

[pnwmom]

109. Yes it is the point. The fact that some people have the same issues

with GMO's that they do with vaccines doesn't make GMO's and vaccines, or their detractors, equivalent.

[NuclearDem]

111. Those "issues" are fallacies.

If people are condemning people invoking fallacies in the vaccination discussion but turning a blind eye to the fallacies used in the GMO discussion, they're disingenuous.

[pnwmom]

112. What is a fallacy is the idea that because both vaccines and GMO's

were developed by scientists, they are equally safe and valuable.

[NuclearDem]

114. Again, not the point.

I'm not going to say vaccines and GMOs are equivalent--they're not. And the graphic isn't saying that either.

What is equivalent is the nature of the fallacies used in discussion of both. Appeals to nature, use of discredited studies, etc etc used in discussion of GMOs are just as fallacious when used in discussions about vaccines.

[pnwmom]

116. It really doesn't matter what fallacies some people might use to promote their views.

Or that similar fallacies have been used to argue against vaccines and against GMO's.

A conclusion can be correct even if some of the arguments used to support it are wrong. To think otherwise is to employ another type of logical fallacy, called fallacy by argument.

[NuclearDem]

117. Operative word being "can."

So far, the main arguments against GM foods have not been shown to be particularly substantive--and that's why people have resorted to fallacies to win followers.

[pnwmom]

119. No one has disproven the fact that GMO foods have led

to an increase in the amount of pesticides used in our foods, and to the development of Round-up resistant WEEDS, which are causing the use of even more pesticides.

[NuclearDem]

120. It's up to people making a positive claim to provide evidence to support it.

In other words: you don't prove a negative claim.

[pnwmom]

122. I've posted about the increase of pesticide use many times.

Are you asking me to post it again, or are you talking about something else?

[Cha]

108. That's such a stupid dictorial bully graphic "you can't criticize one while believing in the other"

Damn straight I can.. "criticize".. I'll stay the hell away from gmo-roundup crap as much as I damn please. Thank you very much.

You can't criticize Agent Orange.. damn it.. "'cause Science !"

[G_j]

11. somebody made a cool graphic

and put it on FB. Awesome!

[ND-Dem]

13. Science!!!

Pesticide Use Rises as Herbicide-resistant Weeds Undermine Performance of Major GE Crops, New WSU Study Shows


PULLMAN, Wash. — A study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops — cotton, soybeans and corn — has actually increased.

This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook’s analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.

In the study, which appeared in the the open-access, peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Sciences Europe,” Benbrook writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory in herbicide use. Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.

“Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.

http://cahnrs.wsu.edu/news-release/2012/10/01/pesticide-use-rises-as-herbicide-resistant-weeds-undermine-performance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/

[on point]

32. Sorry corrupt scientists working for industry, and their lackeys in the FDA, is not science proof

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Those studies are worthless because they are contrived to arrive at the conclusion GMO are safe. They were performed by industry corrupt scientists and their shills.

Until more long term science studies are done by truly independent scientists on human AND environment safety, I do not think the science verdict is in yet. Being critical of existing studies s not anti science, in fact it is the very essence of science to continually question.

[NuclearDem]

115. All 1800 studies were done by shills?

Whatever you say.

Climate change deniers believe the same thing.

[immoderate]

143. Not one says that GMOs are safe.

This 'consensus' thing is bullshit.

--imm

[NuclearDem]

144. Given your previous posts, I don't think anything could ever qualify as safe.

[immoderate]

147. Given my previous posts, you would think someone would cite a paper that would shut me up.

I have asked for one paper that concludes that GMOs are safe. It appears that does not exist. Hint: It's not the kind of statement a scientist could make.

--imm

[NuclearDem]

150. You're either operating off some weird definition of safe

or you haven't read any of the papers that have been referred to you. And there have been plenty.

[immoderate]

154. Which paper, referred to me, that you have read, proclaims GMOs the safest?

I keep looking for one, but it hasn't shown up yet in the data collections I've seen. I think you guys are messing with me. Only a few thousand more papers to go through. Needles are good. But not in a haystack. Especially if there's no guarantee it's in there.

Do you have a link to it?

--imm

[NuclearDem]

155. Another poster gave you a spreadsheet listing all the studies.

Then, when you were apparently unable to view a spreadsheet at the time, posted the information loose.

The information's been presented to you. Your insistence that it hasn't is dishonest.

[F4lconF16]

157. Sorry, but citing tens of hundreds of studies does not count as providing information.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[NuclearDem]

159. When it's in response to "there are no studies showing GMOs are safe"

then publishing a list of the nearly 1800 studies that in fact say so is not a Gish gallop. The poster could have picked any one of the studies and read through it; they weren't being asked to respond to all 1800.

[immoderate]

161. Do you really thnk those papers all said GMOs are safe? They didn't.

The list (and link) are still there. Find me one that says GMOs are safe.

--imm

[NuclearDem]

163. "They didn't."

Well, then I'll await your list of the studies from that list that you think didn't demonstrate GMO safety.

I'm not holding my breath.

[immoderate]

169. So you can't find it either.

It's amazing! 1800 studies show you say GMOs are safe but NOBODY can find even one. Could it possibly be bullshit? Scientists have to consider all the possibilities.

Have you read ANY of those studies? I didn't think so.

--imm

[NuclearDem]

171. I asked you for the studies you claim do not assert GMO safety.

Since you've produced none, I can only assume you made that claim up.

[immoderate]

173. And, as is obvious, you haven't looked at them.

You fell for the hype.

