Big Food Battles Vermont Over GMO-Labeling Law

Healthy groceriesThe recently launched, four-pronged suit against the state of Vermont’s genetically modified organism (GMO)-labeling law comes as no surprise. Last week, a group of the country’s largest grocery organizations filed suit against Vermont for its passage of a law (Act 120) requiring all manufacturers to label those products that contain GMO ingredients.

Big Food four stand up for GMO

The four “Big Food” companies — the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers — allege that Vermont’s newly minted law contravenes federal law and cites the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the right of free speech and the commerce clause. It also cites the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment for Act 120’s “vagueness” in its prohibition of the use of certain words, such as natural, and other descriptors that the Vermont law has deemed confusing to consumers.

The plaintiffs defend their suit based on four counts relating to labeling mandates, alleged marketing restrictions and violations of the commerce clause. They have argued that Act 120 imposes unreasonable requirements on food manufacturing companies, which would be required to amend the labels on thousands of products before the act goes into effect on July 1, 2016.

GMA: The consumer already has the tools

They also assert that the state has acted beyond its capacity and that provisions already exist at the federal level for the consumer to make informed decisions, called the Organic Food Production Act.

“The Act appears not to recognize that the USDA has established the very system that the Act suggests is missing. Under the USDA’s “certified organic” program, food that qualifies for the certified organic label cannot be produced using GE plants or GE derived ingredients,” says the suit. It also suggests that voluntary labeling through programs like the Non-GMO Project already provides a voluntary method for consumers to select foods that don’t contain GMOs.

The power of commerce

It’s no surprise that the plaintiffs have hinged this suit on the powers of the federal commerce clause. It’s a popular tactic these days, as North Dakota demonstrated last May with its controversial suit against Minnesota’s New Energy Act. At the same time that Vermont’s GMO-labeling bill was moving through the state legislature last April, another issue was being fought out in Minnesota district court that would virtually upend the state’s efforts to regulate the purchase of “dirty” coal power. Stating that the New Energy Act regulated issues that were under the purview of the federal commerce clause, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richards Nelson enjoined the state from enforcing parts of the law, effectively stalling some of the boldest efforts made to date to curb carbon emissions by power companies. In effect: Minnesota’s clean energy law conflicted with the Constitution.

In both situations, the power of the consumer to decide what is sold within his or her state has been placed at odds with federal agencies which many states say are failing to step up to the demands of their constituents – despite voters’ efforts to get federal laws enacted, first. In the case of GMA et al vs. Vermont, the plaintiffs allege that consumer desires and voting bloc expectations aren’t enough reason to provide manufacturing transparency.

Federal organic laws: A chicken-and-egg story

Interestingly, although the suit mentions the “certified organic” program, it fails to mention that federal organic laws were actually the outgrowth of enforced state regulations in California. This leads to a quandary not unlike the chicken-and-egg story: If states don’t have the right to regulate the foods imported and sold within their borders (except when there are proven safety issues at hand), then why has California been successful in regulating food production through laws enacted by the ballot box? And why did the federal government think it was such a great idea to pattern the majority of its regulations after California’s already-enforced laws?

The suit also doesn’t mention the fact that a fair number of states have their own organic certification programs and regulations in force, which the USDA points out, “may also add more restrictive requirements due to specific environmental conditions or the necessity of production and handling practices in that State.”

Where’s Monsanto?

When this suit was announced, a number of advocacy groups jumped on board to alert consumers that “Monsanto had launched a suit against Vermont.” Most publications do, in fact, point out that the suit is being launched by four associations, but few advocacy groups or publications have asked why Monsanto’s name is conspicuously absent from the lawsuit.

While advocacy organizations have worked hard over the past few years to link Monsanto to the GMA, the association has worked just as hard – particularly recently – to limit information about its membership, or whether Monsanto is in fact a voting member.

The list of plaintiffs on a court document such as this speaks volumes about the strength that a suit may have, but it also says a lot about just what those who fund its launch is expecting from the public, and what they may feel could be most vulnerable if consumers really don’t agree with their principles. The fact that the four associations are fighting the good fight for Monsanto’s interest but haven’t mentioned Monsanto’s membership unfortunately may not make it any easier for consumers to swallow the concept of GMO engineering.

And, as the suit has boldly pointed out, American consumers are quite adept at finding ways of moving away from products they don’t trust. With a rising number of countries rejecting or restricting GMO food manufacture and/or imports, clear labeling laws may turn out to be the easiest and least expensive compromise for all sides.

Image courtesy of

Jan Lee

Jan Lee is a former news editor and award-winning editorial writer whose non-fiction and fiction have been published in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the U.K. and Australia. Her articles and posts can be found on TriplePundit, JustMeans, and her blog, The Multicultural Jew, as well as other publications. She currently splits her residence between the city of Vancouver, British Columbia and the rural farmlands of Idaho.

438 responses

  1. great post, Jan. thank you for laying it out so clearly. interesting to note that many food eco labels (organic, sustainable, GMO, etc) may be affected by these precedents. if a state as big as California enacted a GMO labeling requirement, I wonder if the rest of the country would simply follow suit.

    1. Excellent point, Jill. I wondered that as well. But if Calif. was able to start the organic trend before the feds, and the feds have acknowledged that the state programs don’t conflict with the fed program, does that carry weight? I guess we’ll see.

      Thanks for your great comment!

  2. Monsanto keeping their name under wraps (and sending out their pet hounds on this one) is just another effort at PR damage control. These villains have at least twice as much net-worth as Bloomturd does and will stop at nothing to perpetuate their HUMAN SCIENCE EXPERIMENT.

    1. Thank for the comments, Alvin.You raise an interesting point re Prop 37. And even if it failed, there seems to be a lot of consumers in Calif. who still want the labeling.

  3. Too bad you got it all wrong. Forcing others to bear the cost of your pesticide hide and seek is NOT 2nd Amendment. It’s bullying and its theft. Every day we hear about how glyphosphate is causing more and more health damage. Rampant kidney damage IS a story. You might try researching that instead of spoon feeding us lines out of Monsanto brochures as though they were true information. THAT is news. This little pity piece in favor of the richest companies right to corner the market and hide their poison is a story in the same way Hansel and Gretel is a story. Fictitious and badly written to scare children.

    1. Hi Calamity – thanks for writing in! Please don’t mistake efforts to write without inflection as a suggestion that I am promoting the argument these companies are making. It’s the plaintiffs that suggest they have constitutional rights. I ask the questions figuring the readers will do as well.

    2. You already have 2 labels, Organic and NON GMO and now you want everyone else to pay for another? Unsubstantiated health claims don’t mean squat, GMOs have been tested and they are 100% as safe as conventional crops.

      1. Really? How safe is it to grow pesticides IN our food? Not on it but actually in the food itself? According to the minimal required lab tests that these companies have to do they deem it safe, but tell me honestly you think eating poison is safe. GMO labels are done at the expense of the companies making the product, not us. If your really concern about where your money is being spent, maybe we should look into food subsities.

        1. How safe is it to grow pesticides IN our food?

          Pretty darn safe.

          Ever eaten a lemon, it contains a natural pesticide.
          Ever accidentally eaten dirt, it contains the same pesticide
          Ever eaten any Organic produce, it is treated with the same pesticide

          Bt the pesticide that is in GMO crops is totally safe for all life forms with the exception of Grubs, some caterpillars and moths. That is it, it wont harm anything else. It is safer than spring rains and puppies.

    3. Interesting take… But how is anyone forcing anyone to do anything?? Aren’t there options available for people who choose to avoid these sorts of things? It seems like the claim that people are forced is a bit of a stretch.

    4. Uhm.. are you aware of what the 2nd amendment is?

      “..Every day we hear about how glyphosphate is causing more and more health damage..”. Where did you hear that? do you have an actual link to any scientific studies at all that show ANY relationship? I hear all kind of things on the internet, but regardless of what the ad said, you really CAN post lies on the internet.

  4. Jan, this statement is very misleading:

    The fact that the four associations are fighting the good fight for Monsanto’s interest but haven’t mentioned Monsanto’s membership
    Implying that they ARE a member but you provided not a shred of evidence that Monsanto is a member of any of them.
    Not sure why they would be.
    They sell seed to farmers not food to consumers.

    1. Thanks Arthur for your comment.
      Excellent point. A question that has been raised before by other writers, is why GMA has changed hits website so that the public can no longer find a listing of the members of the organization? (The listing was publicly accessible until about a year ago.) But my question was why food industry associations would pay such a high legal bill to launch a suit for the commercial benefit of a company not acknowledged on their membership roster? And yes, that’s a very valid clarification: Monsanto only sells the seed. But from the vantage point of many consumers of course, it’s the seed that becomes the plant that becomes the food that the companies sell (that carries the GMO in question). Sounds a bit like a ditty I remember from my childhood highlighting the fact that people notice such links (consumers in particular) and often distrust them if they aren’t made transparent from the outset.

      1. I’m not sure its as big an issue to Monsanto as people believe.
        MOST of our GMO crops are NOT used for food for humans.
        So labeling hasn’t as much impact on future sales as people would think.
        40% of our Corn goes to make Ethanol.
        Nearly 40% becomes animal feed
        10% gets exported
        Only 10% ends up as food we consume, but even then, most of it isn’t as corn, its as Corn Oil, HFCS and Corn Starch, none of which have any GMO proteins in them.
        Soy is very similar, more and more is becoming biodiesel, then animal feed, then exports and then human food, but again mainly as Soybean Oil.
        Sugar Beets become Sugar and Animal food, and Sugar = Sucrose = No GMO proteins.
        Alfalfa is all animal feed.
        Cotton is, well Cotton and Cotton seed oil, but again no GMO protein.
        Canola is mainly Oil with residue being animal feed, again no GMO protein.
        Which is the PROBLEM with the labeling law as passed by Vermont.
        Because they listened to the FANATICAL side, they have labeling based on SOURCE, not CONTENT.
        See it doesn’t matter that when you eat sugar made from Beets, it has none of the unique GMO proteins in it, they still want it labeled.
        Not much different than asking for your meat to be labeled with the COLOR of the steer it came from.

  5. Jan, your California Analogy misses the point.
    Labeling something “Organic” is something a company does voluntarily.
    California simply came up with standards for what that meant.
    NOBODY was forced to put a “Not Organic” label on their product though, which is analogous to what Vermont is doing.

    1. Thanks for weighing in on this, Arthur.
      I think we’re both saying the same thing here: there’s at least two ways to look at this. Then perhaps one answer is for GMA and those who support GMO to come up with another type of label. I think that’s all that people want and Vermont is attempting to accomplish.

      1. Actually no.
        Vermont is echoing the zealot side of the house, and wants to label things based on source, not content.
        The law does not care that the end product has no unique GMO proteins in it, if it was produced using GMO crops, it must have the label.
        Tell me how a small food producer in Vermont, ordering a 50 lb bag of sugar is supposed to know if it is GMO or not, when no test will show if it is or if it isn’t (since sugar = Sucrose = a specific chemical), and the tne 50lb bags of sugar, delivered by truck from NY, won’t have any label on it but SUGAR.
        Same with that 20 gal carboy of Soybean Oil, or Corn Oil or Canola oil.
        Had they stuck to CONTENT, it would have been palatable and enforceable.
        As it is, its a useless law that can’t be enforced.

        1. You raise some interesting points, Arthur.
          But the onus has always been on the manufacturer to show transparency, and I think that is what some feel this law accomplishes. You’re correct: at this time in our technological advancement, the farmer may not know without a label, and that’s why the label serves a purpose.

          We are at an unfortunate (or fortunate, depending upon how you look at it) juncture in which we are now reevaluating environmental decisions we made decades ago. Those insights are due to technology we didn’t have when we made those choices. I am absolutely assured Monsanto feels its technology is safe, and given my childhood in Latin America (explained in another post), I can certainly see its potential in reducing starvation by making foods crops hardier and more available. But this country’s consumerism thrives when consumers feel they have the whole story about a product, and suffers when they don’t.

          The popularity of our series on third-party validation speaks loudly for this, and may just be a statement about what it is that Vermont consumers are looking for from this law.

          Thanks again for your excellent points and sharing your insights on this!

        2. While the onus may be on the manufacturer to show transparency, Vermont represents but 0.2% of the population.

          I doubt a sugar or oil manufacturer, none of which have any official presence in Vermont, are going to modify their production system to account for that small amount of sales.
          As far as “consumerism”, unfortunately after about a year of discussing this issue on the internet its clear that the “Anti-GMO” side has NO INTEREST in consumerism. Indeed almost their entire effort is to SCARE consumers by literally insisting that GMO = POISON. The number of health effects that are INSINUATED (since there is no data that shows any causation) is breath-taking. ADHD, Autism, Alzheimer’s, Kidney Cancer, Pancreatic cancer, Obesity, Crohn’s, Irritable Bowel Syndrome and food Allergies.
          In CONTRAST, when GM recently tried a marketing experiment and made changes to make their Cherrios “GMO free”, the CEO pointed out that that change “didn’t move the needle” on sales. So while some push polls say they want labeling or GMO free foods, they don’t really seem to care.
          Which is why it was passed by the legislature in Vermont, while in the two much larger states where it was put to a vote by the populace it was turned down.

          As far as “reevaluating environmental decisions we made decades ago”, I hope you aren’t implying that our big AG crop farmers are considering going back to a time when they used so much more and more toxic pesticides? GMO has DRASTICALLY cut the use of insecticides and allowed farmers to switch to the least toxic herbicide ever invented. That ship has clearly sailed and millions of hard working, independent farmers, who year after year plant 90+% of our Corn, Soy, Canola, Sugar Beets and Cotton using GMO seed, aren’t going backward.
          That ship sailed so long ago, protesters can no longer see it from the dock.

        3. Interesting points and far ranging. But I think this stillall comes down to the fact that a) consumers overwhelmingly want transparency,
          whether it’s through across-the-board voluntary measures, state or federallegislation and b) many consumers that do question the safety of GMO technology are responding to companies’ refusal to honor that request. I suspect that a large part of the voting blocs that have called for labeling feel that the resistance “proves” there’s something to hide, and that Monsanto (and manufacturing associations) are afraid that the labeling will “scare off” consumers.

          Might I suggest that the issue at hand is really more a marketing issue than a legislative battle? If Monsanto, and the associations represented on this suit, want consumers to have faith in products, including and especially GMO technology, then supporting the labeling will illustrate to consumers that there was never any reason to be concerned in the first place. Show consumers that transparency and validation are good, strong tenants of American
          business practices and that companies are happy to open that door. That action will work in hand with Monsanto’s efforts to assuage consumers’ concerns through various marketing approaches. Supporting the consumers’ call for labeling
          will show them that there’s no reason to be concerned, because there’s obviously nothing to hide. And *that* dialogue, outside of the halls of courts and legislatures, will go farther much further in assuring the public that Monsanto and food manufacturers have their best interests at heart.

        4. I agree that their efforts to avoid labeling seem highly suspect to the average person. What seems to rarely get reported is that Monsanto and the GMA fully support a companies right to voluntarily label GMO foods which is different than saying that they oppose labeling.
          In my mind, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that a company wouldn’t be in favor of a law that would force their input costs and ultimately their end products to cost more money. Particularly if there is little evidence that this new regulation would lead to any sort of marketing benefit… in other words.. it’s all cost, no benefit. Age old supply / demand models show that at a higher price point, less of your product will be demanded. To me, that’s a scenario that makes so much more sense than assuming there are these great health issues that are being hidden from us.

        5. Thanks Jason for weighing in on this!

          So can you tell me why the majority of manufacturers aren’t voluntarily labeling their food as containing GMO? And – how does that get changed?

          Thanks again!

        6. I can only speculate as to why they don’t label them now. I imagine it’s partially because of the fear campaigns that have been waged against them. I also imagine that most businesses feel that corn is corn and soy is soy. But I don’t think that’s really the question. By allowing voluntary labeling, what you allow a business to do is to offer the product they feel best captures the market. In other words, if demand for GMO free foods seems to warrant it, businesses will move to meet those demands with GMO free or organic food offerings and label them as such. So I don’t think their is a need to label food that contain GMO ingredients when a business is free to label those that do not and try capturing whatever market exists for those foods.

          That’s how you REALLY see if a market exists or if it’s all internet hype. My personal opinion is that the market for foods that are GMO-free but not also grown organically (without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers) is likely pretty small… If it exists at all.

        7. Jan, you keep mentioning “transparency” but at the same time seem to be supporting a law which was clearly designed to be anything but.
          The Vermont law does NOT require products to have a label that

        8. I disagree. A loud and vocal minority want (pseudo) transparency. I heard many of the same arguments back when the food labeling rules were passed. One of the arguments then was that if consumers knew how much sugar/fat/whatever was actually in their food, they would make better choices. That obviously did not work out, as the obesity rate now is some 25% higher than it was then – so obviously even when your Captain Munchkin cereal shows that it is 50% sugar, nobody cares. Nearly all of the top 10 selling RTE cereals are all highly sugared (but they are “fat free”…).

        9. Hey Warren, thanks for the comment. That’s an interesting observation, but nutrition and obesity rates have other factors involved. And some experts do feel it has in part to do with the way our foods are processed. So food labeling issues here aren’t the whole story.

        10. No, it is only part of the story. I just wanted to point out that the many claims made be the advocates of labeling everything about everything are nearly always way overblown in their claims of what the results will be.

