Latest

Scientist Who Discovered That GMO’s Cause Tumors Wins Lawsuit

The scientist who linked GMOs to tumors wins lawsuit

A court has ruled that French Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini was correct when he concluded that GMO food, when fed to rats, caused serious health problems including tumors. 

March-against-monsanto.com reports:

Now, Prof. Séralini is in the news again – this time for winning a major court victory in a libel trial that represents the second court victory for Séralini and his team in less than a month.

On November 25, the High Court in Paris indicted Marc Fallous, the former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and the “use of forgery.” The details of the case have not been officially released.

But according to this article from the Séralini website, Fallous used or copied the signature of a scientist whose name was used, without his agreement, to argue that Séralini and his co-workers were wrong in their studies on Monsanto products, including GM corn.

A sentencing for Fallous is expected in June 2016.

Second Court Victory Reached

This was the second such court victory for the professor’s team, following a November 6 victory in a defamation lawsuit over an article in the French Marianne magazine which categorized the Séralini team research as “scientific fraud”.

What few people realize about the original Séralini study on GMOs is that it was only retracted after a serious PR offensive from Monsanto and the Biotech industry, one that included the creation of a whole new position on the original Food and Toxicology journal: Associate Editor for Biotechnology.

The new position was actually filled by a former Monsanto employee who helped convince the journal’s author to retract the study.

Now more than 2 years later, these are the facts: Séralini and his team’s original study has been republished in a different peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Sciences Europe; they have won two key lawsuits against those who have attempted to ruin their reputations; and a recent peer-reviewed letter even asserted that Séralini and his team may have been right after all on their discovery showing tumors in lab rats fed GMOs.

In other words, the jury is still out on GMO safety to say the very least, just as countless independent scientists have warned, and Séralini’s study stands as yet another cause for concern with the ongoing GMO experiment. It also shows the lengths that the Biotech industry will go to in order to discredit any independent science that clashes with their own version of science.

  • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

    “and a recent peer-reviewed letter even asserted that Séralini and his team may have been right after all on their discovery showing tumors in lab rats fed GMOs.

    In other words, the jury is still out on GMO safety to say the very least, just as countless independent scientists have warned, and Séralini’s study stands as yet another cause for concern with the ongoing GMO experiment”

    ‘may have been right’ and ‘discovered x causes y’ aren’t the same thing. The former describes a potential thing while the latter describes a known/proven one.

    So are his findings factual or is their validity still unknown?

    • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

      I think there’s enough to start forcing the people who make these foods to have to start proving that they are safe instead of assuming it. This is the same thing the cigarette and sugar companies did. They aren’t attacking the science or even attempting to demonstrate it’s non-validity, they are attacking the messengers. That’s a sure sign of a corporation that cannot defend it’s product, kill the messenger.

      • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

        “That’s a sure sign of a corporation that cannot defend it’s product, kill the messenger.”

        In case you weren’t aware, when you falsely sue someone for libel/defamation/etc and are proven to be wrong in your case, you face worse charges than the one you sued. See what happened to Fallous in this example.

        If the scientists being sued for libel are able to prove that their claims are, well, scientifically grounded, factual and true, then in court they should always come out on top.

        “I think there’s enough to start forcing the people who make these foods to have to start proving that they are safe instead of assuming it”

        I’m pretty sure no sane company is going to ‘assume’ something they’re making is safe, because that opens them to a ridiculous amount of potential legal backlash. Instead, it’s more likely there could be someone within that company working to their own interests who may be aware there is a problem with a new product yet covers it up because doing so benefits them more than trying to resolve the problem, and just hopes nobody is going to notice or if it is noticed, it won’t point back to them.

        In this case, the one who tried to cover up a problem (probably because it was a known problem, not the product was ‘assumed safe’ – else there’d’ve been no need for falsifying signatures etc) is Fallous.

        After all, had he (Fallous) simply assumed or even known their product was actually safe, he’d not have had to go to such lengths and could instead have let those studies carry on their due course, their findings be presented in court and then other studies on the same topic be presented showing those to be false in an attempt to harm the reputation of the company.

        As such companies engaging in GMO production oughtn’t necessarily be made to conduct extensive, lengthy, multi-generational studies on their products to determine they were without a doubt safe, they ought only be willing to accept that one of their products is found after use to be problematic and replace it.