--imm

[immoderate]

160. That's called a Gish Gallop. It wasn't the information I requested. (Did you read it? Why not?)

(If I needed say, a pound of butter, should I be just as happy if somebody dumped 1700 pounds of butter at my place?)

Have you read those papers? Do you think he has? If one of them says that GMOs are safe, why doesn't somebody point it out?

It's one of those things you can't find on Google. Well, I can't. You can find peer reviewed studies on how to design protocols for safety testing GMO food. Why, if it's so settled? In fact it was a potpourri, a hodgepodge, a panoply of articles, studies, and papers, somehow related to GMOs. They surely don't all say GMOs are safe. Maybe some do. Maybe I'll come across it some time. Ya never know.

--imm

[NuclearDem]

162. When the issue is "there is no butter",

then yeah, dumping 1800 pounds of butter on someone sufficiently and quite hilariously gets the point across.

The research team that compiled the studies seemed fairly convinced every single of them reinforced GMO safety.

Frankly, this post in that thread pretty adequately summed up your approach:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026266449#post88

Constant goalpost shifting, refusal to read any of the evidence presented, and just general denial of reality.

There is overwhelming evidence for the safety of GMOs. If you took the time to actually read any of the studies, you'd be aware of that.

[immoderate]

168. Is there a study there that concludes GMOs are safe?

I couldn't find it. And now you can't find it. Are you really sure it's there? If you could just show it's there, we could end this. It's hard to prove a negative. But one citation could make you a hero.

I read a healthy portion of the "evidence" presented. Which of the studies will show your point? I asked for ONE study to begin with. I asked for ONE study at the end. Goalposts? Are you people putting me on? I told you what's in there from my reading. Could you demonstrate my error, past just an assertion?

--imm

[mmonk]

47. The evidence is out for one, but not the other as we are in the middle of the grand

experiment that human contrived organisms are completely safe. I'm not anti-GMO, just evidence based. Throwing us in with the anti-vaxxers when we only want labeling is junk lies just as corporate claims springing products on uninformed subjects (deception) is safe without study over time is junk science. I primarily read books written by Hawkens, Krauss, Sagan, or others each night to, while relaxing, keep my mind sharp. So no matter how many insults you throw at people that think labeling is good public policy, it won't stick with THINKING people.

[rhett o rick]

56. Your logic "you can't criticize one while believing the other" is a fallacy. nm

[Voice for Peace]

75. total nonsense, that chart

[GreatGazoo]

79. Fail. You can't claim to love science while endorsing logical fallacies.

93% of Americans want GMOs labeled and 90% of Americans believe vaccinations are safe. So at least 83% of the people who believe in vaccines want GMO foods labeled.

Love the inclusion of "Message spread through FaceBook memes" in a graphic made for a FaceBook meme btw..

[LittleBlue]

136. "anti-corporation" "anti-profit"

How horrible! Did the RNC make that graphic?

[mindem]

146. Yawn!!!

[Rex]

7. Aspartame makes me sick as a dog.

I avoid it at all costs.

[pnwmom]

10. It's on my son's sleep list clinic's list of substances to be avoided

because of its neurological effects on many people.

[Rex]

14. It seems to be in almost everything that says 'sugar free'.

I will gladly take sugar over some horrible chemical made in a lab! People want peer tested, aged reports. The results are back for sugar! It doesn't make my stomach feel like a grenade went off in it like 'sugar free' chemicals do! End of report.

[peacebird]

24. We're using stevia, it's an herbal sweetener. Just don't use too much or it will be bitter.

[ND-Dem]

8. not only that; there's a link to slave profits.

Olga Monsanto was the daughter of Don Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto, a merchant and sugar financier with holdings on St. Thomas, Danish West Indies and Vieques, Puerto Rico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Queeny


One reason there are a lot of black Monsantos in St. Thomas.

[jeff47]

18. Why use such obvious lies to make your point?

Saccharin was invented by Johns Hopkins University in 1879. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin

DDT was invented by Bayer in 1874. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#History

PCBs were discovered in 1865 in Germany. Since there's more than one PCB, it's hard to define a single inventor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl#History

Monsanto was not the people behind the Manhattan project. So they did bring nuclear weapons "to the market".

Dioxins are a class of chemical, so like PCBs it's hard to identify a single inventor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds

Agent Orange was invented by the US and British militaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Petroleum based fertilizer is a massively broad category of chemicals, with many inventors and products

Aspartame was discovered by G.D. Searle & Company in 1965 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Discovery_and_approval

Genetically modified crops were invented at a large variety of universities around the world.

If you have such a great argument, why do you have to start it by lying, and doing so in such an easy-to-refute way?

[pnwmom]

19. Read the actual article I linked to. These are products Monsanto brought to market,

or helped to do so.

[jeff47]

20. Nope. A small portion of the list are products Monsanto sells.

I listed the inventors who first brought the products to market.

[pnwmom]

22. The article explains the part Monsanto had in marketing

each of the products. Please name one on the list that isn't backed up by an explanation of how Monsanto was involved.

So what if a University professor somewhere invented a product? That's how it often works. A scientist somewhere invents a product or process, and then a company like Monsanto buys the rights and runs with it.

[jeff47]

28. Nuclear weapons.

The list claims Monsanto marketed nuclear weapons. What did Monsanto do to market nuclear weapons? How many warheads has Monsanto sold?

So what if a University professor somewhere invented a product? That's how it often works. A scientist somewhere invents a product or process, and then a company like Monsanto buys the rights and runs with it.

Which is why I didn't name the actual scientists, but the people they worked for who had the rights and ran with it.