          I think that one of the reasons for the rise in obesity is another side of the labeling – “fat free”. What they fail to tell you is that in many cases the fat has been replaced with sugar to make it yummier. Kind of reminds me of some Photoshopped pictures I saw with a bag of sugar labeled “fat free”, and a bottle of cooking oil labeled “sugar free”, and a field of alfalfa labeled “high in fiber”.

        11. If this law stands, i would order GMO derived sugar anyway and have it relabeled. Then if Vermont charges me with the crime of using GMO derived sugar and not labeling it so, i would demand that they prove it that, that sugar is indeed derived from GMO’s !

          Indeed, how will Vermont prove if unlabeled sugar from GMO’s were, in fact, from GMO’s and not intentionally unlabeled if no test exists to verify the charge? And, if they can’t, perhaps Vermont will be sued again, this time for wrongful arrests!

          What fun !

        12. Well a serious problem still exists because of the vast difference in the testing procedures available, if you have the TIME and are willing to spend the money.
          At the field/silo level $10 per test strips are available that will detect the presence of GMO at the level of 1 kernel GMO per 500 of corn.
          At the laboratory level, where you have all day and access to very expensive PCR equipment (it multiplies DNA to allow detection at very low levels) you can detect DNA of GMO crops down to a few parts per BILLION.
          So, after a manufacturer, in a high volume production environment tests the corn and verifies it is not GMO ( or actually tests to see that it is less than 0.2% GMO) and proceeds to make a million boxes of Super Cornpow cereal, then a rabid anti-GMO organization pays the money to test the box of cereal and finds out that it really is 0.0002% GMO, forcing fines and/or a recall.
          These laws, as written, have no test for LEVEL of GMO and demand purity.
          Again, poorly written laws, written by zealots.

        13. If you look back at some of the stupidest laws in history, going back centuries, you can see that most were driven by one or both of two things – bad science and fear. Bad science for example was one of the main drivers of such things as the Chinese Exclusion act.

        14. I would contest the finding. 1) Unintentional extreme low level mixing occured. I.e. a single kernel fell into the silo. 2) Their own lab was not clean enough and 3) We had a set of random mutations in the field that mimics the GMO. Given trillions of kernels per year, it just might happen here and there.

          Then i’d counter sue !

        15. I am a Vermonter and Arthur is exactly right. You give the people who advocated for this law too much credit for knowing what they were doing. They didnt.

  6. How did anti-gmoers come up with the diseases they claim are caused by GMO’s.

    Testing? Research? Studies?

    Nope. They basically cracked open the Merck Manual and starting xeroxing from page 1.

  7. I don’t want any pesticides or insecticides in my food, I don’t want fake foods, no taste, no color..PERIOD…if Insects died after eating or attacking these GMO plants or insects refused to eat, so do I, my tiniest cells in my body could be reacted too….Very simple…

    1. Jerry, you mention ” I don’t want fake foods, no taste, no color..PERIOD”
      Which makes me think you don’t know what is or isn’t GMO.
      GMO is NOT produce.

      GMO is Field Corn which becomes Corn Meal, Corn Syrup or Corn Starch
      GMO is Soybeans which becomes Soy Oil, Soy Protein, Soy Milk or Soy Sauce
      GMO is Canola which becomes Canola Oil
      GMO is Sugar Beets which becomes Sugar

      There is a TINY bit of GMO squash, sweet corn and Papaya, but that’s it.
      So all those “fake foods” you are thinking about have NOTHING to do with GMO.

        1. Gladly.
          What GMO food are you complaining about that has “no taste, no color”?

        2. Arthur, I’m surprised you don’t know the taste of GMO foods like fruits and veggies. I tell you.. A piece of trash…

        3. Zuchinni is a summer squash.
          Alfalfa isn’t sold in the produce dept, its use is for animal feed.

        4. Summer squash is a vegetable as are sugar beets.

          Half truths and misinformation are Arthur’s specialty.

        5. Sugar Beets are not sold as food in any grocery store I’ve been in.
          Beets are.
          I listed Summer Squash and I also gave a link to a detailed descriptive list on the “non GMO Project” site, hardly the actions of someone trying to hide ANYTHING.

        6. The point is they are vegetables Arthur.

          You sated there were no other vegetables, so I’m just keeping the record straight for those who might be taken in by your disingenuous claims.

        7. Uhm.. he listed summer squash. And who in hell would ever eat a sugar beet anyway – I tried one once, and it is nothing like the beets you see in stores.

      1. I have been perusing some of the anti-GMO articles and sites, and what strikes me most is the huge amount of non and anti-science. Why is it that people will agree with the idea of climate change, but not believe the scientists about GMO’s, where the consensus is even higher than on climate change? I wonder how many of these folks are also anti-vaccine.

  8. There are two main GE crops….One is BT toxin which is an unnatural form of a naturally occurring bacteria which is far more toxic than its natural counterpart, this unnatural bacterium has been genetically engineered into the seed, so this toxin is then expressed in every cell of the plant, so then our corn becomes a registered pesticide with the EPA…yummy….then there are Roundup Ready crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand heavy doses of Roundup without dying, so mothers get to feed their babies Glyphosate ridden breast milk and the rest of us get to process it though our kidneys and out in our urine…..Not to mention the active retro virus called the cauliflower mosaic virus that is used to turn the desired trait on and then the antibiotic marker used to ascertain if the desired trait is being expressed… antibiotic resistance anyone? There were never any independent, long-term, minimum of 3 mammalian species, preferably multi-generational studies done to deduce toxicology in human beings concerning the consumption of GMOs…. it’s criminal that they were allowed into our food supply….PERIOD!

    1. Bt Corn is not an EPA registered pesticide.
      The Bt protein is ONLY a toxin to a few caterpillars, not to humans (or indeed any other mammals), nor is the protein in any way “un-natural”.
      And about 100 crops are sprayed with Glyphosate, but unlike GMO crops, they are sprayed at the END of the season, giving higher residues then found in GMO crops.
      No SCIENTIFICLY VALID STUDY has found glyphosate in Mother’s milk.

      1. GMO pesticide industry operatives will not recognize any study that does not support the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

        Most people who care about the health and well being of their families will be informed by real science and not the corrupt agenda driven pseudo-science that rejects and real science that goes against the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

      2. Nice attempt to confuse the issue again, Arthur.

        FACT is that bt corn expresses the bt pesticide in every cell of the plant including the pollen. It can not be washed off. Where as bt used on some rare occasions by organic farmers can be washed off.

        Because GMOs in the foods are not labeled it is impossible to track back medical symptoms to pesticide laden GMOs. That doesn’t mean there are not people getting sick.

        The nations largest health care organization sent a newsletter to their patients. In that newsletter was An article by one of their nutritionists who explained GMOs and then told the patients to avoid them so as to not degrade their health. The health care organization had no “official” policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the concerns of it’s Doctors, it’s patients, and it’s bottom line to send out the warning

        1. Tests reveal that both expression products (cryIA(b) is only a small portion of MON809 plant protein. In MON809, cryIA(b) makes up 1.63, 0.55, and 1.23 µg/g of leaf, grain, and whole plant tissue, respectively.

          So, since we only eat the grain, we are looking at 0.55 µg/g for the Bt protein.

          OR 1/2,000,000th of the part of the plant we eat.

          And we know how much corn we actually eat:

          USDA – Profiling Food Consumption in America (data from 2000)
          Total grain products 200 lbs per person
          Wheat flour 146 lbs
          Corn products 28 lbs
          Rice 20

          So we eat but 28 lbs of corn per year per person and the GMO Bt proteins represent 1/2,000,000th of the weight of the corn.
          That works out to 0.004 grams per month.

          Now consider all the AILMENTS that are attributed to GMO.

          Just WOW.

          Hard to believe that any rational person would believe that suchy a tiny quantity of these NON-TOXIC proteins could have the impacts ascribed to it by the anti-GMO fanatics.

      3. Plant-incorporated protectants are pesticidal substances produced by
        plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the
        substance. For example, scientists can take the gene for a specific Bt
        pesticidal protein, and introduce the gene into the plant’s genetic
        material. Then the plant manufactures the pesticidal protein that
        controls the pest when it feeds on the plant. Both the protein and its
        genetic material are regulated by EPA; the plant itself is not
        regulated.Registered pesticide by the EPA,Arthur loves to split hairs!The bt protein is certainly un-natural, its manufactured in the lab before inserting into the corns DNA.As far as the scientific study on glyphosate in mothers milk,it will be done,but that doesn’t excuse the fact it is showing up in breast milk,Arthur.The breast milk was sent to a credible lab and its being fed to infants!

        1. Harmless bt?

          Yep, totally harmless. You can eat it, doesn’t taste very good though, with no health effects. They forced fed it to lab animals and couldn’t even get any health problems, water is even more toxic.

        2. LOL!

          You eat it then. Most people get it with a dose of poisonous glyphosate/Roundup contamination to spice up the bt.

          The State of Vermont hasn’t said they are outlawing GMOs. They just require them to be labeled like they do in 64 other countries.

          So now the industry is suing the state to allow them to keep hiding these poisons in the food they sell the customers.

          Doesn’t sound like a good use of marketing dollars when you piss off the people you are trying to sell your food-like products to.

        3. You eat it then.

          I have and so have you, all the time. It is the most widely used Organic pesticide and it is used by conventional farmers as well. It has been used as a pesticide for over 100 years with no major health effects ever. Puppies are far more dangerous.

          Most people get it with a dose of poisonous glyphosate/Roundup contamination to spice up the bt.

          No they don’t, produce farmers and fruit farmers use the majority of Bt and they use very little glyphosate. Most plant Bt is in field corn and cotton, and no one eats it.

          They just require them to be labeled like they do in 64 other countries.

          Only some GMOs are labeled and other non GMOs get a GMO label as well, freaking crazy law.

        1. No, really how much does the Organic industry pay you????? Must be more to lie all the time


        Limonene is a chemical found in the peels of citrus fruits and in other plants. It is used to make medicine.

        Limonene is used to promote weight loss, prevent cancer, treat cancer, and treatbronchitis.In foods, beverages, and chewing gum, limonene is used as a flavoring.In pharmaceuticals, limonene is added to help medicinal ointments and creams penetrate the skin.

        In manufacturing, limonene is used as a fragrance, cleaner (solvent), and as an ingredient in water-free hand cleansers.

        How does it work?

        Limonene may block cancer-forming chemicals and kill cancer cells in the laboratory. But more research is needed to know if this occurs in humans.

        1. So people use a powerful Organic EPA registered pesticide in foods and health products all the time, So I guess from now on you will not worry about the tiny amounts of Bt in GMO crops? Because who knows, if it smelled pretty you might be spreading it on your face right now.

  9. I see this piece has attracted the all to familiar GMO pesticide industry trolls who seem to be everywhere trying to shape the narrative on GMOs for the benefit of the junk food industry and the chemical industry with their spin, misinformation, and corrupt agenda driven pseudo-science.

    Sixty four nations including Europe and other countries require GMOs in food to be clearly labeled. Ninety three percent of the American people want GMOs labeled according to several recent polls.

    North Americans should have the same freedom as those in the rest of the developed world to know when GMO ingredients are in the foods we are feeding our children and loved ones.

    So now there is this lawsuit against the State of Vermont and the people who have voted for transparency in food labeling which, if successful, would allow the conspiracy to keep GMOs hidden our food from the public to continue against the will of the people.

    Apparently democracy is only a concept for these craven corporations.

    1. Almost all of the countries requiring labels, require labels based on CONTENT, not SOURCE, as the Vermont law does.
      So they don’t label things as having GMO if they have Oils, Sugars or Vitamins that were derived from GMO.


      1. This is just more of the same corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry operative spin and misdirection you and others have been posting to confuse the issue, Arthur. It has nothing to do with the subject of my comment which is how the GMA front group is suing the State of Vermont to attempt to keep pesticide soaked GMO ingredients hidden from customers who want them labeled.

        This is the same group who is being sued by the State of Washington for money laundering during the recent election there.

        Most people would say that these companies are spending money to piss off their customers.

        1. Nothing corrupt or disingenuous about it Ted.
          You want labeling based on SOURCE, not CONTENT.
          The EU, and most other countries label based on Content.

        2. It’s not about what I want, Arthur. It’s about the law that is currently in effect in The State of Vermont that requires GMO foods to be labeled.

          All your spin around the issue is meaningless and seen for the corrupt GMO pesticide industry agenda it comes from.

        3. Actually Ted, the law ISN’T in effect in Vermont.
          It doesn’t take effect until July of 2016.
          The chance of it passing legal review in that period, in its current form, is IMHO, slim.

        4. You lie again, Arthur.

          The law was passed by both legislative houses and signed into law by the Governor. The law is in effect, the fact that the labeling requirement don’t take effect until 2016 does not negate the law.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

    2. You are once again making the old mistake of equating hysteria with science. Are you aware that just about every Brassica (cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli, etc.) that you eat is in fact a GMO product?

      And as far as that “65 countries” argument, I believe that prior to the Iraq war, something like 115 countries were on record as being sure that Iraq had WMD’s…

      1. You don’t know me or have any idea about what I eat, Warren.

        I’ve heard your disingenuous spin and misdirection from other corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives before. It really has nothing to do with the points in my comment, but nice try on your attempt to cloud and confuse the issue.

        1. “..other corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives..” = that has to be one of the most classic reply I have seen for quite some time. What makes it so funny is that you say I don’t know you, yet you turn right around and claim that I am some “industry operative”, without having a clue as to who I am.

        2. You seem to have a problem reading what I wrote, Warren.

          I said I have heard the spin you posted from other corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives before.

          Apparently you have chosen to self select, as we can see by your defensiveness.

        3. No, my problem is that you keep posting false statistics for one thing. Example: “.Ninety three percent of the American people want GMOs labeled according to several recent polls.”
          93%?? I would be willing to bet that a large portion of that 93% has no clue what GMO is. Statistically, 93% agreement on anything is almost impossible to come up with on any legitimate poll or survey. I would like to see one of the actual polls, and how the questions were worded – and also where the poll was taken – if the poll was on some anti-GMO site it is already highly suspect because it is far from a random sample.

        4. The most recent polls I know about are the New Your Times, and Consumers Union. The results are readily available with a simple google search.

          I am not interested is discussing what you “are willing to bet”. The fact is that these polls were done by organizations with reputations for integrity.

          You also seem to forget that Vermont passed the very popular labeling bill in both houses of it’s legislature and it was signed into law by the Governor. Your attempt to spin this all away by pressing your biased opinion as some kind of fact just shows your willingness to attempt to deceive and confuse.

        5. “The survey, released by researchers at Rutgers University, found that more than half (53 percent) say they know very little or nothing at all about genetically modified (GM) foods, and one in four (25 percent) say they have never heard of them. Even with the media attention resulting from recent ballot initiatives in California (Proposition 37) and Washington State (Initiative 522) and legislative actions in at least 20 other states that would require labeling of GM foods, the Rutgers study found that only about a quarter (26 percent) of Americans realize that current regulations do not require GM products to be labeled.”

          So if more than 50% don’t even know what they are, how is that 93% relevant?

        6. This was an on line survey not a poll. It was conducted over 9 months ago. Even then it shows 73% of the people surveyed want GMO ingredients in the food supply labeled.

          he rest of your comment just shows us that you are spinning the corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry agenda driven argument which has nothing to do with the truth.

        7. “..the corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry agenda..”
          Yup, that sounds like a valid argument to me.

        8. I wonder how many people would like a “Grown in Animal Feces” label. I bet i could get far more than 90% of people to agree with that.

  10. As the article states “It also suggests that voluntary labeling through programs like the Non-GMO Project already provides a voluntary method for consumers to select foods that don’t contain GMOs.”
    It is true that we have a means to know that a food does not contain GMO’s but these foods are always more expensive. So in essence if you live on a Walmart budget then the answer is unequivocally no. You as the consumer do not have a choice. I myself would love to by Oreo’s and Cheerio’s and all that other good stuff but it doesn’t seem safe anymore. Therefore I am forced to turn away products that I was always quite fond of. People should be able to enjoy food that it is not over the top expensive while enjoying the foods that many people grew up on but hadn’t always been made with GMO.

    1. Not sure where you got the idea that foods without GMO were more expensive.
      If foods don’t contain Corn meal or Soy Protein, they are GMO free and not more expensive because of that fact. That would include virtually all the fresh fruit and vegetables in the store, all your meat and dairy, all your canned veggies, beans, rice, tomato sauces, all your breads (Wheat, Rye or Barley are not GMO), eggs, berries and nuts.
      Recently GM made a slight alteration in the source of its Corn Starch and dropped a few vitamins (made with GMO technology) and added a GMO Free label, but didn’t change the price.

        1. Warren, they get to their supposed high percent of foods that contain GMO by including the following:
          GMO derived vitamins
          Sugar derived from GMO Sugar beets
          HFCS derived from GMO corn
          Corn Starch derived from GMO corn
          Oils derived from GMO crops (Corn, Soy and Canola)
          Cheese that was made using GMO derived rennet
          So even though there are NO unique GMO proteins in any of the above, and are indeed chemically identical to the same product made from conventional crops, they insist that these are ALSO GMO.
          Thus boosting the number to the 80+% range of PACKAGED/PROCESSED foods.