        If you instead kept waiting for high-yield crops to magically spring from the ground on their own then starvation as a global crisis would quickly fly back onto the radar.

        Maybe instead of forcing GMO-producing companies to do this, that or the other thing we should start forcing people to procreate less so GMOs’ target market wane, causing them to shift their focuses elsewhere.

        But instead people want to keep pumping out babies and believe they’re entitled to access to relatively-inexpensive food without having to suffer and consequences for what they’re doing.

        You can’t realistically have both. Choose.

        • razorjack

          Nonsense.

          Monsanto’s own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA and called the science “inconvenient” and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.

          35-year cover-up of glyphosate / cancer link exposed

          “For the past 35 years Monsanto has known of the link between glyphosate and cancer, but has systematically worked to cover it up through scientifically fraudulent methods in its safety testing research programme. This is the most significant conclusion to be drawn from a new research paper (1) published in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry and now available online.

          For the first time the authors, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, present in tabulated form the data contained in secret Monsanto studies conducted in the period 1980 – 1990 which showed unequivocally that animals exposed to very small quantities of glyphosate in their food supply developed tumorigenic growth in multiple organs. Both Monsanto and the American EPA knew of these and other deleterious effects, but the EPA agreed to refer to these early studies as “trade secrets” and prevented public scrutiny. The results were considered inconvenient, and so they were ignored. To make matters worse, the EPA then agreed to further Monsanto-sponsored studies which used inappropriate control group data to create “experimental noise” and to mask carcinogenic and other effects in the animal test groups. Other fraudulent practices have also been subsequently revealed, including the non-reporting of test group deaths, the fabrication of data tables, and the falsification of experimental data (2).

          Dr Samsel is the first independent researcher to have been given access to the full Monsanto / EPA dossier of research reports, and the new paper itemises the key research findings in these early papers and presents a number of detailed appendices of the results.

          The authors conclude: “In this paper, we have reviewed the research literature on glyphosate and on the biological processes associated with cancer, and we have provided strong evidence that glyphosate is likely contributing to the increased prevalence of multiple types of cancer in humans. Monsanto’s own early studies revealed some trends in animal models that should not have been ignored. Forty years of glyphosate exposure have provided a living laboratory where humans are the guinea pigs and the outcomes are alarmingly apparent.”

          In their Abstract (3), the authors say: “Glyphosate has a large number of tumorigenic effects on biological systems, including direct damage to DNA in sensitive cells, disruption of glycine homeostasis, succinate dehydrogenase inhibition, chelation of manganese, modification to more carcinogenic molecules such as N-nitrosoglyphosate and glyoxylate, disruption of fructose metabolism, etc. Epidemiological evidence supports strong temporal correlations between glyphosate usage on crops and a multitude of cancers.”

          Speaking on the day of publication, Dr Samsel said: “Glyphosate is a reactive product that causes damage at the molecular level. Chemicals that disrupt the microbiome and immune function do not belong in our food supply . To allow any living creature exposure to such a product is, in my opinion, poor judgment by government agencies and serves only to benefit the purses of corporations and their investors. Future generations will judge our actions or lack thereof and surely condemn those who repeat the errors of the past.”

          Speaking for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John says: “In 1981 both Monsanto and the EPA were already aware of malignant tumours and pre-cancerous conditions in the test animals which were fed small doses of glyphosate in the secret feeding experiments (4). Although concerns were expressed at the time by EPA committees, these concerns were later suppressed while Monsanto was allowed to bring forward a range of cynically manipulated and fraudulent studies purporting to show that glyphosate was harmless (2). None of these studies has been made available for independent examination. That is a scandal in itself. There has been a protracted and cynical cover-up in this matter. Monsanto and the EPA have been fully aware of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate for at least 35 years. If they had acted in a precautionary fashion back then, instead of turning a blind eye to scientific malpractice, glyphosate would never have been licensed, and hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.” ”

          http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice06Nov2015.html

          • Rob Bright

            *crickets*

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            If you use that sort of remark within an hour, while others might have other things to attend to, you’re an A-grade fool. School-yard behaviour is meant to be limited to school-yards where kids don’t know how to be anything but childish because it’s just part of the process of growing up; it’s not meant to follow you into adulthood.