[pnwmom]

31. No, they were just involved in helping to manufacture nuclear weapons. Is that better?

Shortly after acquiring Thomas and Hochwalt Laboratories, Monsanto turned this division into their Central Research Department. Between 1943 to 1945, this department coordinated key production efforts of the Manhattan Project—including plutonium purification and production and, as part of the Manhattan Project’s Dayton Project, techniques to refine chemicals used as triggers for atomic weapons (an era of U.S. history that sadly included the deadliest industrial accident).

[jeff47]

36. Not when the claim is Monsanto brought nuclear weapons to market.

So how many warheads has Monsato sold?

This is why trying to make a case by lying is not a good idea. One ends up making a stupid, easy-to-refute claim results in talking about the fucking moronic claim instead of the topic at hand.

Is Monsanto a nice company? Nope. But Monsanto being bad doesn't mean anything about other company's products. But that gets in the way of conflating all GMOs with glyphosate-resistant GMOs, and so does not serve the goal of the people putting out articles like this piece of crap.

[erronis]

46. Good argument. Trying to prove points by including artifacts doesn't advance the discussion. eom

[pnwmom]

77. Right, but it's fine to conflate GMO's with vaccines, as GMO supporters routinely do.

Why didn't you object to the conflation of GMO's with vaccines in this thread that you participated in?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6266449

[HuckleB]

84. The anti-GMO and anti-vax crowds do behave similarly. And they're both pushing anti-science tropes.

There is no conflation there. It is what it is, and it's time for the anti-GMO folks to admit that reality.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/07/vaccine-gmo-denial-treated-equally/

[HuckleB]

23. This is classic anti-GMO propaganda.

It's the same stuff as the anti-vaccine crowd pushes. There's no science, just attacks that aren't justified and often fictitious in nature. It's all about creating as much baseless fear as possible. The pages the OP links to are simply anti-science propaganda pages, right up there with the NVIC, age of autism, and whale.to.

It's truly unethical. There's no way to get around that. It's worse than that, but I'll leave it at that.

[pnwmom]

27. Right. Because vaccines and GMO's are equally safe and valuable.

And vaccines and saccharine.
And vaccines and ddt.

Because science.

(And companies promoting "science" are always SO ethical.)

[HuckleB]

29. You just have to keep digging, don't you?

They are equally safe and both provide benefits to the planet. Also, both the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO utilize the same unethical, ugly, deceitful tactics.

You really don't care how bad the propaganda is, you'll keep pushing it. You are pushing unethical web pages and unethical content. Why you think it's ok to do that is beyond me.

That's why I don't engage with you any more. You've gone far too far out there.

Goodbye.

[pnwmom]

34. You keep saying you don't engage with me any more.

I keep waiting for you to keep your promise.

[jeff47]

30. Yes, much better to go with the people claiming Monsanto sells nuclear weapons. (nt)

[pnwmom]

35. It's so much better merely to help produce nuclear weapons.

Than to help market them. Got it.



Would you be happier if I changed the subject line to "market and/or produce"? This is why I used the word "parent" in the first place, but you hated that, too. Because you can't stand to admit that Monsanto was involved with all of those products.

[jeff47]

37. The article claims they "brought them to market". Not sold chemicals to the US government.

So how many warheads has Monsanto sold to the market?

And if Dow had sold those chemicals to the government, that would make GMOs wonderful, right?

[pnwmom]

40. They needed the chemicals from Monsanto in order to bring the products

to market.

But what difference does it really make whether they helped produce them or marketed them?

Is this the best you've got?

[jeff47]

42. No, they needed chemicals. Dow could have easily supplied them, but Monsanto won the bid.

But what difference does it really make whether they helped produce them or marketed them?

Well, when your claim is that they marketed them, then it makes a rather large difference. Especially when the implication of your argument is Monsanto is lying.

If you want your argument to be about truth, you can't make a blatant lie while making that argument. Even if the lie makes the people you hate look bad.

[pnwmom]

45. Where did I imply that Monsanto was lying? Lying about what?

[jeff47]

49. That GMOs are safe. Without that claim, there's no reason for you to make your post. (nt)

[pnwmom]

53. They have been controlling the research by controlling the seed contracts.

They were forcing researchers who needed their seeds for research to sign contracts giving them veto-power over the publishing of results.

If they hadn't been doing that, I'd have some respect for the studies they push.

[laundry_queen]

158. +1 nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. But, it's ever so beneficial. That's why they want it advertised on food...oh, wait.

[Enthusiast]

43. +1 an entire shit load.

[Generic Other]

25. That is quite a list of toxins

These armchair "scientists" who act like this list of known health hazards are safe for human consumption are being deliberately obtuse. I wonder why? There are only a few possible reasons. And when they go out of there way to ridicule and dismiss their opposition, when they act like Monsanto is a company who cares about the health of consumers, when they ignore the company's past lapses and present actions, when they act like consumers are too ignorant to matter, they do nothing but hurt their cause. Laughing at people who do not want to ingest poisons does little to convince people.

If Snow White doesn't want your poison apple, you may just have to go peddle it elsewhere.

Sick of the namecalling, ridicule by FB meme, ROFLMAO smilies and the like. This is what DU calls debate on the subject of Monsanto? Fine. Then I am done with arguing. Quit adulterating my food.

Thanks for your post pnwmom.

[pnwmom]

26. You're welcome, Generic Other. n/t

[erronis]

50. But isn't Monsanto just like every other corporation

That tries to maximize profit - frequently at the expense of its own consumers - and then makes changes in the face of public relations/ridicule (PR).