          They want to try to sell this high number to help convince people its a problem.

          But if you are actually trying to avoid the two unique GMO proteins the story is quite a bit different.

          Go down the fresh produce isle.
          There is about a 10% chance that sweet corn will be GMO and a much smaller chance that some summer squash might be GMO, otherwise no GMOs

          Go down the Fruit, nut and berry isle.
          unless there are some Papayas from Hawaii there are no GMOs.

          Go down the Milk, Dairy and Egg Isle.
          Except for the Soy Milk and Tofu, no GMOs

          Head up the isle with canned vegetables, beans, tomato sauces, pastas, rice and oils.
          Except for a slight chance of some GMOs in the canned corn, no GMOs.

          No you check out the potato chips, peanuts and wheat based crackers, none of these are GMO, the only thing on this isle will be corn chips and tortilla chips. None in the soft drinks, fruit juices, trail mixes, nuts or candy.

          Now up the flours, sugars, canned fruit, pickles and condiment aisle.
          No GMOs here except for the Corn Meal, Grits and Soy Sauce.

          Now to the cereal isle, and you will find some GMOs in Corn Flakes, but the Oat and Wheat based cereals are not.

          Go up to the Bread isle.
          No GMOs in the breads.

          Then over to the Seafood section.
          No GMO in the fish or shellfish.

          Then over to the Meat section.
          No GMO in the Beef, Pork, Chicken or Lamb section.

          No GMO in the Bacon or Sausage section, or prepackaged sliced meats.

          So in the ENTIRE store, with well over 1,000 products, there are only a small handful that contain GMO, and easy to avoid if you really want to.

          Ok, so no go over to any of the many fast food places:

          Well guess what, fast food is also LOW in GMOs

          Hamburger and Hotdog Buns are Wheat, not corn, and wheat is not GMO
          The primary proteins, Beef, Chicken and Fish are not GMO
          The primary starch besides the bun, Potatoes are not GMO
          Oil for frying is refined and has no GMO proteins so is identical to that from Non-GMO sources
          Sugar or HFCS is refined and has no GMO proteins and so is identical to that from Non-GMO sources, so none of the drinks served contain GMO.
          Condiments used, ketchup, mustard, pickles, Mayo, hot sauce, contain no GMO proteins.
          The little amount of produce used, mainly Lettuce, tomatoes, Onions and Pickles are not GMO

          In fact the ONLY GMO you are likely to find is Corn Taco shells, the also popular wheat based tortillas however are not GMO.

          As usual when dealing with the Anti-GMO crowd, the reality rarely matches their assertions.

        2. I found this one rather amusing, considering that they are one of the platforms of many “Gnu Age” “health consultants” and the like: “..Go down the Milk, Dairy and Egg Isle.
          Except for the Soy Milk and Tofu, no GMOs..”

        3. The Vermont label law only requires food made from GMO plants to be labeled.

          The rest of the argument you and Arthur are trying to spin here is just a distraction to change the subject.

          Typical corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry operative behavior here and other places.

        4. FALSE:

          (3) “Food” means food intended for human consumption.

          4) “Genetic engineering” is a process by which a food is produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed by: (then the methods of GE are listed)

          food offered for sale by a retailer after July 1, 2016 shall be labeled as produced entirely or in part from
          genetic engineering if it is a product:
          (1) offered for retail sale in Vermont; and
          (2) entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering.

          NO mention of only by GMO Plants.

        5. If anyone believes this GMO pesticide industry spin then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. ;)

          Arthur shows us again the way he is willing to spin and use half truths to lie to us again.


    “We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.”

    Keywords: GMO, toxicity, GM corn, rat, NK 603, MON 810, MON 863
    Yes Bt crops are registered with the EPA….

    ARTHUR WROTE: “Bt Corn is not an EPA registered pesticide.The Bt protein is ONLY a toxin to a few caterpillars, not to humans (or indeed any other mammals), nor is the protein in any way “un-natural”.


    ARTHUR WORKS FOR Monsanto….

    1. Bt crops are registered with the EPA.

      They are NOT registered as a pesticide.

      As to that Seralini paper, it has been thoroughly debunked:

      (It was NOT a study, but a poor analysis of an actual study that proved that the corn was safe)

      European Food Safety Authority Analyzes and Dismisses the new Seralini Paper

      GMO Panel deliberations on the paper by de Vend�mois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726) – EFSA/GMO/578 � part of the Minutes 55th Plenary Meeting of the GMO Panel Adopted part of the minutes1 of the 55th plenary meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms held on 27-28 January 2010 to be published at

      The EFSA GMO Panel has considered the paper by de Vend�mois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726), a statistical reanalysis of data from three 90-day rat feeding studies already assessed by the GMO Panel (EFSA, 2003a,b; EFSA 2004a,b; EFSA 2009b,c). The GMO Panel concludes that the authors� claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity, are not supported by the data provided in their paper. There is no new information that would lead it to reconsider its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603, which concluded that there were no indications of adverse effects for human, animal health and the environment.

      The GMO Panel notes that several of its fundamental statistical criticisms (EFSA, 2007a,b) of the authors’ earlier study (Seralini et al., 2007) of maize MON863 are also applicable to the new paper by de Vend�mois et al. In the GMO Panel’s extensive evaluation of Seralini et al. (2007), reasons for the apparent excess of significant differences found for MON863 (8%) were given and it was shown that this raised no safety concerns. The percentage of variables tested reported by de Vend�mois et al. that were significant for NK603 (9%) and MON810 (6%) were of similar magnitude to that for MON863.

      The GMO Panel considers that de Vend�mois et al.: (1) make erroneous statements concerning the use of reference varieties to provide estimates of variability that allow equivalence testing to place statistically significant results into biological context as advocated by EFSA (2008, 2009a); (2) do not use the available information concerning normal background variability between animals fed with different diets, to place observed differences into biological context; (3) do not present results using their False Discovery Rate methodology in a meaningful way; (4) give no evidence to relate well known gender differences in response to diet to claims of effects due to the respective GMOs; (5) estimate statistical power based on inappropriate analyses and magnitudes of difference.

      The significant differences highlighted by de Vend�mois et al. have all been considered previously by the GMO Panel in its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603. The study by de Vend�mois et al. provides no new evidence of toxic effects. The approach used by de Vend�mois et al. does not allow a proper assessment of the differences claimed between the GMOs and their respective counterparts for their toxicological relevance because: (1) results are presented exclusively in the form of percentage differences for each variable, rather than in their actual measured units; (2) the calculated values of the toxicological parameters tested are not related to the normal range for the species concerned; (3) the calculated values of the toxicological parameters tested are not compared with ranges of variation found in test animals fed with diets containing different reference varieties; (4) the statistically significant differences did not show consistency patterns over endpoint variables and doses; (5) the inconsistencies between the purely statistical arguments of de Vend�mois et al., and the results for these three animal feeding studies which relate to organ pathology, histopathology and histochemistry, are not addressed.

      Regarding claims made by de Vend�mois et al. concerning the inadequacy of the experimental design of these three animal feeding studies, the GMO Panel notes that they were all carried out to agreed internationally-defined standards consistent with OECD protocols.

      1. More corrupt GMO pesticide industry spin and cut and paste talking points.

        Arthur is just doing his best to perform in his role as a disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative here.

        By now hopefully all can see the role he plays here to conspire to keep pesticide laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our kids.


    Most Americans remain blissfully unaware (or don’t care) they are eating genetically-modified (GM) organisms every day. Passivity and blind faith in the USDA, FDA and EPA have largely contributed to this attitude. Perhaps that will change now that a new studyreveals an insecticide produced in GM corn actually gets absorbed into the human body. If you haven’t been paying attention to your food lately, biotechnology giants such as Monsanto thank you for that. Because behind your back, they’ve succeeded in replacing 86% of US cornwith their patented insecticide-producing “frankencorn”.

    The industry name for this is “Bt corn” and the insecticide is actually produced inside the plant, so it is impossible to wash it off. This is accomplished by inserting genes from the bacteria Bacillus Thuringiensis into the corn.

    Up until now, scientists and multinational corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont have spent billions in lobbying, campaign donations and “testing” in an attempt to convince world governments that GMOs are safe. In the case of Bt corn, they stated the insecticide produced within the corn posed no danger to human health because it was broken down in the digestive system.

    Despite corporate assurances, many have been skeptical. Non-GMO advocates such as Jeffrey Smith fromThe Institute For Responsible Technology and the Organic Consumers Association have long been concerned about the potential impact this Bt toxin could have on human health.

    Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, proved the validity of these concerns when they detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of both pregnant and non-pregnant women. They also detected the toxin in fetal blood, suggesting that the toxin can be passed on to the fetus. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology.

    Neither the women studied or their spouses worked in agriculture. All reported to be consuming a typical Canadian diet that is virtually identical to the American diet.“Generated data will help regulatory agencies responsible for the protection of human health to make better decisions”, said researchers Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc.

    Unfortunately, I don’t feel that our pro-GMO Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack will pay attention to this research. I also doubt that our Deputy Commissioner of Foods Michael Taylor, who also happens to be Monsanto’s former vice-president, will pay this study much attention either. It doesn’t stop there. The revolving door is growing exponentially and the foxes have taken up residence in the hen house.Are you pissed? You should be. We’ve let corporate interests turn us into poison-fed lab rats. It doesn’t end at corn either. 93% of both soy and canola are also genetically-modified. On top of that, Monsanto has acres of laboratories containing new mutant species awaiting to slip into your pantry. You’re probably wearing some of their Bt cotton right now. It comprises 93% of US cotton and 68% of Chinese cotton.Perhaps you’ve heard of the uproar around Bt brinjal, a GM variety of eggplant, in India. When it was approved in 2009, a country-wide protest began and the Indian government applied a moratorium on its release.

    Meanwhile, here in the US, GMO crops are getting approved left and right and most Americans still don’t even know what “GMO” even means.Want to do something about it? We can’t rely on our regulatory agencies to do it for us and we possess more power than we think. It won’t take much to reach the tipping point of consumer rejection and get these “frankenfoods” out of our lives. Information spreads like wildfire these days with Facebook, Twitter and email. Tell your family and friends and vote with your dollar, the world’s food supply depends on it! Now that you know, it’s your responsibility to pass it on.

    1. GM lobbyists are claiming
      it doesn’t matter if the Bt toxin is turning up in people’s blood
      because the Bt toxin is natural, known to be harmless to humans, and has
      been safely used for decades in agriculture in the form of natural
      insecticidal sprays, including in organic farming. In addition, they
      say, Bt crops have been tested and approved as safe.

      But the Bt
      toxin produced in GM crops is not the same as the natural Bt toxin. The
      process of genetic engineering changes it (as is admitted even by the pro-GM website GMO Safety). And testing is not actually performed on the Bt toxin extracted from GM plants, which would be the scientific way, as it is claimed that it is too expensive to isolate. Instead, testing is done on Bt toxin isolated from E. coli bacteria (as is the norm for GM risk assessments). The protein would be different from that present in the actual GM crop.

      Bt toxins are engineered into plants with promoters designed to keep
      the Bt toxin protein expressing in every cell of the plant. The Bt is
      ingested by animals and people who consume crop plants like Bt maize.
      The natural Bt used in agricultural sprays, by contrast, degrades
      rapidly in daylight and does not end up being eaten by people, so it is
      unlikely to ever end up in consumers’ bodies.

      This is fortunate because even natural Bt can cause harm when ingested. While the GM lobbying website, GMO Safety, claims,
      “the Bt protein is harmless to mammals and humans”, in fact, studies
      show that natural Bt toxin has ill effects on laboratory animals,
      producing a potent immune response and enhancing the immune response to
      other substances:

      1. The Bt “toxin” is simply a protein to us.
        It is only toxic to caterpillars and then only because they have an ALKALINE digestive system.
        But even if you don’t believe that, tests reveal that the Bt expression product cryIA(b) is only a small portion of MON809 plant protein.
        In MON809, cryIA(b) makes up 1.63, 0.55, and 1.23 µg/g of leaf, grain, and whole plant tissue, respectively.

        So, since we only eat the grain, we are looking at 0.55 µg/g for the Bt protein.

        OR 1/2,000,000th of the part of the plant we eat.

        And we know how much corn we actually eat:

        USDA – Profiling Food Consumption in America (data from 2000)
        Total grain products 200 lbs per person
        Wheat flour 146 lbs
        Corn products 28 lbs per year
        Rice 20
        Soy doesn’t make the list.

        So we eat but 28 lbs of corn per year per person and the GMO Bt proteins represent 1/2,000,000th of the weight of the corn, so that works out to 0.004 grams per month.
        Wouldn’t matter WHAT toxin it was, at 0.004 grams per month it wouldn’t hurt you.

        Now consider all the AILMENTS that are attributed to this 0.004 grams per month of GMO protein.

        Hard to believe that any rational person would believe that such a tiny quantity of these NON-TOXIC proteins could have the impacts ascribed to it by the anti-GMO fanatics.

        1. The Smartstax corn trait isn’t for human consumption, it is used in field corn for animal feed and industrial purposes.

        2. So?
          It has one extra Cry protein to combat Corn Earworm.
          It has 3 extra Cry proteins, but they are only expressed in the ROOTS of the plant, to suppress Corn Rootworm.
          The amounts are the same as before, so the amounts of Bt proteins, which are totally non-toxic to animals, again remain at infinitesimal amounts.

        3. **natural Bt toxin has ill effects on laboratory animals,
          producing a potent immune response and enhancing the immune response to
          other substances:*What part of that don’t you understand,Arthur?Non-toxic,my foot! Don’t forget the Bt toxins produced in the plant HAVE NEVER BEEN SAFETY TESTED!

        4. What I know is you quote bogus studies with no name.
          Got proof?
          Post it.
          Because Bt Corn and Soy have been the mainstay of our agricultural feed supply for well over a decade with no evidence of any toxicity.
          You must REALLY think farmers are TOO STUPID to notice this, while you sitting typing behind your computer are absolutely convinced.

        5. Really, Arthur, Patzagame has posted nothing but good reliable scientific information, just because it doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry’s craven agenda doesn’t mean it’s bogus.

          Disingenuous Corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives will call any study that doesn’t support their corrupt agenda bogus.

        6. Nope, he posted not a single reference to a study.
          Assertion does not a fact make.

        7. Uhm.. good.. reliable.. no, not really. I researched a lot of what he posted, and could find nothing to confirm what most of what he said. He has posted no cites, no studies, no research links. In fact a lot of what he posted – if you Google it – comes cut and pasted from anti_GMO sites.

        8. More corrupt GMO pesticide industry talking points Arthur.

          Monarch Butterflies start out as caterpillars and many scientists think bt corn with it’s bt pollen and habitat loss from poisonous glyphosate/Roundup is what they are dying from.

        9. They may start out as caterpillars Ted, but their ONLY food is the MILKWEED plant.
          They don’t eat ANYTHING ELSE.
          So NO, it is not related to the Bt in Corn or Soy or Canola.
          Its due to the lack of MILKWEED.
          Want to help out the Monarch, then plant some Milkweed
          I have.
          How about you?

    2. So TZena has sunk so low as to quoting a former Flying Yogic instructor.


      As to the claim about Bt in the blood, notice TZena left off the names of the scientists involved. This is purely to make it more difficult to vet the claim.


      Because the claim is baseless.

      This comment focuses on the claim by Aris and Leblanc that CryAb1 toxin was detected. In short, they used an incorrect method and an incorrect standard.

      The ELISA kit used by Aris and Leblanc to detect Bt was made by a company called Agdia. The kit was created and tested to detect Bt in plant tissues (Agdia doesn’t make any kits for animal tissues). This is potentially a problem because a kit that is not tested on mammalian tissues might cross-react with proteins found in mammals that aren’t found in plants, giving a false positive result. ELISA methods have been developed for Cry proteins in mammalian blood, but these methods have had varying success.

      German researchers developed an ELISA method for cows’ blood, which was able to detect Cry proteins in blood that was spiked with the protein. They did not find any significant difference between cows that had been fed Bt and conventional maize for a two month period, and all values detected in all cows’ blood were less than 1.5 ng/mL. Paul V, 2008

      Aris and Leblanc did cite a paper that showed fragments and intact Bt protein could be detected with ELISA in the gastrointestinal tract (not in blood). Aris and Leblanc did not mention that the researchers found that Bt was probably digested in cattle, and suggested that a different method besides ELISA should be used to confirm presence of Cry protein. Lutz B, 2005

      Aris and Leblanc also cited a paper that used ELISA to detect Cry protein in pigs. ELISA, immunochromatography, and immunoblot were sucessful in detecting Cry protein fragments in the gastrointestinal tract. Aris and Leblanc did not mention that the researchers did not detect any Cry protein in blood with any of these methods. Chowdhury EH, 2003

      In addition to using an incorrect method to detect Cry proteins in blood, Aris and Leblanc also used an incorrect standard. Aris and LeBlanc created Cry protein solutions of 0.1 to 10 ng/mL. In Table 2, they report that a a range of 0 to 1.50 ng/mL was detected in maternal blood and 0 to 0.14 was detected in fetal cord blood. The mean and SD for maternal was 0.19 ng/mL ± 0.30 and for fetal was 0.04 ± 0.04 ng/mL. Ideally, test values will be in the middle of a standard curve. Any values outside or at the edges of of the standard curve may be false positives. Aris and Leblanc could have confirmed their results with a Western blot or any number of other methods, but they did not.
      As to Michael Taylor, again trying to smear him by innuendo.
      Michael left Monsanto because he didn’t agree with them on labeling.