          • Rob Bright

            Thanks for the lesson an maturity, Theo. I guess calling people ‘fools’ and referring to them as children denotes just how mature you are…? (Pot meet kettle…)

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            It’s an observation of your behaviour and a likening of it to something. If you don’t like people telling you you’re behaving in a childish manner then don’t behave in a childish manner. Simple enough concept.

          • Rob Bright

            Right. Reread your childish response and tell me again how childish I am. (SMH)

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Did you even think about what I said? Let me put it into words so you can think along with them.

            Person A posts a long piece of text to be read which someone may, but is under no obligation to, read and may, but is under no obligation to, reply to.

            Persons B through Y, who may read and/or choose to at some point reply to it, are preoccupied with other things and will not necessarily be aware they were even replied to at the time Person Z comes along to pat their pal Person A on the shoulder and post “*crickets*”.

            Persons B through Y may come back a day later, having concluded their preoccupations, to see Person A’s comment and only now get around to reading through it (also noticing Person Z’s pointless remark).

            Do you understand how your remark was childish yet? Or do you believe we’re all sitting here watching Razor’s comments with a keen eye so we don’t miss a beat, don’t give you an opportunity to make your remark before we submit our replies in turn?

          • Rob Bright

            Yes, thank you for your unimpressive play by play. Of course, being the child you are, you fail to see your own response to my *crickets* reply was by far the more immature response. Keep it up, though. Your blatant trolling is clear to everyone who sees it.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            What I’m doing is not ‘trolling’. Dismissing anything you don’t like/disagree with as ‘trolling’ is another childish trait; people do not HAVE to agree with you online/say things which make you feel all warm and fuzzy in your chest.

          • razorjack

            You are deluded and you are disingenuous and duplicitous .

            You are e troll here and everyone can see it.

          • Rob Bright

            LOL. Pathetic…

          • razorjack

            He presents like a common troll to me.

          • Rob Bright

            He IS a common troll. A most immature one at that…

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “Monsanto’s own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA and called the science “inconvenient” and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.”

            You can try to cover up your own employees’ documents, you cannot prevent your product, readily available off home improvement stores’ shelves, from being tested out of your control by others.

            “For the first time the authors, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, present in tabulated form the data contained in secret Monsanto studies conducted in the period 1980 – 1990 which showed unequivocally that animals exposed to very small quantities of glyphosate in their food supply developed tumorigenic growth in multiple organs. Both Monsanto and the American EPA knew of these and other deleterious effects”

            No, really? A chemical which is intended to cause the death of a variety of plants (organisms) was found to also potentially harm other organisms? 35 years is a long time for something so obvious to somehow not get exposed by the countless scientists out there who could’ve tackled it. A company like Monsanto could only chase after so many scientists releasing the same repeatable results before courts would just laugh at them “trying to continue covering it up”.

            “but the EPA agreed to refer to these early studies as “trade secrets” and prevented public scrutiny”

            Thank goodness the United States is not the only country in the world nor the only country in the world where Monsanto products have been available for many decades. Odd how scientists in countries where the EPA has no power didn’t bother to conduct this research…?

            “The results were considered inconvenient”
            I suppose it was also inconvenient for the scientists not in the USA to do their research on Roundup. Gosh. So many inconveniences…

            “None of these studies has been made available for independent examination”
            Okay, and where are the studies from what may be construed to be neutral parties without vested interests finding it to be either safe or unsafe, as opposed to ones which appear to have vested interests leaning toward either camp (pro-GMO/anti-GMO)?

            “If they had acted in a precautionary fashion back then, instead of turning a blind eye to scientific malpractice, glyphosate would never have been licensed, and hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved”

            I have a bottle of roundup somewhere in a cupboard here. I could go out and buy it from numerous stores within walking distance and a 10-minute ride from here, including many of our grocery stores.

            Odd how, despite this alarming evidence being made available (supposedly, anyway), it’s still so freely available.

          • razorjack

            Stupid is a stupid does.

            Scientist Dr. Anthony Samsel says:

            “There are no safe levels of glyphosate. It is a synthetic amino acid analogue of glycine that destroys the cell at the molecular level. In other words you are being destroyed a cell at a time until you reach criticality and then its too late ..