I have a hard time thinking of any major US/worldwide company that was truly beneficent throughout its career. The main purpose of having a company is to make money and the only way to make money is to get those poor customer blokes to fork it over for something "good". Good might be artificial sweeteners, thalidomide, Monsanto-engineered crops. It might be GM cars that have simple-to-turn ignition switches. It might be a million things that corporations get away with without paying the price for the devastated lives.

About 5% of the time, these corporations are actually called out on their malfeasance and made to do the 3x mea culpas. About 1% of those 5% are actually made to make retribution. And this retribution probably only accounts for pittances on the suffering.

Don't we all love capitalism, cronyism, plutocracies, special interests?

[HuckleB]

54. The Monsatan meme must be preserved.

Dupont has to be loving it, however!

[Generic Other]

64. So Dupont is bad but Monsanto isn't?

Who the hell cares whether Monsanto developed the poisons they now use? Doesn't much matter to me who is responsible. They are all asshole companies who put profits over people and other living things. Go peddle your poison apples elsewhere.

[HuckleB]

66. Yes, all corporations have unethical histories.

That doesn't mean the anti-GMO movement gets a pass for its unethical behavior.

[Generic Other]

69. Saying NO to what you are selling is now unethical?

That is why you will lose. Because you think ethics means lack of transparency, lies, distortions, bullying, mocking. In short, just the kind of thing that makes people believe corporations like Monsanto and the Kochs and Walmart, et al are evil.

[HuckleB]

72. Lying about it, and pushing for legislation that makes no scientific sense is unethical.

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't excuse ugly demonization and attempts to keep others from buying it, growing it, etc...

I get that you're invested in GMOs being bad, but that investment is never going to pay off. It's misguided, at best.

[Generic Other]

82. I don't care what poisons you put in your body

I am expressing my preference as a consumer which is my right. And the right of any other person who posts on DU. Calling me a liar over a dozen times will not change my view and probably not anyone else who feels strongly about the issue of corporate misinformation and snake oil sales pitches.

[HuckleB]

83. And there's another anti-GMO trope.

I don't put poisons into my body. You are acting badly, pushing misinformation, and helping anti-GMO groups to sell their snake oil. You are on the wrong side of humanity. You are hurting people by pushing this propaganda. You will pretend otherwise, but you are wrong.

[iemitsu]

131. How can one refuse to buy it when Monsanto, and others,

refuse to label the products they sell that contain GMO's?
What Monsanto fears is that people will not buy genetically modified foods if they can identify that quality.
Then it is their job to convince consumers that GMO's are safe.
Many countries do not import or grow GMO products. Are they hotbeds of anti-science fools?

[HuckleB]

134. Why don't organic companies label foods that come from mutagenesis?

Why have so many companies chosen to market their expensive foods by demonizing GMOs?

Can you list the science-based reasons for any country that does not import or grow GMOs? Can you list those countries?

Science has shown GMOs are safe. Anti-GMO activists have utilized fiction-based fear-mongering to convince people they are not. Why do you think such behavior is ok?

[Generic Other]

138. 26 nations who some on DU would call liars and unethical

because they won't cave to the big bad corporation that projects their own dishonest marketing on others.

[iemitsu]

142. Thank you Generic.

I think that some, in the industry, might take offense at your name as much as your perspective, in that it evokes the loss of corporate, name brand profits.

[salib]

149. Ok. That is really lame.

Labeling laws do not make scientific sense? What scientific consensus would make the claim on scientific grounds that labeling should absolutely not be required?

[Generic Other]

55. And if a majority of consumers reject their product or want labeling

don't the corporations feel it behooves them to change the product not the consumer? Since it is about profits after all?

[HuckleB]

57. How could they make money if a majority of consumers rejected their product?

[Generic Other]

67. By buying friends in high places in order to forcefeed us adulterated food

verb: adulterate

render (something) poorer in quality by adding another substance, typically an inferior one.
"the meat was ground fine and adulterated with potato flour"
synonyms: make impure, degrade, debase, spoil, taint, contaminate;

Then they bribe elected officials by making major campaign donations to BUY votes. And then they buy armies of shills to defend their crap against people who wish to exercise their rights as consumers to refuse the products.

The bottom line is that we have the right to say NO, and there is nothing you can do or say to change that fact.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlsjiNPu_bvjcXeSnUwAu7FAmiZSbx0CfdX3p4xJBXZ-lcTuoFAg

[HuckleB]

68. No one is force feeding anyone.

The anti-GMO movement is simply demonizing a seed development technology for its gain. It is unethical to the core. It's time to stop believing the lies of that anti-GMO crowd. Seriously, it's time to wake up.

[Generic Other]

70. Why do you care if I refuse to eat what you are selling?

You have now crossed the line into stalking me across multiple threads to call me unethical more than a dozen times because I don't want your poison apple.

[HuckleB]

74. I don't care if you don't buy it.

I do care if you lie about it, working to demonize something for no good reason, including attempts at pointless legislation and banning people from growing crops.

I also find the promotion of more expensive products marketed as "organic" to be rather sketchy, and the marketing they use also aims to demonize GMOs, convincing people who don't have the money in the first place to buy more expensive food for no good reason. (Baseless fear mongering hurt people in real ways.) This is unethical marketing to the core, and it is not helping reduce food insecurity. In fact, it can only do the opposite.

Yeah, I get mad about those kinds of things. The anti-GMO movement has prevented Golden Rice from helping people around the world. It convinced governments in Africa to reject GMO corn on its way to starving people.

There is no justification for this crap. NONE! EVER! It is anti-human, anti-science, and unethical to the core.