      Are you against HACCP that he implemented while at the USDA?

      Are you against the current project he is spearheading at the FDA, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)

      1. More spin and misdirection, Arthur.

        Apparently you think you can make points by mocking the spiritual practices of someone who’s work doesn’t support the disingenuous corrupt cherry picked GMO pesticide in pseudo-science.

        The rest of your comment is just more cut and paste GMO pesticide industry talking points.

        1. Since when is being a “flying yogic” instructor SPIRITUAL?

          Its a SHAM.
          Always has been a SHAM
          Always will be a SHAM.

        2. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to hear this from a devil worshiper like you Arthur.


    3. “..Passivity and blind faith..”. I see this every day on the anti-biotech and anti-gmo sites. Many are still quoting statements and articles that have been proven false many times over, yet they continue to have “blind faith” in their anti-science beliefs.

      1. Disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative will always claim that GMO opponents web sites and articles have been proved false.

        FACT is that any source of information that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry will be called false by disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives. Warren has demonstrated that again for us here.


    “Myths about pesticides are a testimony to the power of advertising, marketing and lobbying. The big pesticide corporations, like big tobaccoand the oil industry, have systematically manufactured doubt about the science behind pesticides and fostered the myth that their products are essential to life as we know it — and harmless if “used as directed”.

    The book Merchants of Doubt calls it the “Tobacco Strategy” — orchestratedPR and legal campaigns to deny the evidence, often using rogue scientists to invent controversy around so-called “junk science” to denyeverything from cancer-causing second-hand smoke to global warming to the hazards of DDT. Here are eight of the seemingly plausible myths we hear every day:Pesticides are necessary to the feed the world

    Pesticides aren’t that dangerous

    The dose makes the poison

    The government is protecting us

    GMOs reduce reliance on pesticides

    We’re weaning ourselves off of pesticides

    Pesticides are the answer to global climate change

    We need DDT to end malaria, combat bedbugs, etc.

    Myth #1: Pesticides are necessary to the feed the worldReality: The most comprehensive analysis of world agriculture to date tells us that what can feed the world — what feeds most of the world now, in fact — is smaller-scale agriculture that does not rely on pesticides.

    More to the point, hunger in an age of plenty isn’t a problem of production (or yields, as the pesticide industry claims), efficiency or even distribution. It is a matter of priorities. If we were serious about feeding people we wouldn’t grow enough extra grains to feed 1/3 of the world’s hungry and then pour them into gas tanks. Dow,Monsanto, Syngenta and other pesticide producers have marketed their products as necessary to feed the world. Yet as insecticide use increased in the U.S. by a factor of 10 in the 50 years following World War II, crop losses almost doubled. Corn is illustrative: in place of crop rotations, most acreage was planted year after year only with corn.

    Despite more than a 1000-fold increase in use of organophosphate insecticides, crop losses to insects rose from 3.5% to 12% (D. Pimental and M. Pimental, 2008).

    Myth #2: Pesticides aren’t that dangerous

    Reality: Pesticides are dangerousby design. They are engineered to cause death. And harms to human health are very well documented, with children especially at risk. Just afew examples recently in the news:An entire class of pesticides (organophosphates) has been linked to higher rates of ADHD in children.The herbicide atrazine, found in 94% of our water supply, has been linked to birth defects, infertility and cancer.Women exposed to the pesticide endosulfan during pregnancy are more likely to have autistic children.Girls exposed to DDT before puberty are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer.

    A large and growing body of peer-reviewed, scientific studies document that pesticides are harmful to human health. The environmental harms of pesticides are also clear, from male frogs becoming females after exposure, to collapsing populations of bats and honeybees.

    Myth #3: The dose makes the poisonReality: If one were exposed to an extremely small amount ofone ingredient of a pesticide at a time, and it was a chemical of relatively low toxicity, it might pose little danger. That’s unfortunately an unlikely scenario. First, pesticide products typically contain several potentially dangerous ingredients (including so-called ‘inerts’ not listed on the label). Second, we’re all exposed to a cocktail of pesticides in our air, water, food and on the surfaces we touch, andcombinations of chemicals can interact to be more toxic than any one ofthem acting alone. Third, many pesticides are endocrine disruptors — which if the timing is “right” can do lifechanging damageto the human body with extremely low doses that interfere with the delicate human hormone system. Finally, the research considered when reviewing a pesticide is funded and conducted by the corporations marketing the product, leading to distortion of findings.

    Myth #4: The government is protecting usReality: Our regulatory system is not doing the job. More than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied every year on U.S. farms, forests, golf courses and lawns, farmworkers and rural communities suffer illness throughout the spray season and beyond, and infants around the world are born with a mixture of pesticidesand other chemicals in their bodies. “The prevailing regulatory approach in the United States is reactionary rather than precautionary,”concluded the President’s Cancer Panel in May 2010, “instead of requiring industry…to prove their safety, the public bears the burden ofproving that a given environmental exposure is harmful.

    ”The cornerstone of pesticide regulation is a fundamentally flawed process of “risk assessment” that cannot begin to capture the realities of pesticide exposure and the health hazards they pose. EPA officials remain reliant on research data submitted by pesticide manufacturers,who do everything they can to drag out reviews of their products, often for decades. Lawsuits are pending to force EPA to follow the law and speed up review. But a better, common sense precautionary approach to protecting us would assess alternatives to highly hazardous pesticides rather than accepting public exposure to pesticides as a necessary evil. Such a shift will require fundamental federal policy reform.

    Myth #5: GMOs reduce reliance on pesticidesReality: Genetically modified organisms are driving pesticide use, and no surprise: the biggest GMO seed sellers are the pesticide companiesthemselves. The goal of introducing GMO seed is simple: increase corporate control of global agriculture. More than 80% of GMO crops grown worldwide are designed to tolerate increased herbicide use, not reduce pesticide use.Monsanto, the world leader in patented engineered seed, would have usbelieve that its GMOs increase yields, will reduce environmental impactand mitigate climate change, and that farmers use fewer pesticides whenthey plant the company’s seeds. None of this is true. On average, Monsanto’s biotech seeds reduce yield. In 2009, Monsanto admitted thatits “Bollguard” GMO cotton attracted pink bollworm — the very pest it was designed to control — in areas of Gujarat, India’s primary cotton-growing state. Introduced in 1996, Monsanto’s Bollguard seeds — which include toxic traits from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) — now account for half the cotton grown worldwide. InIndia, the productivity of Bt cotton has fallen while pesticide costs have risen almost 25%, contributing to the tragic epidemic of suicide byIndia’s debt-ridden farmers.In 2009, 93% of U.S. GMO soybeans and 80% of GMO corn were grown from Monsanto’s patented seeds. “RoundUp Ready” corn and soybeans were designed for use with Monsanto’s weed killer, and mostly they feed animals and cars, not people. Now that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to RoundUp, Dow and Monsanto are introducing GMO corn that includes tolerance of 2,4-D, a more dangerous herbicide related to AgentOrange used in Viet Nam.

    Myth #6: We’re weaning ourselves off of pesticidesReality: After 20 years of market stagnation, the pesticide industry entered a period of vigorous growth in 2004. The global pesticide market is approximately $40 billion, and expected to grow at almost 3% per year, reaching $52 billion by 2014. About 80% of the market is for agricultural uses, but non-agricultural sales and profit margins are growing faster, driven by the rise of a global middleclass adopting chemically reliant lawns and landscapes. In addition, the industry strategy of promoting GMO seeds, most of which are engineered to tolerate higher applications of herbicides, has driven increased sales of weed killers.

    Myth #7: Pesticides are the answer to global climate changeReality: Multinational corporations are working hard to increase market share by exploiting climate change as a sales opportunity. As of 2008, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, BASF and others had filed 532 patents for “climate-related genes,” touting the imminent arrival of a new generation of seeds engineered to withstand heat and drought. Their approach will further restrict the age-old practice of farmers saving seeds with desirable traits — a practice thatmay prove even more important as the climate changes in unpredictable ways and demands more, not less, farm-scale diversity. In fact, evidenceis showing that sustainable farming provides important solutionsto climate change, with systems that create far fewer greenhouse gases, promote on-farm biodiversity and create carbon sinks to offset warming.

    Despite this latest gene-grab, none of these companies has yet been able to engineer any kind of yield-increasing or “climate-ready” seeds. Their promises to end world hunger through drought-, heat- and salt-tolerant seeds and crops with enhanced nutrition have proven empty.

    Myth #8: We need DDT to end malaria, combat bedbugs, etc.Reality: The recent resurgence of bedbugs has nothing to do with the 1972 ban of DDT. Bedbugs, like many mosquitos, are resistant to DDT — and they were decades ago when DDT was still in use. In some cases DDT even makes bedbug infestations worse, since instead of killingthem it just irritates them, making them more active. DDT had been abandoned as a solution to malaria in the U.S. long before it was bannedfor agriculture use, and around the world practitioners on the ground battling the deadly disease report that DDT is less effective in controlling malaria than many other tools. A small cadre of advocatescontinue to aggressively promote widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, bedbugs — even West Nile Virus — despite it’s lack of effectiveness and growing evidence of human health harms, even at low levels of exposure.”

    1. Notice none of those claims track back to a reference.
      The one that does, tracks back to a book, not a scientific journal.
      I’d spend lots of time debunking the points, but Reality debunks them better than I could.
      GMOs wouldn’t be growing at 6% per year global growth rate if they didn’t provide the benefits farmers are looking for, either the same yield for less pesticide use (as in the US) or higher yield without additional pesticide use (as in the Philippines).
      One of the interesting semantic tricks in this diatribe is to use the generic term pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.
      GMO crops generally allow farmers to switch from more toxic herbicides (like Atrazine) to use of the LEAST TOXIC herbicide ever invented, glyphosate and a significant reduction of insecticide use, compared to conventional crops.
      That’s why farmers pay more for the seed.

        1. Uhm.. “Expert”??. I think not. “..This study was authored by two veteran anti-biotech campaigners, Judy Carman and Howard Vlieger, and was published in an obscure online journal financed by the organic industry. It reaches conclusions that are diametrically opposed to the great preponderance of the scientific evidence gathered from hundreds of independent food and feed safety studies that found no difference in between animals fed GMO or non-GMO diets…”.

        2. Mark Lynas is a known GMO pesticide industry hack. People would be well advised to look for a more honest source of information than the link here if they care about the health and well being of their families.

        3. I would point out to people that don’t know that Mark Lynas is the man who STARTED the anti-GMO movement.

        4. His main statement is that “he discovered real science”. But the fact that it took him over two decades to figure that out does not bode well for convincing any of the True Believers.

        5. That is a lie.

          The GMO pesticide industry operatives always make that claim, but he was just member of Greenpiece, a writer who sold out his integrity for GMO pesticide industry dollars.

        6. This study subjects animals to inhumanely poor conditions resulting in health impacts which can then be data-mined to present ‘evidence’ against GMO feeds. Most damning of all, close to 60% of both sets of pigs were suffering from pneumonia at the time of slaughter, a classic indicator of bad husbandry. Had they not been slaughtered, all these pigs might well have died quickly anyway. No conclusions can be drawn from this study, except for one, that there should be tighter controls on experiments performed on animals by anti-biotech campaigners, for the sake of animal welfare.

          The study came out in Journal of Organic Systems’, but this journal does not appear in PubMed, and is a “bring your own reviewer” version, so the paper has NOT been through peer review. The sponsors of this journal is the Organic Federation of Australia.

          As to the authors of the study we have Judy Carman, a long-time anti-biotech campaigner, with a website called ‘GMOJudyCarman‘, which says it is supported by The other author was Howard Vlieger, who is president and co-founder of Verity Farms, a US ‘natural foods’ outfit which markets non-GMO grain.

          Read the study and you will find that weaner mortality was reported as 13% and 14% in GM-fed and non-GM fed groups, which they claim is “within expected rates for US commercial piggeries”

          NO it is not.

          Then Table 3 actually shows that many more pigs fed non-GMO feed had stomach inflammations than those with GMO feed. So 31 non-GM pigs had ‘mild’ inflammation, while only 23 GM pigs had it. For ‘moderate’ inflammation, a GMO diet again seemed to be beneficial: 29 non-GM pigs had moderate inflammation of the stomach, while 18 had it. So that’s 40% vs 25%.

          So do Carman et al perform a test for statistical significance to see if GMO feed has a protective effect on pigs stomachs? Of course not. because that’s not the result they are after and these findings are ignored.

          For ‘severe’ inflammation 9 non-GM pigs were determined to have it, while 23 GM-fed pigs had it. But what is actually obvious is that the data is all over the place from the previous results, which also rule out any causal mechanism with GMO feed.
          If GMO feed is causing the severe inflammation, why is the non-GMO feed causing far more mild to moderate inflammation? It’s clearly just chance (and of course the determination of severe vs moderate is highly subjective), and all the pigs are not doing well and suffering stomach problems since about 60% of both sets of pigs had stomach erosion.

          “Dr. Robert Friendship, a professor in the Department of Population Medicine at the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph and a swine health management
          specialist, reviewed the paper He concluded that ‘it was incorrect for the researchers to conclude that one group had more stomach inflammation than the other group
          because the researchers did not examine stomach inflammation. They did a visual scoring of the colour of the lining of the stomach of pigs at the abattoir and misinterpreted redness to indicate evidence of inflammation. It does not. They would have had to take a tissue sample and prepare histological slides and examine these samples for evidence of inflammatory response such as white blood cell infiltration and other changes to determine if there was inflammation. There is no relationship between the colour of the stomach in the dead, bled-out pig at a slaughter plant and inflammation. The researchers should have included a veterinary pathologist on their team and this mistake would not have happened. They found no difference between the two experimental groups in pathology that can be determined by gross inspection.’

          Is there NOTHING you won’t believe Ted?

        7. More of your cut and paste GMO pesticide industy spin Arthur.

          Fortunately most people here will see it for what it is, which is more GMO pesticide industry spin, talking points, misinformation, or corrupt agenda driven GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science.

        8. Nope
          Just fact and rebuttal by actual scientists.
          Which is why Carmen’s study never made it to an actual peer reviewed journal.

        9. Of boy, the Judy Carmen pig torture trials.
          What fun.
          Is there NO LEVEL you won’t stoop to TZena?

        10. More spin, Arthur.

          Judy Carmen’s work is highly respected among real honest scientists.

          GMO pesticide industry operatives always dismiss any science that doesn’t support the cherry picked corrupt GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science.

          You agenda to spin, misdirect, confuse, and deceive has been noted time after time, Arthur.

      1. The latest from Professor Séralini:Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.

        1. Means nothing since this was a test where they put ROUND-UP in a CELL CULTURE.
          Of course it was toxic.
          Luckily we don’t get it that way.
          Which is why when we feed Maternal rats 200 mg/kg per day of Glyphosate, and do it for 90 days, it has NO OBSERVABLE EFFECTS on them.
          And they were the most sensitive species tested.
          And that amount was used to set the Maximum Allowable intake level for humans, at 1/100th that NOEL limit, or but 2 mg/kg per day.
          Then using THAT limit, of 2 mg/kg per day, the maximum allowances for our produce were set based on the assumption that that was not to be exceeded by someone eating an entire diet consisting of food at the maximum allowable levels.
          That has resulted in someone having to eat an average of ~60 lbs of average produce a day to exceed 2 mg/kg per day.

        2. Glyphosate/Roundup causes cancer at concentrations of part per trillion. Just because you disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative spin to convince us that laboratory conditions don’t count doesn’t mean it’s not true.

          People who are concerned about the glyphosate/Roundup soaked GMOs hidden in the food supply would be well advised to avoid them to protect the health of their families and loved ones.

        3. Link or cite please. You keep tossing those “facts” but have yet to provide one single link or cite of an actual scientific study. In other words, we are supposed take your word for “on faith”.

        4. If this request came from someone asking with integrity I would oblige, but I learned long ago to avoid throwing pearls in front of swine.

        5. You can repeat that lie all you want Ted, but it’s pointless.
          The EPA would not allow its use as the most widely used herbicide, including selling it in every garden shop in the US if that were true. Nor would the rest of the world allow its use. But they do.

        6. The EPA shouldn’t allow it. Unfortunately many of our institutions have been corrupted by the very companies they are supposed to be regulating.

          The subject is actually in play at the EPA right now, but smart people will not hold their breath.

        7. Well its up for its normal review, but there is no suggestion by anyone that its status will change.

        8. “.. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests..”
          Or it “may” be attributed to aliens, the Illuminati, Chinese agents, or any number of other things. You have been overusing that “may be” phrase, apparently with the intention of posing it to mean “probable”.

        9. What are you babbling about?

          What does this have to do with the GMO pesticide food-like products industry’s lawsuit to overturn the popular Vermont law that require GMOs in the food supply to be labeled?

        10. The problem is what they are calling GMO’s. The way the law reads, even bags of sugar that have no trace of any GMO anything in them.

        1. So?

          Lots of foods mimic Estrogen.

          Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer,

          So it does NOT induce breast cancer, but if you have breast cancer of the form that is sensitive to Estrogen it could increase the growth. Except a woman’s OWN estrogen would FAR exceed the minimal effect of glyphosate.