            Monsanto’s own studies showed destruction of all of the glands and organs. The basement membranes which are rich in glycine were destroyed because Glyphosate is an amino acid analogue of glycine which substitutes for our own forming peptoids. The glyphosate peptoids are small proteins which due to the phosphonate group induce cell death like other phosphonates ….. that’s why Monsanto found so much destruction in all glands and organs and also why glyphosate was found to bioaccumulate in all tissues including the brain. By the way glyphosate causes misfolded proteins through misincorporation the same as other misincorporated amino acids. This is not new its just never been discussed …..

            We are not talking about toxicity as in the dose makes the poison… Glyphosate does not have a dose response relationship, it has an inverse one…Glyphosate causes destruction of the cell. The phosphonate group induces apoptosis. Monsanto found that GLYPHOSATE caused ACHROMATIC lesions of the cells or gaps (breaks) in the CHROMOSOMES (DNA strand breaks) of the test animals …

            Monsanto studies show that 30 to 35 % of glyphosate is well retained, the beta half-life of which is 7 to 14 days. That means glyphosate can circulate in your biology for about a month. Of the 30-35% approximately better than 1% bioaccumulates in all tissues highest in the bone and bone marrow. Monsanto found glyphosate caused statistically significant achromatic lesions in bone marrow over the experiments solvent controls …. The balance of the glyphosate is passed in the excreta i.e feces and urine. Some glyphosate does metabolize, 6 metabolites were found as well as 4 additional new synthetic amino acids which can also metabolize. Carcinogenic N-Nitrosoglyphosate was found to increase over glyphosate fed residues, as were others. Bottom line is that the retained glyphosate is also responsible for the destruction of the cells of glands, organs and tissues. Destroy the cells of the glands and organs and it directly affects functionality and this leads to numerous diseases … This destruction occurs at the molecular level. There should be no residues of herbicides in our food supply….”.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “”There are no safe levels of glyphosate. It is a synthetic amino acid analogue of glycine that destroys the cell at the molecular level. In other words you are being destroyed a cell at a time until you reach criticality and then its too late ..”

            Spoiler: at all times, any number of different things are causing the degeneration of cells within your body, and your body replaces cells. This is something even 11-year-old-me learned in school.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_in_humans

            In case you weren’t aware, one of pathways of cell degeneration present in humans is called ‘oxidation’. It’s an entirely natural process, but over time a cell will have done its work and end up ‘dying’; after which it needs to be replaced. Your blood cells, as example, are replaced with fair frequency.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_death

            Obviously, there are going to be things which will increase the rate at which cells are degenerated/’killed’. Nobody disputes this, and nobody disputes roundup’s active ingredient can increase this rate either. The reality of the matter is, however, that cells which are destroyed are replaced in turn.

            This is not new its just never been discussed …..”

            So you’re telling me so many decades after it became available people have only now begun discussing it thanks to the advent of viral means of spreading information…….?

            I’m pretty sure whistle-blowing has been around much longer than the internet.

            Glyphosate does not have a dose response relationship, it has an inverse one…Glyphosate causes destruction of the cell

            Again, not surprising giving as a herbicide it’s intended to straight-up kill the weeds it’s sprayed on. That it could adversely affect any other living organisms is thus, again, unsurprising. The extent to which remains the only factor which may be cause for surprise; that is to say “in this animal it’s harmless while in this other animal with an equivalent body mass it’s lethal!”.

            I see you copying and pasting a lot of what you’re saying to me across various sites’ comment sections, which leaves me wondering how much of it is from your own research/understanding and how much is, instead, what you’d simply read somewhere (which isn’t wikipedia, since we’ve established that’s obviously of the corporate devil, so you wouldn’t go there – obviously) and decided to latch onto because it supports the position you wish to argue (agenda).

            “This destruction occurs at the molecular level. There should be no residues of herbicides in our food supply”

            Gosh, there also shouldn’t be any arsenic or cyanide (both ᵖᵒᵗᵉᶰᵗᶦᵃᶫᶫʸ lethal!) in our food, yet traces of either occur naturally in a whole lotta the things we eat, even though we, humans, or the evil corporations for that matter, aren’t the ones putting them there!

          • razorjack

            You insist in using wikipedia for citations. You have been informed that wikipedia is no longer a reliable source from information on these issues because of the industry corruption of its editorial process.

            The FACT is that Dr Samsel is using Monsanto’s own data and the data from their control groups.