[Generic Other]

78. You believe Asians don't have the competence to grow rice without Monsanto?

You sound like an ethnocentric white American to me. And one who hopes to profit off of farmers who did not ask for your input and have for thousands of years produced rice and fed people without paying a corporation to do so. I come from generations of Asian rice farmers. I buy heirloom rice that is untainted by GMOs from Asian rice farmers who value the seeds they developed over centuries of backbreaking work that Monsanto thinks they should be able to muscle out of the way and profit off of. You mention Golden Rice like it is Buddha's gift to humanity, but neglect to mention that every culture in Asia has a different type of rice in cultivation. Saying yours is better because you add vitamins to one strain and call it good enough for all us yellow people is an insult to my intelligence. Most Americans think rice means Uncle Ben's instant rice. I don't think that gives you any expertise in the matter.

[HuckleB]

80. WOW! You just get more ridiculous and disingenuous with every post.

You are actually defending the scumbags who have kept a good product from helping people. WOW! Just WOW! And you, who clearly does not care about the hungry in any way, shape or form, attacks me as an "ethnocentric white American," without the slightest bit of justification.

Monsanto has nothing to do with Golden Rice. http://www.goldenrice.org/

Your behavior is ludicrous.

[Generic Other]

87. Monsanto = good old fashioned American white supremacy toward Asian rice farmers

Most Americans can't name a single strain of Asian rice and the country of origin yet people like you set yourself up as an expert in all things rice-related because you believe Monsanto should be free to force farmers to buy a single strain of non-Asian rice as the answer to Asia's "problems." Who asked for your paternalistic solutions?

Do you not see how you look to people who did not ask for your "help"? My family grows rice from seed saved from the previous growing season as they have for generations (my mother can name 15 generations on the same farms). They have developed their own rice which they are not forced to pay a penny to Monsanto for growing.

You insist they must change based on your superior "culture," the same one that brought us so many other wonderful concepts like Euro racial superiority, smallpox infected blankets for Indians, eugenics, manifest destiny, imperialism etc.

[HuckleB]

88. Golden Rice has nothing to do with Monsanto or culture.

It is about saving lives and preventing disability. You clearly want to pretend otherwise, but that's not going to change reality.

[Generic Other]

93. Because no Asians know anything about rice

Only Monsanto's yellow rice is good enough for us. What a crock. It was a disaster when it was introduced to Asian farmers who rejected it repeatedly wherever it was introduced because it threatens the diversity of local rice, and believe it or not, we Asians care about our indigenous strains. We don't think heirloom means inferior as you seem to think. When you offer your adulterated made in the USA variety ideas as always superior to native ideas, you sound like a know-it-all racist American. And that is a strategy that is backfiring on us everywhere in the world we try it.

[HuckleB]

94. You just keep ranting without bothering to read or inform yourself.

WOW! Just wow.

[Generic Other]

97. And you keep saying nothing

WOW! Just wow.

[HuckleB]

98. Oh, goodness. That's funny.

[Generic Other]

100. Name me the major strains of rice Asians eat and locate the countries

Tell me why yellow colored rice is better. Because Bill Gates says so? Or Monsanto wants to expand their markets? Why did they test the rice on children in China without telling their parents? They were asked to leave there. Why do Filipino farmers destroy the fields where they test plant the yellow stuff? Why did Japan suspend rice imports over GMOs? Why? Because they do not agree with your ridiculous argument about the superiority of your ways. Your questionable science versus their traditions, beliefs, tastes.

I will continue to support farmers who grow Jasmine, Basmati, Japanese sushi rice, Haigamai, Bhutanese red, Filipino Malagkit, Chinese imperial black...not some expensive "yellow" rice product you are selling. I'd sooner eat Minute Rice.

[HuckleB]

101. Thanks for the confession.

You know nothing about Golden Rice. We got that a long time ago.

The rest of your game playing is just silliness. We both know that. You can't support your claims about GMOs, or anything else, so you are trying to distract from that fact.

[Generic Other]

118. golden rice sounds as appetizing as golden showers

You know nothing about rice you haven't pretended to discover today. I doubt you even know how to cook it.

[Generic Other]

124. Let's let a jury decide

I say your calling me a liar, unethical and lacking in decency more than a dozen times in this thread makes you the one who is lacking in civility, filled with mean and hurtful comments because you will not take no for an answer.

Maybe you should quit stalking and harassing me? You made your point. I am a lying yellow Asian person who does not swallow the big white corporate lie.

[Generic Other]

129. I think I have a right to defend myself when I am accused of lying repeatedly

You are the one who started this crap by repeatedly calling me a liar and unethical. Maybe you need to put me on ignore. Then you can keep your delusions intact.

[HuckleB]

132. Why don't you stop lying?

That's a simple solution.

Your fantasy world is never going to change reality. No matter how many times the Republicans in the Bush administration told themselves that they could make reality out of nothing, it never worked. Instead, people got hurt.

It might be as extreme with your stuff, but people are going to get hurt, and that sucks.

Goodbye.

[Generic Other]

133. I am not a liar

And I take issue to being called one simply for saying I do not want to eat crap.

[Generic Other]

141. Looks like the jury made their decision

No one expected you to be honest, ethical, or decent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6329109

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

This person has repeatedly called me a liar and unethical. Now he claims I am not decent. Enough. I do not usually alert on others, but being called names every time I post a comment is over the top.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:39 PM, and voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's a discussion board and things can get heated but no need to call someone a liar when there's disagreement.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Long string of personal attacks
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yep, personal attack. Out.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: HuckleB does this to every single poster who attempts to disagree with him, no matter how reasonable a discussion may be. He gets a thrill from denigrating DU members, for some reason. Enough, hide it.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I do see this as a personal attack. HuckleB is at least as closed-minded as s/he's always accusing others of being, and to flatly state that someone who holds a different opinion on a topic as unsettled as GMOs is not honest, ethical or decent is over the top.