        2. Glyphosate/Roundup causes breast cancer at part per trillion concentrations according to published studies. All you corrupt GMO pesticide industry spin and lies are just spin and lies and do nothing to change the facts.

        3. Ted, INDUCING GROWTH in EXISTING Cancer cells is NOT the same as CAUSING cancer.
          Glyphosate is NOT a carcinogen at ANY level.

        4. All the corrupt disingenuous Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives say that so no one should be surprised to hear it from you, Arthur, but you are lying again, and anyone can look at the study that proves you are lying.

        5. Please post a link to those “published studies”, as Google even with it’s awesome powers of the mega-corporation cannot seem to find them.

        6. Round-up cures cancer and kills weeds. What is not to like.
          Stop posting your anti cancer cure websites, do you not care about people, do you want them to all die? are you some kind of sicko? Cancer Troll!!!!!!! Sell your pesticides somewhere else, we want safe and non cancer causing foods.

        7. Great attempt to try and divert attention from TZena’s great link.

          Terrific example of how corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives attempt to divert attention from any facts that don’t support their pseudo-science agenda.

        8. Your Pro-cancer, Anti-technology, Environmentally damaging industry talking points are getting a little bit old. Do you and T work off a script or are you allowed to formulate your own opinions? Does the Organic industry pay you well for your time?

        9. Koch Brother

          What do they have to do with GMOs or Monsanto. I thought they were in the oil business.

  14. “Upon discovery of StarLink corn in processed food, the Federal Government took several steps to ensure the diversion of StarLink from the human food supply. USDA, FDA, and EPA worked to test corn grain for the presence of StarLink and to remove any potentially contaminated corn seeds from the market. Aventis CropSciences has since voluntarily withdrawn its registration for Starlink, and EPA will no longer issue such split registrations for *pesticide products.”

    Arthur WROTE: “Bt crops are registered with the EPA. (True)

    They are NOT registered as a pesticide.(Lie)

    As to that Seralini paper, it has been thoroughly debunked:” (Lie) It is a sound study that was peer reviewed and published…..

    1. Still does not say it is registered as a pesticide.

      StarLink corn was registered for use in animal feed only. EPA did not register the product for human consumption due to unresolved questions concerning StarLink’s potential allergenicity.
      Nothing to do with the Bt.

        1. Well that’s simple Ted.
          Bt is in lots of approved corn, soy and canola varieties and does not have any potential allergenicity.

        2. REALLY????How about a link to those studies,Arthur!And I want the link to the studies of the Bt toxins produced from the plants!

        3. There is almost 100 years of studies on Bt. 0 that say that it is an allergen. should we study it for a couple 100 years again?

        4. GMO bt corn has not been grown for almost a 100 years. Bt in nature is not expressed in every cell of the corn plant including the pollen.

          GMO pesticide industry operative often use half truths like this to create their lies. This comment is a great example of that.

        5. Actually Monsanto GMO corn sales were down 16% last quarter.

          There is no scientific consensus that it is safe.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

        6. Yeah, the 3rd quarter is not a big quarter for corn seed sales and apparently farmers are switching to Soybeans as there is more money to be made.
          So YES, the amount of acres of GMO keeps going up and up and up.

      1. Biopesticides Registration Action Document – Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants

        10/16/2001This version of the Biopesticides Registration Action Document for the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Plant-Incorporated Protectants is dated October 15, 2001. This version corresponds to the version issued on September 29, 2001, with the following changes. The Agency has revised portions of Section I. Overview and Section II. Science Assessment relating to Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins expressed in corn (Bt corn), in light of public comments received as of September 21, 2001. The Agency has also added two new sections entitled: “V. Bt Corn Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of Amended Registration” and “VI. Regulatory Position on Bt Corn.”Table of ContentsOverview (PDF) (50 pp, 339 k, about PDF)Science AssessmentProduct Characterization (PDF) (50 pp, 427 k, about PDF)Human Health Assessment (included in above document)Environmental Assessment (PDF) (109 pp, 804 k, about PDF)Insect Resistance Management (PDF) (153 pp, 804 k, about PDF)Benefits (PDF) (58 pp, 588 k, about PDF)Bt Cotton Confirmatory Data and Terms and Conditions of the Amendment (PDF) (31 pp, 279 k, about PDF)Regulatory Position on Bt Cotton (included in above document)Bt Corn Confirmatory Data and Terms and conditions of the Amendment (30 pp, 573 k, about PDF)Regulatory Position on Bt Corn (included in above document)….. .

  15. “DDT is a pittance, toxicity wise, compared to glyphosate.” Awesome interview by Food Integrity Now with Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue University and internationally recognized scientist. Dr. Huber also discusses his concern with the alarming level of glyphosate recently detected in breast milk. Also scientific explanation of CCD… Must listen!Listen here:

    1. Something apparently only Dr Huber knows about, because the rest of the scientific world that has looked at glyphosate simply doesn’t agree with him on this.
      And of course he presents NO EVIDENCE to back up this statement, but since when has TZena needed EVIDENCE for anything?
      Oh, and NO scientifically run study has found glyphosate in breast milk, that’s another piece of non-science that TZena likes to quote, even though she knows there is no actual scientific basis for the claim.
      What does these two then tell you about her?

      1. You don’t speak for the rest of the scientific world, Arthur.

        Your comment includes lies and disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry spin, misinformation, and nothing else.

        1. Well then how about this, the EU scientists and the EPA both agree with me.
          Nobody but flying yogic instructors and pig torturers agree with you.

        2. There is academic corruption in many places. The EPA is a great example of that.

          That being said, Corrupt institutions don’t make up “the rest of the scientific world” to most of us.

          You FAIL again Arthur

        3. Yeah, the 3rd quarter is not a big quarter for seed sales and apparently farmers are switching to Soybeans as there is more money to be made.
          So YES, the amount of acres of GMO keeps going up and up and up.

        4. The European Union has not been known to be fond of GMO’s, and is pretty unlikely to give them a pass on anything. Yet they refuted in several studies pretty much all of the claims. I think that is known as An Inconvenient Truth.
          But I feel more and more like I am preaching to some Creationist who can provide nothing but circular arguments, clichés, and ad hominem attacks and refuses to even look at or consider any evidence that does not fit their world view.

        5. clichés, and ad hominem attacks and refuses to even look at or consider any evidence that does not fit their world view
          They probably think 9 11 was caused by the chemtrails, funded by big Pharma and orchestrated by the White house that is filled with lizard people. .

        6. Great argument hyperzombie.

          I’m sure everyone here is impressed by your grasp of the facts around this.


        7. Lets stick to the post that we are commenting on here.

          I’ll refresh your corrupt GMO pesticide industry memory, it’s about the lawsuit to try to overturn the law of The State of Vermont which requires GMOs in food to be labeled.

          You spin and opinions about conspiracy theories are just an attempt to divert attention away from the subject of the piece.

        8. So what, that doesn’t support the opinion of the rest of the scientific world.

          Maybe you tools get paid by the word. Just like this comment so many you post here are irreverent to the argument. Just an attempt to change the subject and cloud the issue.

      2. You don’t speak for the rest of the scientific world, Arthur.

        Your comment includes lies and disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry spin, misinformation, and nothing else.

      1. Disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives will always call any honest scientist who’s work doesn’t support the pesticide GMO agenda a kook.

        Dr Huber’s reputation is impeccable. Readers would be wise to check him out for themselves.

      2. Disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives will always call any honest scientist who’s work doesn’t support the pesticide GMO agenda a kook.

        Dr Huber’s reputation is impeccable. Readers would be wise to check him out for themselves.

        1. Disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives will always call any honest scientist who’s work doesn’t support the pesticide GMO agenda a kook.

          Scientist that make extraordinary claims without any evidence are Kooks, and he fits this description to a tee.

          Readers would be wise to check him out for themselves.

          Yeah, do that. and then look for the evidence to back up his claims, Ooops, you can’t because their is none.

        2. His whole scientific career has been studying these issues.

          Only a corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry operative will try to dismiss that fact as evidence of his scholarship.

          Any reader here who need information would be well advised to check it out themselves as these industry tools will always try to confuse and spin the truth when it does not support the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

        3. Once again he has No EVIDENCE, I wouldn’t care if he ways Einstien, he still would have to show his work and provide some evidence.

        4. I suspect families that are concerned about their health might be more inclined to listen to Dr Huber instead of the GMO pesticide industry spin of hyperzombie.


        5. I suspect that families would look at the evidence and not just blindly listen to anyone, me or Dr Huber. Blindly following any ideology, is bad for your families health.

        6. If I had to make the choice I’d go with Dr. Huber, after all he has a long reputation as an honest scientist. Not like the ones who only work on a GMO pesticide industry agenda.

        7. Dr. Huber, has a recent history of making outrageous claims without any supporting evidence. That makes him a very poor choice as a scientist, a little worse than the “Aliens among us/bigfoot lives/anti vax” scientists.

        8. Ya, still have no evidence….5 posts and still nothing. Not one shred of evidence from the ,so called, Dr Huber.
          You got nothing, squat, diddly, zilch.

        9. The only people here asking for “evidence” are the GMO pesticide industry operatives who’s mission it is to discredit Dr Huber. Most real people will recognize his life long contributions to science and his service for his country.

          His work needs no defense as it stands on it’s own and is available for all who look with integrity.

        10. His work needs no defense as it stands on it’s own and is available for all who look with integrity.

          LOL…How can it stand without any evidence? How can you defend the fact that he has no evidence to base his claims on? Should we trust him because of previous work over a decade ago, or cause he looks old?

        11. Dr Huber’s career and his expertise in exactly what he is talking about is all I need.

          GMO pesticide industry operatives will attempt to discredit him and his honest science because it doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

        12. You are probably right. The general population always seems ready to buy into any fear-mongering spokesman or politician rather than actually think. That is why we have things like the Patriot Act and NSA spying – same tactics.

        13. What are you babbling about and what does it have to do with the GMO pesticide industry food industry lawsuit to get Vermont’s law about people’s right to know what they are eating overturned?

        14. “..His whole scientific career has been studying these issues…”
          Not quite. His last real work was in 2002. He may have been reputable once, but in the last 12 years or so he has gone off the deep end.

        15. TRANSLATION: Dr Huber used to be a respected scientist until his work started to conflict with the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

          Now all GMO pesticide industry operatives must try and destroy him to prevent people from finding out how poisonous the GMO pesticide industry agenda is to the health and well being of those who consume the poisons being hidden in their food.

        16. Actually his reputation is FAR from “impeccable”. Even many committed organic farmers are calling him a fear monger, and much worse. He is also the one that claimed to have discovered a “new life form” about a year or two ago, yet has been unable to provide any evidence.

        17. Your record is far from impeccable too, Warren.

          Can you give us a list of any organic farmers other than Mischa Popoff who have called Dr Huber a “fear monger”?

          Sometimes smart people and scientists recognize the wisdom in the saying “don’t throw pearls in front of swine”.

          It’s funny how you and Arthur seem to be cut and pasting from the same talking points, same all caps words and everything. ….. ;)

        18. LOL!

          Rob Wallbridge is another GMO pesticide industry supported farmer like Mischa Popoff. Nether of these tools are considered legitimate organic farmers by real organic farmers.

          His blog is just another attempt to smear Dr. Huber because his science doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda and their pseudo-science.

        19. Nothing moved.

          Warren posted a blog by a corrupt pseudo-organic farmer like the Misha Popoff. None of which are respected by anyone in the organic farming community.

          These guys represent the Monsanto/Koch Brother chair at George Mason University and its economic professor, Richard H. Fink, Executive Vice President of the Koch Industries. This corrupt place is also the home of Jon Entine a known corrupt chemical industry tool and bottom feeder, and head of the Monsanto controlled website Genetic Literacy Project

          No moving goal posts just responding to Warrens bogus post on organic farmers.

        20. Yup. If you give links to proof that something they say is fake, wrong, or false they then claim that any research that refutes their claims are “Monsanto tools”.

      3. “A significant portion of the presentation addressed his [Dr Huber] mystery organism. He allegedly has identified this novel not-quite-a-virus, not-quite-a-fungus plant-animal kingdom-hopping pathogen in 2005, according to his slide. He attributes this organism to widespread plant harm, problems (like abortion) in cattle and a slide of disorders in humans. The audience was amazed, a new infectious agent, probably made in the Monsanto dungeon.”.

        1. You Mean the “EVIL MONSANTO DUNGEON” , you can’t forget the evil part. And the last time i saw a Dr. Huber show, he claimed that it was a prion, a shape shifting one at that.

        2. Lol…biofortified….really….bought and paid for by the very entities that are profiting at the expense of millions of people’s health and our environment!

        3. GMOs will hit ~200 million acres in the US this year.
          Clearly the farmers of America and the Consumers of America realize you are full of manure.

        4. You post a hit piece from the Monsanto controlled biofortified site.

          This sit is another just like Genetic literacy Project controlled by Monsanto and full of spin, misinformation, deception, and agenda driven GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science.

          No serious person looking for honest information would knowing go anywhere near those corrupt industry controlled sites.

        1. no one gets respect from yelling fire when there is none, you get disrespect for that. If he found the shapeshifting virus, share the data with other scientists so we can solve the problem.

        2. Being a veteran does not increase your credibility on subjects outside the military realm.

    2. You really need to vet those guys out before you post links to his videos and praising him. The guy is a nut case. “an organic farmer, penned a post on his blog The Fanning Mill called Deconstructing Don Huber – A Tale of Two Talks. It’s a great read on how Huber is out fear mongering. “He’s undoubtedly done some good, valuable work in his career. But don’t be mistaken – whatever has lead him here, his current path is deceptive, misleading, and irresponsible. Unless and until he can stick to the science and offer solid evidence for his extreme claims, he must be called to account for the way he is scaring people, and his tour of terror must end.”


        Monsanto Begins Smear Campaign on Huber

        Posted by: Paul Tukey Posted date: February 26, 2011 In: Pesticide Toxicity |NOTE:

        This is the second in a two-part series centered around our conversations with Howard Vlieger in the past two weeks, including additional information that has come to light about Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, in the past 48 hours.Bio-Chem Giant Openly Lies About Scientific Studies Concerning Roundup

        AND SO IT BEGINS. Just as Col. Don Huber, among the most trusted military leaders and scientists in the nation, warns us of apotentially lethal soil pathogen related to the weed killer known as Roundup, the effort to discredit him has predictably been launched.

        With Reuters and other major news organizations finally pushing forward on our Feb. 16 story about Huber’s letter to the USDA that warned of spontaneous miscarriage possibly linked to Roundup, the manufacturer Monsanto has posted a rebuttal on its website: “In a January 17, 2011 letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, retired Purdue University professor Don Huber proclaims discovery of a plant pathogen ‘…that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings.’ The letter also alleges this pathogen is more prevalent on herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops. No data was provided nor cited, and no collaborators were identified . . . ”In the next paragraph, Monsanto follows up by acknowledging what a pesky thorn Huber has been, ever since they hired him to research their genetically modified products more than two decades ago.

        “Huber has previously made allegations related to micronutrient uptake and diseases in connection with GM crops and glyphosate products,” said the statement. “Independent field studies and lab tests by multiple U.S. universities and by Monsanto prior to, and in response to, these allegations do not corroborate his claims.


        Then Monsanto drops what might appear to be an innocuous disclaimer: “Monsanto is not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready crops are more susceptible to certain diseases or that the application of glyphosate to Roundup Ready crops increases a plant’s susceptibility to diseases.

        ”If you listen closely, you can hear scores of scientists laughing aloud at that one. The key word therein, of course, is “reliable.” By whose definition would dozens, if not hundreds, of studies be considered reliable? By Monsanto’s definition, if the St. Louis conglomerate did not conduct or commission the study, it must not be reliable.

        With that statement, Monsanto is clearly flat-out lying, according to numerous sources, many who do not want their names mentioned for fear of retribution. One scientist who would go on the record was, however, direct.

        “The statement in Monsanto’s letter of response is disingenuous,” said Dr. James E. Rahe, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. “The published research from my lab done during the 1980s and 1990s showed that glyphosate (Roundup) causes increased susceptibility of dicot species to infection by root rot fungi such as pythium and fusarium.

        ”Rahe is retired now to life as a row-crop farmer and has less at stake than his younger counterparts who still toil in laboratories that depend, largely, on funding from Monsanto and its brethren to conduct their work. He said he is inclined to accept Huber’s letter and inherent warnings to the USDA.

        “On reading the letter, my impression is that it was sent in good faith,” said Rahe, who said he still uses Roundup on a limited basis on his farm. “The claims made in Huber’s letter concerning a novel ‘micro-fungal-like organism’ appear to be based on a substantial amount of unpublished research by several individuals in distinct scientific disciplines. If so, and now that ‘the cat is out of the bag,’ it will be interesting to see what information appears in the domain of the scientific community in the near future with regard to the nature of this organism and its relationship to certain plant diseases and animal reproductive failure.


        We have spoken at length with Howard Vlieger, the president of Verity Farms, who has been following the debate about genetically modified crops for years. He said he is aware of the names of the scientists who discovered the pathogen referenced in Huber’s letter — but says those names must be protected for now.

        “If you’re a practicing researcher dependent on a certain level of funding, it can be very, very damaging to come forward with any information that is considered detrimental to the GM industry,” said Vlieger. “It can literally ruin careers.

        ”Making research involving genetically modified crops even more difficult is Monsanto’s overt squelching of any research by independent labs. The company won’t make seeds available and will take scientists to court for attempting to take any independent research public. Farmers, by contract, are not allowed to share even a handful of seed with a lab.

        “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers . . . Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal,” said an article in the August 2009 issue of Scientific American.

        Biologist Arpad Pusztai had published more than 300 articles and a dozen books when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified crops are dangerous. When he came forward with his findings prior to the study being officially published, Pusztai was fired on the spot. His research team was dismantled, his recommendations were never implemented.

        “He was absolutely devastated by the onslaught. They (Monsanto) absolutely annihilated his career,” said Vlieger.

        Huber knew full well that that the release of his letter to the press would bring swift rebuke from Monsanto. Even at Purdue University, where he is professor emeritus,six of his former colleagues overtly distanced themselves from his latest action — just as many others have stood by him. More than 800 scientists have signed on to an open letter expressing their concerns about genetically modified crops.

        “I understand that I am breaking scientific protocol by stepping outside the bounds of waiting for the peer-reviewed research,” he told me during a phone call on Jan. 30. “In the case of this pathogen, our government cannot afford to wait around for protocol. This is potentially so serious that every minute counts. The risk of waiting to speak out outweighs the risk of the harm to my reputation.”

        1. I have said it before but will repeat it again – posting links to anti-GMO activist or advocacy sites does NOT constitute any kind of proof at all.

        2. I have said it before but will repeat it again- posting links to Pro- GMO activist or advocacy sites does NOT constitute any kind of proof at all. IT JUST CONSTITUTES MORE BIOTECH LIES AND PROPAGANDA! !!!

        3. And if you had any EVIDENCE you would post it, instead of wasting your energy on attacking the messenger, instead of the message.
          You guys are TOTALLY bankrupt, and its clear you realize it.
          Hence the DESPERATION evident in your posts.

        4. He must be,or those sunglasses are blocking his vision.We have plenty of evidence(which he can’t see,oblivious) & no desperation.The desperation is on the GMO side to convince the world that their GMO toxins are safe.Sad that they discredit the real science.

        5. Except Patz, when you get your news from a RUSSIAN outlet and its only source is an Anti-GMO activist site (Sustainable Pulse), the likelihood that the story is true is remarkably low

          As in this case.

          It’s false.

          Washington, D.C.—At its quarterly meeting today, the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Board of Directors approved a five-year, $277 million compact with El Salvador to improve its competitiveness and productivity in international markets, and was briefed on MCC’s latest efforts in open data and transparency.

          “I am very pleased that the Board of Directors took this step in approving the compact with El Salvador,” MCC Chief Executive Officer Daniel W. Yohannes said today. “This compact represents a tremendous opportunity to help reduce poverty in El Salvador by spurring investment and increasing economic growth.”

          A thorough analysis concluded that low productivity in internationally traded goods and services is a primary constraint to economic growth in El Salvador. The Government of El Salvador has committed to contribute $88.2 million on top of MCC’s investment, constituting a combined total of $365.2 million targeted toward three interrelated projects:

          investing in the institutional capital of El Salvador to streamline regulations and enhance the investment climate;

          investing in human capital to improve the quality of education and better match students’ skills with the demands of firms engaged in international trade; and

          investing in physical capital to reduce transportation and logistics costs along a critical coastal highway and at the border with Honduras.

        6. whatever you say Arthur,lol…Thats from 2012,so what. It just says what the compact is.There is a least 20+ stories on the net about forcing El Salvador to accept Monsanto seeds…go search some more.

        7. You need to keep up to date Arthur. All the stuff about US pressuring El Salvador to buy Monsanto seeds in order to get loans has blown up in the last couple months.

          I suspect you know that already but it works against the Monsanto/Koch Brother agenda so all corrupt operative will pretend it isn’t happening. Just like you are doing here.

          Read the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins if you need more information about the corruption of governments by the US and corporations.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

        8. I suspect you don’t see it because it isn’t in your corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother operative talking points.

          Check google, it usually works for me.

        9. I did check Google and all it came up with was the same unsubstantiated report that the Russian News service that Patz linked to.
          See if YOU make a claim, it is up to YOU to substantiate it.
          As usual, when you can’t you start trying to get me to prove a negative.
          Too bad that never works.

        10. LOL!

          I didn’t think you would find it in the corrupt corporate propaganda machine that we used to call news in this country.

          It’s a sorry time for those of us in the USA who value a free press and honest reporting of facts. The fact that we need to get real news from the Russians just shows how low we have fallen.

          You wake up every day and go out and spin and lie for the same people who want to control real news flow in our country, Arthur.

          You’re a terrific example of the moral degradation and decline with your corrupt willingness to put a craven pseudo-science agenda ahead of the health and well being of our children.

          You FAIL again Arthur

        11. More cut and paste Monsanto/Koch Brother spin, misinformation, and talking points.

          Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives will never accept anything that doesn’t support their GMO pesticide agenda.

        12. What’s hilarious is you morons continue to throw water balloons at a stone castle and think you have made a dent in it.

        13. It’s interesting the way that the Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives like Arthur always place the value of money higher than the health and well being of the people who are eating the GMO pesticide poisons hidden in their food.

          It’s a good example of their values and character.

        14. I’m not blind.
          Which is why GMOs will hit ~200 million acres in the US this year.
          Clearly the farmers of America and the Consumers of America realize you are full of manure.

        15. GMO pesticide industry operatives will not recognize any evidence that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

          FACT is that TZena has provided more real evidence than all the disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives put together.

        16. Most of the links that I have posted reference or have links to the original scientific study. Not a single one of the links that you have posted reference or link to any actual scientific studies. In fact, though being asked repeatedly to post a link or cite to just ONE single actual independent scientific study to support your claims, you have yet to do so.

        17. GMO pesticide industry operatives will not recognize any truth that does not support the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

        18. Note the TIMES involved:

          Huber’s letter to the USDA that warned of spontaneous miscarriage possibly linked to Roundup,
          “In a January 17, 2011 letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, retired Purdue University professor Don Huber proclaims discovery of a plant pathogen ‘…that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings.’ The letter also alleges this pathogen is more prevalent on herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops. No data was provided nor cited, and no collaborators were identified . . .

          Then notice Huber’s statement as to why this wasn’t in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal: “I understand that I am breaking scientific protocol by stepping outside the bounds of waiting for the peer-reviewed research, In the case of this pathogen, our government cannot afford to wait around for protocol. This is potentially so serious that every minute counts.”

          Well its now over 3 years later, and even though Huber at the time already claimed to have had research to prove this.


        1. Your first link is nothing more than a very poorly done anti site, the 2nd one refers to a study that was totally rejected. A follow up study for the same thing: “A survey by the European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials concluded that “Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) ‘safety’ margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. Results of feeding studies with feed derived from GM plants with improved agronomic properties, carried out in a wide range of livestock species, are discussed. The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals.”.

        2. Wikipedia…lol….this is NOT a credible source…. anyone can change the content! My sources are credible and reputable…..

        3. Sure Arthur.

          If anyone should know about lies it is you.

          I would have to check for myself if you told me the sun was shinning. That’s the kind of reputation for honesty you have.

        4. The only way you could check for yourself would by pulling your head out of your butt

        5. I posted the Wikipedia link because it has links to the original source and several others. If you prefer to think that Wikipedia is not “peer reviewed” in a sense, then go ahead and only look at the sources that agree with you and support your position, and ignore all outside evidence.

        6. More cut and paste GMO pesticide industry talking points. It looks like Warren is cutting and pasting from the same talking points as Arthur.

      2. Here let me help you…when the pro GMO side is LOSING here is what you can expect in no particular order….you are an anti science luddite, a conspiracy theorist, a fear monger and when all this fails you become the target of personal attacks like tin foil hat, moron, or they try to discredit you by making unfounded accusations and even hacking, to try and silence the truth, as their precious profits are being threatened!

  16. Jan, do you see now the magnitude of the LIES being spread by the Anti-GMO side?
    They aren’t very smart, but they are very vocal.
    Does this help you understand the reluctance to put a “Scarlet Letter” on one’s product?

    1. LOL!

      Arthur is a master at telling lies. A great example is this post. Anyone would be well served by checking the real facts about anything this disingenuous corrupt craven GMO pesticide industry tool says.

      After all, they will call any information that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda or pseudo-science a lie.

  17. Jan – a correction: “..The four “Big Food” companies — the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers..”
    Those are not “companies”, they are trade organizations, whose members consist of hundreds or thousands of companies.

    1. They represent companies. They used to make their membership rolls public, but they stopped after the blowback from the California referendum a couple years age. They tried to hide the names of their members who opposed the Washington State labeling bill, but the State of Washington got a court order that required they list the names of the companies who donated. Now the are being sued by The State of Washington for money laundering.

      Past performance shows that they are a sleazy group. Who now have the chutzpa to sue their own customers by telling them they don’t have the right to know what is in the food.

      It is not surprising to see Warren join the disingenuous corrupt group of GMO pesticide industry operatives who are all over the net trying to change the narrative to get some support for GMO pesticide agenda and these craven corrupt food corporations.

      1. Yeah, it maybe wasn’t a smart move by the GMA, but they haven’t lost the suit yet, so don’t start claiming victory.

        These were the donors:


        PepsiCo, Inc. – $1,620,899
        Nestle USA Inc. – $1,052,743
        The Coca-Cola Company – $1,047,332
        General Mills Inc. – $598,819
        ConAgra Foods – $285,281
        Campbell Soup Company – $265,140
        The Hershey Company – $248,305
        The J.M. Smucker Company – $241,091
        Kellogg Company – $221,852
        Mondelez Global LLC – $144,895
        Flowers Foods Inc. – $141,288
        Abbott Nutrition – $127,459
        Pinnacle Foods Group LLC – $120,846
        Dean Foods Company – $120,245
        McCormick & Company Inc – $102,208
        Land O’Lakes, Inc. – $99,803
        Cargill Inc. – $98,601
        The Hillshire Brands Company – $97,398
        Bunge North America, Inc. – $94,993
        Bimbo Bakeries USA – $94,693
        Del Monte Foods Company – $86,576
        Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. – $55,313
        Hormel Foods Corporation – $52,908
        Bumble Bee Foods LLC – $36,073
        Welch Foods, Inc. $28,859
        Shearer’s Foods, Inc. $25,251
        Rich Products Corporation – $24,049
        Clement Pappas & Company Inc. – $21,043
        Sunny Delight Beverages Company – $21,043
        Bush Brothers & Company – $16,233
        Knouse Foods Cooperative Inc. – $14,429
        The Clorox Company – $12,024
        Bruce Foods Corporation – $3,006
        Moody Dunbar Inc. – $1,804

        Notice not a Seed company in the mix.

        1. A headline calling something “money laundering” does not make it so.
          Money Laundering is a specific Federal Crime.
          The DISCLOSURE rule in Washington state has nothing to do with laundering money from illegal proceeds.

        2. Spin your corrupt lies Arthur.

          Anyone with an internet access can see you are lying with just a few keystrokes.

          You are so craven Arthur. Are all devil worshipers like you?

        3. Interesting.
          Your use of all these biblical references (as in “pearls before swine) suggests you also believe in fundamental religion.
          Typical Luddite.

        4. Spin it anyway you like, Arthur.

          I think my use of the phrase was very appropriate given the circumstances. I didn’t expect you and the other corrupt Monsanto/Koch brother operatives to like it, but then i am not writing anything here to try and impress your corrupt craven lot.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

  18. Warren you lose ALL credibility when you lie…I have riddled this page with peer reviewed content, studies, award winning documentaries, news footage, interviews with world renowned scientists, Pubmed, EPA registrations of biopesticides and have succesfully refuted the pro GMO lies and propaganda….like hyperzombie saying limonene is more dangerous than GE Bt toxin…lies and nonsense!

    1. A peer reviewed article which was RETRACTED by the Editor doesn’t count TZena.

      Interviews don’t count for anything.

      Documentaries don’t count for anything.

      PubMed counts, if the article is not relevant or debunked, as yours are.

      EPA registration does not mean it is toxic to humans.

      And of course, you haven’t refuted ANY lies until you start correcting your own.

      You hang on Seralini like a life preserver even though you finally admit the data is INCONCLUSIVE, meaning it PROVES NOTHING.

      You trot out Huber, but you can’t provide one single published journal article of his in support his outrageous claims.

      You present videos made by known Anti-GMO activists as if the are unbiased.

      You quote from Anti-GMO books by authors with no expertise or published science to back their claims as if the information is credible.

      Finally you deny the reality that over the last decade in the US we have grown ~ 2 billion crop acres of GMO crops in the US and yet you can’t find a SINGLE case of harm to anyone or any animal that a SCIENTIST has attributed to GMO.

      Then you post this nonsense?

      You are indeed “The Black Knight”.

      1. TRANSLATION: If it doesn’t support the Monsanto/Koch Brother GMO pesticide agenda it doesn’t count.

        We all know corrupt disingenuous Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives like Arthur and others here will not recognize anything unless it supports their GMO pesticide agenda.

        You FAIL again Arthur.

        1. You know every time you proclaim “You FAIL again Arthur.” but without showing ANY evidence that I have, is simply your admission of DEFEAT.
          You seem to admit that real OFTEN.

        2. Sure Arthur. LOL!

          We’ve not been defeated in fact we have just gotten started calling you and the other corrupt disingenuous Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives out on the misinformation and lies you are spreading here in a feeble attempt at a smoke screen to cover the fact you are working to keep poisonous pesticide laden GMO hidden in the food we feed our children.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

        3. Yeah Ted, you are good at name calling.
          Most Black Knights are, since that’s ALL they can do.

        4. When I see disingenuous corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother operative lies, spin, misinformation, and corrupt cherry picked agenda driven pseudo-science I call it out to expose the fraud for what it is.

          You are looking in your magic mirror again Arthur.

  19. Yes, There Are Paid Government Trolls On Social Media, Blogs, Forums And Websites

    Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and(2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it
    considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just
    consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums…..Read more

      1. Just because it doesn’t talk about the US doesn’t mean it’s not happening here.

        You and the other corrupt disingenuous Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives are a good example of the fact that it is Arthur.

        You FAIL again Arthur.

        1. Wait, that article was about Govt actions.
          Am I supposed to work for the Govt now and not Monsanto?

        2. You are more likely to work for a third party. Monsanto and the Koch Brothers are almost sure to keep a few cut outs between you and them. That’s how pauseable dependability works.

          We can all see how that sleazy business works here, Arthur.

          You are the perfect example.

        3. And you’re not?
          You post all the time, why should we think you aren’t paid to do so?

        4. You can think what ever you want to Arthur, but most of the people posting here are motivated by keeping their kids healthy and un poisoned by Monsanto, The Koch Brother, and the food-like products manufactures. We don’t need money for motivation, just our values and morals are enough for most of us.

          We’re not like you craven corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives.

        5. I’ve got kids.
          I’ve got grandkids.
          You hold no higher moral ground.
          All you do is make totally baseless allegations.

        6. Arthur,you a sad case for sure.You are more concerned with the amount of acreage being planted with GMOs,than you are with the future of your family.The future looks bright??Thats what you are boasting about? The increase in pesticide intensive genetically polluted garbage crops?

          Pesticide News Story: EPA Releases Report Containing Latest Estimates of Pesticide Use in the United States

          For Release: February 17, 2011

          EPA’s report, Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates, is now available at
          This report contains the latest estimates of agricultural and
          nonagricultural pesticide use in the United States. It illustrates
          graphically historical trends and levels of use over the last 20 years.
          Also included are data on imports, exports, and pesticide producers and
          users. The report contains statistics on pesticide sales and usage
          based on available information taken from Agency records of
          registrations, USDA surveys of pesticide use, and other public and
          proprietary sources. Highlights include:

          In the United States, pesticide sales were approximately $12.5
          billion at the user level, which accounted for 32% of the nearly $40
          billion world market in 2007.Pesticide use in the United States was 1.1
          billion pounds in 2007, or 22% of the world estimate of 5.2 billion
          pounds of pesticide use.

          Total pounds of U.S. pesticide use decreased by approximately 8% from 1.2 to 1.1 billion pounds from 2000 to 2007.

          Use of conventional pesticides decreased about 3% from 2002 to 2007 and 11% from 1997 to 2007.

          Approximately 857 million pounds of conventional pesticide active ingredient were applied in 2007.

          Organophosphate insecticide use decreased about 44% from 2002 to 2007, 63% from 2000 to 2007, and 55% from 1997 to 2007.

          About 33 million pounds of organophosphate insecticides were applied in 2007.

          Eighty percent of all U.S. pesticide use was in agriculture.

          Herbicides remained the most widely used type of pesticide in the agricultural market sector.

          Among the top 10 pesticides used in terms of pounds applied
          in the agricultural market were the herbicides glyphosate, atrazine,
          metolachlor-s, acetochlor, 2,4-D, and pendimethalin, and the fumigants
          metam sodium, dichloropropene, methyl bromide, and chloropicrin.

          Herbicides were also the most widely used type of pesticide
          in the home and garden and industrial, commercial, and governmental
          market sectors, and the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate were the most
          widely used active ingredients. 2011 EPA report.