[iemitsu]

152. Evidently he also thinks that Africans are too dumb to make informed decisions

about the food s they are willing to ingest.
They are just dupes of a grand anti-GMO conspiracy.

[Generic Other]

170. I take exception to being called names for two days for voicing an opinion

I see others have also alerted on his comments. Enough so that his account is under review. I think I will also add, he sent me a PM I consider threatening where he says I will regret alerting on his behavior.

Here's where he started the namecalling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6323295

[iemitsu]

172. What ugly behavior. I hope that the review process takes his PM

to you into account when looking at his account.
Bullying has no legitimate place on discussion boards.
I'm sorry you had to put up with that harangue.

[iemitsu]

151. Refusal to label GMO foods and seeking

legislation to block states from labeling GMOs is tantamount to force feeding.
It GMO products are worth what Monsanto claims then they should be able to convince the public.

[laundry_queen]

156. Yes, it's Monsanto that's running scared here

despite some other posters' assertions that people who don't like GMOs are being manipulated by fear. Monsanto is scared. They don't just want to avoid labeling because it might lose them money, but because it might show that there are risks to eating GMOs. The only reason I can see, other than profit motive, to why there is such an aggressive, unethical campaign against labeling is that they have something to hide. If GMOs are so wonderful, they would have zero fear of labeling.

[iemitsu]

166. That's how I see it.

[pnwmom]

126. Which is why they're fighting labeling tooth and nail. n/t

[HuckleB]

128. They're fighting it because other corporations have utilized fear mongering about GMOs...

... as a part of their marketing routines. Now, that's unethical to the core, but it's also effective, as people tend to fall for fear mongering, as Fox News can attest.

We have many types of seed development technologies. Labeling only one of them makes no sense. If one of them is labeled, and that one is not mutagenesis, that makes no sense.

It's time to realize that you've let your emotions take over. You are not looking at this from an honest, objective standpoint.

[iemitsu]

137. And that is exactly why they don't want to label their products.

They fear or know that that would be the case.
So their preference is to ridicule consumers who have legitimate concerns about GMO's

[Wella]

33. Totally opposed to GMOs in every way, but must mention that saccharin--compared to Aspartame--

is actually quite safe. If I were a diabetic and limited to artificial sweeteners (not Stevia), I would choose saccharine over Equal (aspartame) or Splenda (sucralose).

[jeff47]

39. The fear about saccharin comes from causing tumors in rat bladders.

Saccharin causes bladder cancer in rats. It does this by interacting with a protein in rat's bladders. Humans don't have that protein. Tests involving creatures without that protein, including humans, have shown no harm.

But it's a chemical so it must be bad! Let's listen to Cargill about how natural their sweetener is instead!

[pnwmom]

44. And DDT and PCB's and Dioxin. Have they all been vindicated, too? n/t

[jeff47]

48. That is so completely relevant to saccharine.

Oh, I'm sorry. I tried to give more information to people about a chemical, and we can't have that.

Now, let's line up for our all-natural sweetener Truvia from Cargill. We can't hand out other information, or people might find out that both chemicals in it are actually 100% man-made.

[pnwmom]

51. Monsanto continued to market saccharin after the rat studies came out.

It was years later when further research finally showed that the problem in rats didn't extend to humans, but that didn't keep Monsanto from marketing their product in the meantime.

[Major Nikon]

73. There was never any proof that the problem did extend to humans and saccharin had a warning label

[pnwmom]

76. You might as well make that argument about Thalidomide.

There was never any proof that humans would have a bad reaction to it . . . so it was used for years till there was proof: thousands of deformed infants.

The FDA was fully justified in requiring the labeling of saccharine until further studies proved that the problem with rats didn't extend to humans. And until those studies were done, people had good reason to be cautious about using it.

And Monsanto should have been cautious about selling it.

[Major Nikon]

99. Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the US

The evidence that Thalidomide caused birth defects was presented in 1961 and it was removed from use the same year.

So yeah, I guess you might as well make that argument, if false equivalencies are your bag.

[pnwmom]

102. So? We dodged a bullet. It WAS approved by several governments in Europe

and only withdrawn after many babies were permanently injured.

The Thalidomide research done prior to approval didn't use an animal model that would have shown the birth defects. Sometimes the research that is done prior to marketing isn't enough. This was one of those cases.

[Major Nikon]

105. Not sure your assertion is correct, but even if it was the best you have is still a fallacy

And not even a good one at that.

Saccharin was in production by 1886. It wasn't until almost 100 years later testing discovered it produced cancer in rodents. By that time 10's if not 100's of millions of people had used it with no ill effects suspected. So we might as well make the same argument about Thalidomide which was never approved in the US because of inadequate testing and was banned in Germany 3 years after it was approved? Sure, those two things are EXACTLY the same.

[pnwmom]

107. People smoked cigarettes for hundreds of years before testing proved the dangers.

Since most people are exposed to many substances in their lives that could affect cancer susceptibility, it's not easy to tease out cancer-causing agents just from epidemiology. Actual research studies -- and the right combination of them -- have to be carried out. The studies done for Thalidomide weren't adequate, obviously.

Thalidomide is an example of an extremely dangerous drug (at least for pregnant women) that was marketed by a major drug company (Grünenthal, in Germany) as perfectly safe, after submitting a number of research studies to its regulatory agency. Fortunately, the head of the FDA delayed approval here, or we would have had the same disaster.