        7. I can just imagine what the #s are now,since the EPA hasn’t updated this in the last 3 years.

        8. The KEY is the TREND since GMOs were introduced was to significantly decrease the use of INSECTICIDES and switch from more toxic herbicides like Atrazine and metoachlor-s to the least toxic herbicide, glyphosate.

        9. Gyphosate is a safer herbicide? Check out the following.

          Is Roundup Weedkiller A Brain-Damaging Neurotoxin?

          GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less

          Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells

          Soybean Workers Suffer DNA Damage from Glyphosate

          USDA Scientist Reveals All
          Glyphosate Hazards to Crops, Soils, Animals, and Consumers

          How Roundup Weedkiller Can Promote Cancer, New Study Reveals

          Seventeen reasons to ban glyphosate

          Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II:
          Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance

          It’s Everywhere: MIT Scientist Presents Dire Portrait of Damage from Monsanto’s Roundup

          I could go on and list many more here, but I think most readers will see Arthur is just spining more disingenous corrupt Monsanto/Koch brother misinformation and talking points.

          You FAIL again Arthur

        10. Another TRASH dump by Ted?
          Hardly surprising.
          These have ALL been responded to.
          Ted knows they have been debunked before but he posts them on a new thread because he is morally bankrupt.

        11. It’s not any surprise that when I post information that doesn’t support the Monsanto/Koch Brother GMO pesticide industry agenda that Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives like Arthur here will call it trash.

          I could post another 25 or 30 links and he would say the same thing about all of them.

          FACT is glyphosate/Roundup is a toxic disease promoting chemical that can cause cancer at levels of part per trillion. Anyone who is concerned for the health of their families would be well advised to avoid GMO foods with these toxic contaminants which can not be washed off.

          I’ll let the readers decide who they think is morally bankrupt, Arthur.

          You FAIL again.

        12. Hilarious Ted.
          Much of our food (not just GMO) has glyphosate residues from 0.1 to 5 ppm, and yet you claim that it is a carcinogen at levels of 0.00000000x ppm
          And yet over the last decade our cancer rates have declined 15%.

          As to Toxicity:

          Single-dose acute oral studies conducted for the U.S. EPA indicate that glyphosate is practically non-toxic to upland birds and only slightly toxic to waterfowl.

          Tests on warm and cold water fish indicate that glyphosate is practically non-toxic to both types.

          A study to determine chronic exposures of mammals to glyphosate observed no cellular changes in mice fed glyphosate at a concentration up to 300 ppm in the diet for 18 months (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981).

          A 2-year chronic study conducted using Sprague-Dawley rats (males) fed 0, 89, 362, and 940 mg/kg/day of glyphosate observed effects only in the high-dose group, indicating that for this study, the no observable effects limit (NOEL) for systemic toxicity is 362 mg/kg/day (8,000 ppm)

          A 1-year feeding study with dogs fed dosage levels of 0, 20, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day with a no-observable-effect level (NOEL) of 500 mg/kg/day.

          A 2-year carcinogenicity study in mice fed dosage levels of 0, 150, 750, and 4,500 mg/kg/day with no carcinogenic effect at the highest dose tested (HDT) of 4,500 mg/kg/day.

          A multigeneration reproduction study with rats fed dosage levels of 0, 3, 10, and 30 mg/kg/day with the parental and pup no-observed-effect level of 30 mg/kg/day

          Livestock feeding studies using glyphosate were conducted with swine, poultry and lactating cows. For these studies, test groups of animals were fed a daily
          diet containing a 9:1 mixture of glyphosate and AMPA at total combined dietary levels of 40, 120 and 400 mg/kg for 28 days. The dosing levels represent respectively 1x, 3x and 10x of the maximum expected residue level of glyphosate in the diet. The results show that glyphosate do not transfer to animal tissues.

          Seems facts and you just don’t get along.

        13. Finally, of the 14 pesticides identified by
          class (Table 5), only phosphine and glyphosphate
          showed a significant correlation with
          excess adverse birth and neurodevelopmental
          effects. Whether these observations were
          chance associations remains a concern.
          Further detailed neurodevelopmental studies
          are required to resolve these issues.

        14. Birth years covered in this study, by quartiles, range from 1968 to 1998, with the median frequency of all births being in 1978.

          So virtually all of this was BEFORE the advent of GMO.

          Now, from your NEXT post:

          Total pounds of U.S. pesticide use decreased by approximately 8% from 1.2 to 1.1 billion pounds from 2000 to 2007.

          Use of conventional pesticides decreased about 3% from 2002 to 2007 and 11% from 1997 to 2007.

          Organophosphate insecticide use decreased about 44% from 2002 to 2007, 63% from 2000 to 2007, and 55% from 1997 to 2007.

          Eighty percent of all U.S. pesticide use was in agriculture.

          SO, as GMO plantings INCREASED the amount of pesticides used in the United States DECREASED.

          That’s what we have been trying to tell you.

          That’s what the data YOU post clearly shows.

        15. Also note:

          Finally, of the 14 pesticides identified by
          class (Table 5), only phosphine and glyphosphate
          showed a significant correlation

          Except Table 5 does not contain glyphosphate.


          Chlorophenoxy 786 73.4 385 64.6

          Oxyphenoxy 380 35.5 176 29.5

          Sulfonylurea 330 30.8 174 29.2

          Carbanilate 303 28.3 133 22.3

          Bromophenol 293 27.4 114 19.1

          Benzothiazole 233 21.8 105 17.6

          Nitroaniline 209 19.5 92 15.4

        16. Keep trying to spin it away, Arthur.

          We can see the moral “high ground” you are standing on with this spin and misinformation. Your ethical standards are not very high.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

        17. We’re using more glyphosate/Roundup than we ever have.

          ” only phosphine and glyphosphate
          showed a significant correlation with
          excess adverse birth and neurodevelopmental

          So now your trying to spin this as glyphosate being a better safer choice.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

        18. You can always tell when Ted is trying to mislead (as in almost always) because his short quotes are taken out of context with no link to the source.

          This is from;: Birth Defects, Season of Conception, and Sex of Children Born to Pesticide Applicators Living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA

          So it has NOTHING to do with consumers of herbicide residue, at minute levels months after application. It has to do with workers whose job it is to mix and apply pesticides (which include compounds the plant doesn’t absorb, like surfactants), all day, every day.

          And of course he left out the very next sentence:

          Whether these observations were chance associations remains a concern. Further detailed neurodevelopmental studies
          are required to resolve these issues.
          Why is that important?

          Because these appliers applied far more chemicals than just Glyphosate. The list is in fact quite long, the fact that statistically in this small sample (1500 births, ~35 more than normal birth defects) is hardly conclusive as to cause.

        19. I’ll let others decide who has the higher moral ground, Arthur.

          You are the one that come and spins Corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother lies, misinformation, and agenda driven pseudo-science to try and keep poisonous pesticide laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our children.

          All any of us can see is what you actually do here, Arthur, and it doesn’t look like your on moral high ground to anyone with high ethical standards.

          You FAIL again Arthur.

  20. A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats].

    [Article in Japanese]

    Sakamoto Y1, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y, Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A.

    Author information

    1Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health. Tokyo, Japan.


    A chronic feeding study to evaluate the safety of genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (GM soybeans) was conducted using F344 DuCrj rats. The rats were fed diet containing GM soybeans or Non-GM soybeans at the concentration of 30% in basal diet. Non-GM soybeans were a closely related strain to the GM soybeans. These two diets were adjusted to an identical nutrient level. In this study, the influence of GM soybeans in rats was compared with that of the Non-GM soybeans, and furthermore, to assess the effect of soybeans themselves, the groups of rats fed GM and Non-GM soybeans were compared with a group fed commercial diet (CE-2). General conditions were observed daily and body weight and food consumption were recorded. At the termination (104 weeks), animals were subjected to hematology, serum biochemistry, and pathological examinations. There were several differences in animal growth, food intake, organ weights and histological findings between the rats fed the GM and/or Non-GM soybeans and the rats fed CE-2. However, body weight and food intake were similar for the rats fed the GM and Non-GM soybeans. Gross necropsy findings, hematological and serum biochemical parameters, and organ weights showed no meaningful difference between rats fed the GM and Non-GM soybeans. In pathological observation, there was neither an increase in incidence nor any specific type of nonneoplastic or neoplastic lesions in the GM soybeans group in each sex. These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats.

      1. Yeah, I’d like to read the details too.

        But still, the Abstract is compelling.

        These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats.

  21. Having worked on environmental health issues in VT for many years, I am hopeful our state – tiny though we are – has the skill to present this argument successfully. Vermont (as represented by Ben and Jerry’s ice cream) first won the right to label dairy products as BGH or BST free – following a huge case brought by Monsanto – despite requirements for some language saying there was no evidence that the product was harmful.

    We won the right (also challenged up to the Supreme Court – they turned the case down) to require the most stringent mercury labeling in the world (at the time) on products sold in the state , even though that compelled global companies to change their packaging worldwide.

    As long as we stay within the same boundaries (e.g. don’t make any definitive claims that GMOs are harmful to health,since that is not clearly proven in either direction, focus on the right to inform citizens about the products they purchase) we have a very good chance. That approach may seem too weak to some – but it can lead to huge change and avoid impossible debates over the potential harm issues that could sideline the whole case and cause us to lose. Fingers crossed.

    1. Ah, but the law IS based on definitive claims which have been shown to be false:

      (D) There is a lack of consensus regarding the validity of the research
      and science surrounding the safety of genetically engineered foods, as
      indicated by the fact that there are peer-reviewed studies published in
      international scientific literature showing negative, neutral, and positive health
      There are NO peer reviewed studies showing NEGATIVE health results.

      1. Can you cite a reputable source for your claim that the law is based on definitive claims which have been shown to be false, Arthur?

        FACT is that there have been no independent long term studies of the health effects of pesticide laden GMOs, hidden in our children’s food, on human health. Because there is no science there is no way that positive or negative health results can can be claimed.

        This is one of the reasons that GMO ingredients in food should be labeled. Right now we are all participating in an undisclosed experiment. Sixty four countries including Europe and most of the rest of the developed world require GMOs to be labeled. We should have the same freedom that they do to choose to eat these poisonous food products or not.

        1. Maybe before you react and start name calling you should tell us what the false definitive claims are and how the law is based on them and the source of the claims they are false.

          Until you do that I don’t think anyone here is going to believe your limited high school education gives you the credentials to make statements about a law that has been passed in a State where you don’t even live.

          So I think people can make up their own mind about who the corrupt GMO industry MORONS are here, Arthur.

        2. I posted it.

          There are NO peer-reviewed studies published in
          international scientific literature showing negative health
          Try as you may, you have NEVER posted one.

        3. Yes, and I posted the fact that there have been no independent long term studies on the effects of GMOs on human health. So there are no studies that show safety or negative effects, because the science has not been done.

          You made a claim that the Vermont law is “IS based on definitive claims which have been shown to be false” I simply asked you to cite the source of the claim that Vermont’s law is based on false claims and what those claims are.

          Maybe you should read your own comments before attempting to confuse the issue. Your willingness to lie using half truths is well know here, Arthur.

          Please cite your credible source.

        4. Because there are NO peer-reviewed studies published in
          international scientific literature showing negative health
          If there WERE you would be all over it.
          But they don’t exist.

        5. There are no peer-reviewed studies showing that pesticide laden GMOs in our food are safe ether, Arthur.

          As per your usual you are trying to spin half truths to fit the GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science agenda.

          I’m still waiting for the source of the claim that Vermont’s law is based on false claims and what those claims are.

          Spin away Arthur.

          In the mean time well be waiting for you to post the source. …. ;)

        6. Actually there are plenty of studies showing that the ALLOWED levels of pesticide residue in our food is safe.
          You know it.
          Yet you lie about it.
          The ONLY way you could be correct would be for the EPA and FDA and the similar organizations in the EU, Australia and Japan to all be ignoring this issue, since they import or grow their own.
          Which is it Ted, is the WHOLE world wrong and you are right?

        7. Another slippery attempt to change the subject.

          I’m still waiting for the source of the claim that Vermont’s law is based on false claims and what those claims are. Apparently that was just something you made up to try and cloud an issue that you know nothing about.

          As far as pesticide residues go, the EPA has raise the allowable glyphosate contamination to a level 200% higher than the amount that causes breast cancer, and they did it without any science to show it was safe.

          If you want to go around about this again here I’m prepared to post dozens of links to information showing pesticide contamination is harming animal, insect, avian, and human health.

          The FACT is that there has been no long term independent studies of the effects of consuming pesticide laden GMOs on human health. So there can be no sciences based claims that they are safe.

          So lets have the source of your statement that ” the law IS based on definitive claims which have been shown to be false”

        8. So, you are claiming the WHOLE WORLD is STUPID.
          Is that your point Ted.
          Nearly the entire world uses Glyphosate as a herbicide and yet you, and YOU ALONE, believe it causes breast cancer.
          Go ahead and post your links, but keep it to HUMAN CONSUMERS of the allowed levels of pesticides in our food.

        9. You wrote three sentences here, Arthur,
          and the first two are lies.

          I’ll post the links I choose to.

          Here’s some real information about

          New Report Says Roundup Pesticide Causes Birth

          GMOs, glyphosate and neurological disorders

          Glyphosate and Chronic Kidney Disease

          Stephanie Seneff on Glyphosate – the 900 pound
          gorilla at our dinner table.

          Cancer death rates are twice as high where GM
          crops and agricultural chemicals are used

          Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells

          EPA to American People: ‘Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’

          How Big Ag Infiltrated EPA and Made a Mockery of Science

          The Glyphosate Toxicity Studies You’re Not Allowed to See

          Roundup Chemical Doubles Your Risk of Lymphoma

          How Roundup Weedkiller Can Promote Cancer, New Study Reveals

          Soybean Workers Suffer DNA Damage from Glyphosate

          This will get you started and I have many more links if your up for some real education.

        10. Yawn

          First one is a case where a high dose of ROUND-UP is put in a solution where embryos are developing.

          Embryo Culture and Treatments. Xenopus laeVis embryos
          were obtained by in vitro fertilization, incubated in 0.1× modified Barth’s saline (MBS) (26) and staged according to Nieuwkoop and Faber (27). The GBH used was Roundup Classic (Monsanto), containing 48% w/v of a glyphosate salt. Treatments were performed from the 2-cell stage with GBH dilutions of 1/3000, 1/4000, and 1/5000

          This has NO RELATION to the tiny amounts we consume in our food.

          Second one is a bunch of slides with the axis/scales adjusted to try to show that since glyphosate use is going up and X is going up, THEY must be related.

          That’s too stupid for words.

          Correlation does not in any sense mean causation.

        11. I’m sure you are bored with the truth, Arthur.

          The rest of your cut and paste talking points Monsanto/Koch Brother talking points are out of context with the whole conversation.

          I love it when you keep posting your corrupt disingenuous comments, Arthur.

          The truth always trumps your Monsanto/Koch Brother pseudo-science nonsense

          Let the people watch your corrupt spin and lies and see them for the fraud they are.

        12. The third one is a HYPOTHESIS.

          They think that Rice farmers in Sri Lanka who drink hard water loaded with nephrotoxic metals and high levels of glyphosate in their water supply might combine to produce kidney disease.
          As they say, Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues of thousands of farmers when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals.
          A UNIQUE situation, not pertinent to people consuming low levels of glyphosate residue.

        13. We’ve all heard you spin your GMO pesticide industry talking points and misinformation before, Arthur.

          Let’s come back to the claim you made when you replied to SarahVT original post about the Vermont GMO labeling law.

          You said: ” Ah, but the law IS based on definitive claims which have been shown to be false:”

          I have asked you several times to tell us which claims are you referring to that you claim are false?

          Please cite the source for your allegation that they are false.

          I’ve been asking you to provide the proof to show your allegations are true, and you keep changing the subject.

          Unless you can come up with the proof, you have shown again that you are just pulling more lies out of your disingenuous corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother operative A**.

        14. I put it in my OP.

          There are NO peer reviewed studies showing NEGATIVE health results as the law claims.

          And you have YET to post a link to a study of negative health results for consumers eating GMO foods.
          You’ve attempted to equate GMO to Round-Up by posting links to IN VITRO tests of glyphosate in cell cultures. But that doesn’t equate to health effects and its also false as the labeling requirement has nothing to do with just Round-Up ready GMO products, and there are many GMO products that have nothing to do with Round-Up.

        15. More disingenuous Monsanto/Koch Brother spin misinformation and half truths.

          There have been no independent long term studies of the health effects of consuming GMOs. So there can be no claim of safety or harm as the science hasn’t been done.

          There have been several studies that show negative effects on mammals. One of the most important was the work on toxicology Dr. Seralini did with rats. That study was peer reviewed three times and recently republished after a Monsanto operative was appointed to suppress the work at the first journal. Thousands of ethical scientist have supported Seralini and protested the heavy handed withdrawal.

          Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives will only recognize the cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science, any critical work will be suppressed. We have seen you do this over and over on this site as well as others where you go to spin your Monsanto/Koch Brother lies, misinformation, and agenda driven pseudo-science.

          FACT is you lied again, Arthur.

        16. One other point.

          The State of Vermont does not require peer reviewed science to pass a law that simply requires GMO ingredients to be labeled.

          Your entire premise is bogus, Arthur.

        17. You really are spinning off the deep end here, Arthur. The GMO pesticide industry must be very worried about this.

          The State of Vermont can pass any law that is legal under their constitution.

          Your bogus lie argument is all spin and misinformation.

          You’re also looking in your magic mirror again.

        18. It is in fact based on lies, since neither you, nor the State of Vermont can produce a SINGLE study to support their CENTRAL claim that they used to justify labels.

          There are NO peer reviewed studies showing NEGATIVE health results as the law claims.

        19. LOL!!

          You’re a sociopathic tool. You’ll say anything to spin your corrupt pseudo-science case.

          You’re so transparent and I’m thinking your masters are not gettin their moneys worth.


          Wait and see, Arthur.

        20. But still, we should include a new warning on Round-up packaging “Pregnant women should not inject Roundup directly into their umbilical cords or the undeveloped fetus”
          I hear it is all the rage today.

        21. You wrote three sentences here, Arthur,
          and the first two are lies.

          I’ll post the links I choose to.

          Here’s some real information about

          New Report Says Roundup Pesticide Causes Birth

          GMOs, glyphosate and neurological disorders

          Glyphosate and Chronic Kidney Disease

          Stephanie Seneff on Glyphosate – the 900 pound
          gorilla at our dinner table.

          Cancer death rates are twice as high where GM
          crops and agricultural chemicals are used

          Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells

          EPA to American People: ‘Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’

          How Big Ag Infiltrated EPA and Made a Mockery of Science

          The Glyphosate Toxicity Studies You’re Not Allowed to See

          Roundup Chemical Doubles Your Risk of Lymphoma

          How Roundup Weedkiller Can Promote Cancer, New Study Reveals

          Soybean Workers Suffer DNA Damage from Glyphosate

          This will get you started and I have many more links if your up for some real education.

        22. wrong,Arthur,actually there are quite a few peer -reviewed studies published in international scientific lit. that call for further studies…and since they were done and financed by industry,they haven’t been continued.

  22. The nations largest health care organization sent a newsletter to their patients. In that newsletter was An article by one of their nutritionists who explained GMOs and then told the patients to avoid them so as to not degrade their health. The health care organization had no “official” policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the concerns of it’s Doctors, it’s patients, and it’s bottom line to send out the warning

    You can see more information here:

      1. You would try and tell us that the sun is shining at midnight too, Arthur.

        Let me just come at this another way for you.

        Kaiser paid the salary of the nutritionist who wrote the piece.

        Kaiser’s newsletter editor put it in the newsletter.

        Kaiser paid for the printing of the Newsletter

        Kaiser paid the postage to send the newsletter to their patients.



        So spin it anyway you want to, Arthur. I think the readers here have enough intelligence to recognize the intent behind the newsletter.

        After all, Kaiser had no “official” policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the concerns of it’s physicians, it’s patients, and it’s bottom line to send out the warning.

        1. Who cares that they paid her salary, they might have fired her after this went out.
          Who says the editor of a regional newsletter on healthcare knows anything at all about GMO?
          Kaiser paying for the printing and the postage does NOT equal endorsement you idiot.
          As your quote says, they DO NOT take a position on this issue.
          So claiming this is Kaiser’s position is simply a LIE.
          Something you are good at.

        2. I just posted the links to the newsletter article information.

          If I had received it from my health care organization it would have a profound effect on the way I see the purposely hidden GMOs in our children’s food supply.

          I know you and your craven masters would like to see it buried and hidden from the people you are poisoning with your craven pseudo-science agenda.

          I would like to see the information shared far and wide.

          So you can whine and spin and lie all you want to but it doesn’t change the real facts at all.

          I do appreciate your keeping the conversation alive however, as it gives me an opportunity to present it more fully.

          Unless you have some proof that anyone was fired, I think we’ll just see that as more of your misinformation, spin, and lies.

        3. No, you went BEYOND just posting the links Ted.

          You claimed that Kaiser stood behind it.

          Ted: “Smart people will pay attention when their healthcare provider makes that recommendation.”
          But the HEALTHCARE PROVIDER made no such recommendation.

          According to a statement released by the company, the article in question, published in a Fall 2012 newsletter mailed to Kaiser Permanente members in Washington and Oregon, reflected the personal views of the staff nutritionist who wrote it.
          Still telling lies Ted.

        4. Every reader can read the link information and make up their own mind.

          The fact that you keep spinning this like a rat in heat is HILARIOUS.

          You must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of Triple Pundit readers, Arthur.

          Only a sociopathic mind will keep spinning lies like you are here in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are lying.

        5. Ted, you are so far gone, you apparently don’t even know when you are lying.
          Truth isn’t negotiable.
          You lied.
          You were caught lying.
          Deal with it.

        6. Monsanto/Koch Brother operative will always call any truth a lie if it conflicts with the GMO pesticide agenda.

          I have faith in the intelligence of Triple Pundit readers, and I know they can see your spin and lies as just more Monsanto propaganda designed to hide the fact that they are involved in a conspiracy to hide pesticide laden GMOs in the food we feed our kids.

          The only one lying in this thread is you Arthur, and anyone who has been reading can see the facts for what they are.

          You can keep up with your false accusations till the cows come home, and I’ll be here to set the record straight with the truth.

        7. You would be the kind of person that would give away blankets contaminated with smallpox.

          I assume from your childish adolesent response that your done with your corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother spin and lies in this thread.

  23. This made my day:
    In a speech before the world’s largest biotechnology gathering on Wednesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and for federally-sourced financial subsidies designed to keep companies from leaving the U.S. She also declared her desire to get industry representatives around a table to have an “intensive discussion” about “how the federal government could help biotechs with insurance against [financial] risk.”

    The global biotech industry grew 11 percent last year with revenue of $262 billion. Acknowledging the “Frankensteinish” depictions communicated by those in opposition to the use of GMOs in agriculture, Clinton did not attempt to argue against their many warnings. Instead, she suggested that the negative perceptions of GMO agriculture could be fought if a more positive spin were promoted. Clinton suggested to the thousands of industry people in the room that “‘drought resistant’ sounds like something you’d want” instead of “genetically modified.”

    Clinton supports “[GMO] seeds and products that have a proven track record.” She specifically acknowledged the type of drought-resistant seeds she championed during her tenure as the U.S. Secretary of State.

    1. Nope.
      It is possibly linked to pesticide workers in places like Sri Lanka where they drink the water in the fields that is also contaminated with multiple heavy metals that are toxic to kidneys.
      Not related to use in the US and most of the rest of the world.

      1. Only a craven tool like you would dismiss this important information because it only effects people in places like Sri Lanka.

        In fact your comment is nothing but more corrupt GMO pesticide industry spin and misinformation.

        1. Except I didn’t dismiss it.
          As I said, its possibly linked to rice farmers in Sri Lanka

        2. Possibly is not any kind of fact, Arthur.

          It’s interesting how the way the narrative looks is more important to you than FACTs.

          Glyphosate/Roundup causes breast cancer at part per trillion levels of contamination. Most people realize that that is a much lower level that the current government allowed residues on GMO crops and wheat that has been sprayed with glyphosate to dry it down faster for harvest.

          Your attempt to spin and use a cut and paste talking point sleazy hypothesis theories to spin the narrative for your corrupt GMO pesticide industry masters is another FAILURE for you, Arthur

        3. You are a MORON.
          The scientist that wrote the paper says that it is POSSIBLY linked to the kidney problem.
          Read the friggin paper.
          And no, glyphosate is NOT carcinogenic at any quantity.

          But why am I bothering?

          I’ve had goldfish that are smarter than you.

        4. Because you’re looking in your GMO pesticide operative magic mirror, Arthur.

          I know that managing the “narrative” for your corrupt masters is more important to you than the truth, so I’ll listen to you adolescent name calling and trust that other can see right through your corrupt disingenuous lies.

          So we’ve established that glyphosate/Roundup causes breast cancer at contamination levels of part per trillion, and you’ve admitted that it is possible it is destroying peoples kidneys as well.

          Maybe we’re finally making some progress getting you to admit the truth.

        5. Wow, you don’t actually read the supporting studies do you?

          1,) The study could NOT find an association between Glyphosate and NHL.

          2.) LOL, you didn’t read it, the control had a bigger effect and there is no dose relationship.

          3.) NO evidence of anything just a theory.

          4.)Once again NO EVIDENCE and not a study.

          5.)Same crap as 3

          6.)Same crap as 3

          7.)Same crap as 3

          8.) Theory and no control group, plus really injecting glyphosate into the brain, who does this?
          9.) see 1

        6. LOL!!

          It looks like you are cutting and pasting some of Arthur’s spin and disinformation.

          I’m not going to post another 30 links for you because anything that doesn’t support the corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science agenda will be dismissed by you and the other corrupt industry operatives.

          Apparently the narrative is more important to industry tools than the TRUTH.

      1. You are a piece of work, Arthur.

        You can’t talk away Seralini’s study that went through 3 peer reviews and had six journals wanting to republish after the GMO industry tool was appointed to a special new editorial position for the purpose of retracting and suppressing the Seralini study because it doesn’t support the corrupt agenda driven cherry picked GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science.

        The study is published and it went through three peer reviews.

        You can post your GMO pesticide industry lies and spin forever and it won’t change the fact that the science has been reviewed and passed by many real scientists with much more than your limited high school education

        You spin and lies are a FAILURE.

        1. It only went through one peer review, and the journal that did that review, after publication, asked for all the data that was withheld, and then RETRACTED the paper because the data did not support the conclusions.
          NO OTHER JOURNAL has done a review of the data.
          The journal that did publish it specifically said: by re-publishing it. By doing so, any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted.

        2. Peer review are done by scientists not journals.

          The FACT is that Seralini’s study was peer reviewed 3 times and 6 other journals wanted to public it. This after thousands of ethical scientists spoke out about the corrupt industry involvement in having the study retracted the first time.

          You can spin your paranoid corrupt industry talking points for the next 100 years and it won’t change the truth.

          Another huge FAILURE for you Arthur..

        3. Your attempt to frame the “narrative” doe not change the FACTS.

          Peer review are done by scientists not journals.

          The FACT is that Seralini’s study was peer reviewed 3 times and 6 other journals wanted to public it. This after thousands of ethical scientists spoke out about the corrupt industry involvement in having the study retracted the first time.

          You can spin your paranoid corrupt industry talking points for the next 100 years and it won’t change the truth.

          Another huge FAILURE for you Arthur..

      1. You can spin it any way you want to, but the FACT remains that the study was peer reviewed 3 times. ESEU didn’t require additional peer reviews because this had already been conducted by FACT and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.

        I know that you disingenuous corrupt Monsanto/Koch Brother operatives will try to spin it away because Seralini’s work shows results that conflict with the GMO pesticide industry agenda. In fact the only people claiming it wasn’t peer reviewed are industry operatives and their pseudo-science web sites.

        Anyone who is concerned about the health of their families would be well served to pay attention to Seralini’s findings.

        1. You can’t be serious.


          We should believe weed control freaks instead of Dr. Seralini who’s paper has gone through 3 peer review and had thousands of real scientists supporting it’s publication.

          You must be smoking something weird to think anyone with half a brain is going to weed control freaks for their toxicology science.

        2. Is there something specific in Andrew Knisse’s analysis of the data that you found incorrect?

        3. The first problem I have is the fact that he isn’t a toxicologist. He trying to stretch out into a field where he has no expertise.

          The second thing is he has vested interest in the corrupt GMO pesticide industry agenda.

          Bottom line he’s just another pseudo-scientist attacking anyone who’s work doesn’t support the GMO pesticide agenda.

        4. But is there something incorrect in his analysis of the data? Stat equations don’t give a damn what the numbers actually mean, be they # of weeds or # of disease cases.

          You say he has a vested interest, but so does Seralini. He’s funded by corrupt Greenpeace.

        5. I might have paid more attention to the GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science that you linked to here except for the fact that the “scientist” is a agronomist and not a toxicologist.

          Since Seralini’s work has been peer reviewed 3 times by actual toxicology experts I felt no need to look any deeper at the propaganda hit piece written by a GMO pesticide industry operative who field is not even toxicology.

          You can keep trotting out this corrupt cherry picked agenda driven pseudo-science all day, but all it shows is your desire to spin the narrative to support the corrupt on going GMO pesticide industry junk food industry conspiracy to keep poisonous pesticide laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our children

  24. New study shows that Roundup damages sperm. Roundup/glyphosate is
    used to grow most GMO crops, and the EPA has raised the allowed
    contamination level over 200% of the amounts that have been shown to
    cause breast cancer. The limits were raised with no science to show they
    were safe..

    “A new study in rats found that Roundup altered testicular function after
    only 8 days of exposure at a concentration of only 0.5%, similar to
    levels found in water after agricultural spraying”

    1. NO NO NO
      Round-UP is NOT found in DRINKING water at that level.
      JUST LIES.
      The level was raised on CARROTS, a Non-GMO crop.
      Glyphosate has NEVER been shown to be CARCINOGENIC.
      Just more MORONIC lies.

        1. Ted you are so stupid, its hard to believe you know to breathe.

          The study claims that: Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors
          Meaning it promotes the GROWTH of breast cancer cells that are sensitive to ESTROGEN.
          Because, it, like many other chemicals mimics Estrogen.
          The study does NOT claim that Glyphosate is CARCINOGENIC.

        2. Typical GMO pesticide operative spin and disinformation.

          Most people understand that something that causes cancer is carcinogenic.

          GMO pesticide industry operative always care more about defining the “narrative” than they do about the TRUTH.

          Another huge FAILURE for Arthur the corrupt disingenuous Monsanto/Koch Brother operstive.

    1. What a LIE.

      The article claims: The study did not even compare non-GMO and GMO feed after all: it simply compared rats fed a GMO diet plus pesticides to rats fed a similar type of GMO-based diet, plus pesticides. –

      But that is not true.


      The potential health effects of meal and oil processed from seed of genetically modified (GM) canola plants (OECD unique identifier: DP-Ø73496-4; hereafter referred to as 73496 canola) containing an insert that expresses the GAT4621 protein conferring tolerance to nonselective herbicidal ingredient glyphosate were evaluated in a subchronic rodent feeding study. Sprague–Dawley rats (12/sex/group) were administered diets containing dehulled, defatted toasted canola meal (DH meal) and refined/bleached/deodorized canola oil (RBD oil) processed from seed of plants that were untreated (73496), sprayed in-field with glyphosate (73496GLY), the non-transgenic near-isogenic (091; control), or one of four commercially available non-GM reference canola varieties (45H72, 45H73, 46A65, 44A89). All diets were formulated as a modification of the standard laboratory chow PMI® Nutrition International, LLC Certified Rodent LabDiet® 5002 (PMI® 5002). DH canola meal and RBD canola oil replaced all commodity soybean fractions typically incorporated in PMI® 5002. No toxicologically significant differences were observed between the test and control groups in this study. The results reported herein support the conclusion that DH meal and RBD oil processed from seed of 73496 canola are as safe and nutritious as DH meal and RBD oil processed from seed of non-GM canola.
      As to the “conflict of interest” charge, clicking on ANY of the names shows they work for DuPont.
      Most studies are done by the company putting out the new seed.
      This is NOT a conflict of interest.
      A conflict of interest would be where the person working on the study stood to GAIN from the results.
      DuPont is such a HUGE company that the success of this seed is inconsequential.
      Like usual, Ted just LIES and thinks no one will notice.

      1. More cut and paste Monsanto/Koch Brother GMO pesticide operative spin and misinformation.

        The article has this to say in part:

        “In today’s Information Age where so many people are eager to put
        their own carefully-worded “spin” on things, corporations and other
        entities have grown quite fond of using “talking points” to peddle their
        own version of reality to the masses.

        DuPont recently submitted its own GMO canola study to a well known science journal.

        Companies that produce genetically modified crops, such as Monsanto, Dow and DuPont, are widely known for repeating the slickly-worded talking point that “foods containing GM crops are the most tested in history.”

        But what good is this if the tests are clearly rigged, as an April study by DuPont for a type of GM canola appears to have been.

        The rat-based feeding study, which was reported on by the website, includes several stunning conflicts of interests, chief among them this one: Bryan Delaney, the first author of the DuPont study, also happens to be the Managing Editor of the journal it was published in: Food and Chemical Toxicology.

        That interest is undisclosed in the study according to GMWatch, which
        also notes another stunning conflict of interest, and another fatal
        flaw of the “study” that industry-funded GM feeding experiments have.

        Delaney’s LinkedIn profile confirms that he does in fact work with DuPont.”

        And, “The study did not even compare non-GMO and GMO feed after all: it simply compared rats fed a GMO diet plus pesticides to rats fed a similar type of GMO-based diet, plus pesticides.”

        The facts are in the article and I know it’s your job to try to spin like a rat in heat to try and change the narrative.

        No sale, Arthur.

        Anyone can red and see that you are speading more of your corrupt lies again.

        1. It was a DuPont study.
          All the scientists who worked on it work for DuPont.
          Doesn’t mean the data is wrong.

        2. Wrong again, Arthur.

          The fact is that the agenda is more impotent to the GMO pesticide industry than the integrity of the science. We’re seeing it in the drug industry and we’re seeing it in the corrupt GMO pesticide industry.

          I know you’re paid to try and frame the “narrative” for your corrupt industry masters, but by now most have become aware that most anything you post is spin and lies.

          Another major FAILURE for you, Arthur.


Leave a Reply