Cigarettes are another example of a dangerous product which used to be promoted as safe -- menthol cigarettes were once even promoted as being helpful with asthma. It took decades of research before limits were put on its sale.

So when the studies showed that Saccharin had carcinogenic effects on rats the FDA was right to require labeling. That way people could decide whether they wanted to take that risk or not, knowing that rats and humans are not the same, and that more research needed to be done before Saccharin could be deemed safe.

[Major Nikon]

174. Well here's some arguments that actually aren't false equivalencies (but are no less nutty)

Dow Chemical also made Agent Orange, so Ziploc bags MUST be evil.

Volkswagen was founded by the Nazis so their cars MUST be evil.

IBM sold technology to the Nazis used in the Holocaust so IBM computers MUST be evil.

Mitsubishi made Japanese fighter planes during WWII so their cars MUST be evil.

Bayer manufactured Zyklon B for the Nazis which was used to kill Jews so their aspirin MUST be evil.

Nintendo made hanafuda cards for Japanese soldiers during WWII, so their video games MUST be evil.

[pnwmom]

175. And here's an argument I've seen many pro GMO- supporters make:

if you agree with vaccines, you must agree with GMO's, because scientists developed both. Otherwise, you're being anti-science.

Well, if pro-GMO people can link vaccines and GMO's, then I can link GMO's and other products of Monsanto.

[Major Nikon]

176. So your argument is if others can make nutty arguments so can I

Brilliant!

[Wella]

81. I remember that the equivalent human ingestion would have been 800 sodas a day.

Nice to know about the rat bladder protein. I have friends who are getting Type II diabetes in middle age and I'm trying to convince them that they're better off with Sweet & Low than with Equal and Splenda. It's an uphill battle.

[Octafish]

38. Big Agra is trustworthy.

Ask an expert. The ones available are paid by Big Agra. What a coincidence.

[jeff47]

41. Yes, we need to trust the people claiming Monsanto sells nuclear weapons instead. (nt)

[Octafish]

59. Did I claim that?

Please, refresh my memory. FWIU, Monsanto wants to make it so farmers around the world trust them to keep them supplied with seeds, as they won't be able to keep any of the seeds from planting without the proper authorization. But, what do I know? All that science is classified above my lowly status as "Citizen."

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml

[HuckleB]

61. As far as GMOs go, there are plenty of independent scientists who point out that they are safe.

Corporations are always at risk for acting badly, and we must be vigilant. However, that is no excuse for the bad behavior, deceit, fear mongering, and fictions pushed by the anti-GMO movement. It's time that we get angry at people who act badly, even if we really want to like them for some reason. The anti-GMO movement is unethical to the core. It's time for people to get angry about that.

[Octafish]

62. Thanks! All I know is what I read and see with my own two eyes.

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/

Don't mean to conflate issues, but for endocrine disruption background:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05232008/watch2.html

Science can take it.

[HuckleB]

65. The science on BPA has been convoluted from the word go. Not so with GMOs.

Not to conflate issues, but the link in the OP actually says this: " since the terminator seeds were capable of cross-pollination and could have contaminated local non-sterile crops."

Now, I'm sure you know why that statement is absolutely bizarre. It shows just how ridiculous, and clueless these anti-GMO pages are. The OP should know better than to push this kind of dishonest, emotion-based attack. It's not ethical.

This is an interesting piece on the BPA issue:
http://www.science20.com/steve_hentges/the_bpa_paradox_too_many_studies-149709

[Octafish]

92. I got a friend who worked in medical marketing...

...the guy was a PhD pharmacist, paid to come up with white papers for all manner of meds to be used off label, like medicines for reducing blood pressure, used as a way to treat varicose veins. There was no shortage of money for such studies.

Thanks for the heads up on the Hentges article. Some days it seems this universe is an informational construct.

[HuckleB]

95. To some extent, yes. The pharm companies will pay for such research.

Obviously there are cons to that, though also possible pros for physicians, too. Still, the problem with the money side of pharma is real.

Alas, as a country we're not putting the money into scientific research that we should. In fact, we're starting to leave it to foundations to pay for much research, and that means funding the pet peeves of various foundations, rather than having a plan to move forward.

This has nothing to do with any of this directly, but if you haven't heard of the All Trials initiative, give it a look, and give your signature if you agree with it. (It's an attempt to make sure all studies are published, even ones with negative results. Yeah, I know. It sounds like common sense, but it's got a long way to go. More advocates are always helpful.)

http://www.alltrials.net/

Cheers...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. Hm, 50 replies and I see 39 of em.

So the GM boosters aren't too active in this diary yet.

Edit, nvm, I see that they are, just mostly not ones who have been childish enough for me to throw them on ignore.

[HuckleB]

58. "Childish."

That is a good description of this OP, and the sites to which the OP links. Heck, it's a good description of the anti-GMO movement.

Thanks.

[DeSwiss]

60. K&R

MONSANTO GMO's NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOL STANDARDS

"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

[center]America's premier POISON MAKERS.


[/center]

Towns poisoned by Monsanto

[Duppers]

63. the atomic bomb???

The Manhattan project was so secretive that the major corporations contributing products to it in some way did not have knowledge of what these products were used for.

I hate Monsanto and GMOs without having to add the atomic bomb to the list.

[LiberalEsto]

85. monSATAN

That says it all.

[HuckleB]

86. Thanks for the example of why it's impossible to parody the anti-GMO crowd.

Oh, goodness.

[Buzz Clik]

90. +1

[Buzz Clik]

89. Let's dig deeper, pnwmom:

and ALL GMO’s are perfectly safe. (And GMO's shouldn't be labeled.) Because science.

1. Saccharin: Safe artificial sweetener. Due to incorrect information, it was labeled as harmful for a time.

2. PCB’s: Fantastic transformer oil. Became a problem when improperly disposed because some of the congeners in PCBs are pretty friggin' toxic.

3. Polystyrene: An insulating material with other excellent properties. It's a problem when improperly disposed or burned.

4. Atom bomb and nuclear weapons: That's a bit of a stretch. More than a bit...

5. DDT: An excellent pesticide when used in moderation for its original intent. Finding that it was a broad spectrum pesticide led to its massive overuse. Nothing compares to its effectiveness against mosquitos. We don't need it in the US, but other countries most definitely need it to control malaria-transmitting mosquitos.

7. Agent orange: 2,4-D by itself is an effective herbicide, and like any other pesticide, must be used with care. 2,4,5-T is and should remain banned in the U.S. Monsanto was one of nine companies manufacturing Agent Orange during Vietnam. Perhaps Monsanto should have not provided it to the military on moral grounds? Maybe, but it wouldn't have made any difference.

8. Petroleum based fertilizer: This is bad? Without cracking of natural gas to produce ammonia and urea, we would have been in deep trouble in WWII.

9. Roundup: Roundup is a great chemical that is being overused. It will go the way of DDT in terms of resistant development by the intended targets. Just like other pesticides, it requires care in its use.

10. Aspartame: See saccharine

12. Genetically modified crops. Please. Just please.

Monsanto is a successful company that provides what consumers want. I will admit, however, that they are predatory bastards in terms of their business practices.

In every discussion I've ever entered with the "Monsanto is the devil" crowd, it starts out with condemning Monsanto for manufacturing and distributing poison, but that argument quickly disintegrates and morphs into discussion of what horrible business people they are. I agree with the business stuff, but not the chemical stuff.

[pnwmom]

91. Do you object when GMO proponents try to lump GMO's in with vaccines?

That's okay with you, but it's not okay to mention other products that Monsanto produces?

[Buzz Clik]

96. I don't understand what you're saying.

I made no mention of vaccines.

There are a lot of chemicals I use on a daily basis that are potentially harmful. Ibuprofen, antacids, caffeine, toothpaste. Some have more potential problem than others.

Monsanto has manufactured some bad ones, but some of the worst players were fine until they were abused, misused, or improperly disposed. And, GMOs have been tested and have been studied and pass muster in the eyes of the controlling agencies.

I guess I'm lost on where you're going with all of this.

[pnwmom]

103. There have been many recent posts on DU trying to link

people who have concerns about GMO's to people who have concerns about vaccines -- a poster did that in this very thread. They say that both groups are "anti-science."

But GMO's and vaccines have nothing to do with each other except that both have been developed by scientists. If those two products can be conflated, then why not conflate GMO's with other products Monsanto actually has produced?

[Buzz Clik]

148. Thank you.

That's a bit complicated, but it's not as crazy as it sounded at first.

[pnwmom]

153. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

[Cha]

106. Agent Orange and relentess users of Roundup. fuck 'em.. don't care how "sciencey" they are.

[HuckleB]

110. Many companies were contracted to make Agent Orange.

Roundup is a very safe herbicide. It could be argued that it has been overused, but that would be a difficult argument to make. Do you want to use the more toxic herbicides it has replaced, and that GMOs have helped to reduce?

Maybe it's time to learn about the topic, instead of rah rahing every demonizing post that's made about it.

[leftofcool]

145. Would you spray it on your grass then let your dog lick it?

[Cha]

113. Meet the New Monsanto: Dow Chemical... and Their New 'Agent Orange' Crops

If you're like me, then you are probably overwhelmed with emails and articles opining on the evils of Monsanto -- and for good reason. Monsanto is a chemical company that began genetically engineering seeds in order to sell more chemicals. The company's business model is based on privatizing life, privatizing our genetic heritage (seeds), and poisoning the Earth. But did you know that Monsanto is just one of the major chemical players that have taken over our agriculture? Others include Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, and BASF. Monsanto is corporate villain number one, providing PR cover for these other companies that do the same thing with far less public attention. That is about to change. There is one company that may even be worse than Monsanto. And unless we act soon, that company is going to start contaminating our farms and our food in ways we have never seen before. Meet the Dow Chemical company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/dow-chemical-agent-orange-crops_b_4810311.html

[HuckleB]

123. Do you ever post anything that's not from an anti-GMO activist group?

You know, something that might actually have a scientific basis?

[pnwmom]

127. Cha posts very widely, unlike you. n/t

[HuckleB]

130. And that justifies his use of anti-science groups, how?

[pnwmom]

140. You accused Cha of only posting in one area and that's not true. The problem is

that you're spending so much time there you don't know what is going on anywhere else.

[Cha]

164. LOL.. now I'm a "he".. doesn't know when to stop digging.. "Science/Agent Orange!!!!1111"

grade school level debate tactics.

[Cha]

135. LOL.. a lot he knows. He really didn't like the message on monsanto and other posionous entities.

Trying but failing to marginalize the messenger.

[840high]

139. Screw them

[GoneFishin]

165. Only a morally bankrupt weasel would trick someone into eating food that they don't want to

eat, which is precisely the point of the anti-labeling forces.

[DFW]

167. Before you say anything about Monsanto, read "Seeds Of Reprisal."

THEN tell me you trust anything they say or make.

Hint--it's like saying read "Mein Kampf" and "Judgment at Nuremberg" and THEN tell me the Nazis only had some minor welfare reform in mind.