            You need more than a quick and dirty industry sponsored education on the issues, until then you’ll just keep embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Informed by whom? You? As I already asked you; for what reason should I believe you?

            The FACT is that if I search that guy’s name, I get loads of contradictory results. What I see most prominently is results in support are blogs –basically armchair ‘scientists’ like yourself– who’re either anti-Monsanto in particular or anti-GMO in general.

            The results contradicting it are those you’d never believe no matter what, anyway; corporates. Industry. PR-y people. Y’know, all the evil ones I’m not also listing.

            What I’m not seeing are studies parties other than Samsel and Seneff. Unless it’s simply because I’m losing interest going over the results after the first 10 pages and the ones I’m looking for (y’know, peer reviews, etc) are present in pages 11 and deeper.

            I value repeatable results for studies of this nature. I value reproduced evidence.

            What I don’t value is references to one paper which has been called into question by many while seemingly only being supported by those who cling to their biases.

            You want to convince me? Go reproduce these findings for yourself and present to the world your own findings. Not what you compiled into a copy-paste document somewhere on your computer for quick sourcing.

          • razorjack

            Tell it to the hand.

            I’ve had enough of your ignorant BS.

            I’m done with you.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            I guess that I’ve been speaking to a hand explains why my questions have repeatedly gone unanswered.

            Here’s a tip for future reference: instead of telling people “I’m done with you”, just stop replying to them. It tends to be much more effective in riling many up when they no receive responses from someone.

        • ethrop

          Theo, may i suggest that arguing with the lovelies here is pretty much pointless.. they are basically ankle-biters with the intelligence of gnats. They don’t understand what you just wrote .. and they probably didn’t read it. Thanks for the effort though. I enjoyed reading it!

          • Rob Bright

            Typical unenlightened response from an antiscience, pro-industry, meat puppet…

          • razorjack

            Got you head stuck in the corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber pot, troll.

          • Ben Magno

            Drink everytime you see “corrupt GMO pesticide industry” and twice if “disinformation” is added immediately afterward.

            If I’m a troll for learning by best available evidence, these guys are parrots.

        • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

          What a load of BS. Using your argument, the people who produce FOOD, the one commodity that is absolutely essential for life along with water, don’t have an obligation to demonstrate that their experiments on the human condition don’t cause detrimental effects on people because it’s too burdensome. Using that logic anyone can serve up anything, claim it is safe for human consumption and ignore any science to the contrary as the GMO industry has done.

          The idea that a single person can hide the negative ramifications of a product is so silly I won’t bother to dispute it. Also, high yield crop production that requires that all farmers purchase seeds from one corporation and making it illegal to save and reuse seeds (a tradition that is thousands of years old) does absolutely nothing except force farmers to buy their product or suffer legal consequences. You want me to choose one? I choose the one were we can be sure the food is safe and don’t have to deal with corporations whether we want to our not. I choose the one were they are more concerned with the quality of the food and it’s affects on people than the profits of a company.

          The idea that changing the dynamics of creating food for the world is being tailored to suit the business practices of a corporation that has a legal responsibility to make a profit before anything else (including the safety of their product) is simply wrong unless they can demonstrate that there is an obvious positive benefit from the change. They can’t. They can only justify their profit margins.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “What a load of BS. Using your argument, the people who produce FOOD, the one commodity that is absolutely essential for life along with water, don’t have an obligation to demonstrate that their experiments on the human condition don’t cause detrimental effects on people because it’s too burdensome”

            Gosh, I didn’t know when I grow some pumpkins in my yard I’m conducting experiments on the human condition (did you even look this up before choosing to use it?) and that it’s causing detrimental effects on ‘people’ (who, and how, exactly?)

            “Using that logic anyone can serve up anything, claim it is safe for human consumption and ignore any science to the contrary as the GMO industry has done”

            No, by my argument if you think my pumpkins are poisoning your kids (should I choose to sell them to you) you’re the one who’s under obligation to prove they’re doing so and that I’m directly responsible for that effect, that it’s not, perhaps, a toxin still present within the pumpkins’ skin which I wasn’t responsible for.

            I mean, after all, I could tell you “my pumpkins are safe – or at least safe to the best of my knowledge” and you’d happily take them. This’d be me, GMO-Company-X-before-vilification, telling you my GMO-pumpkins are entirely safe. Now of course, one of three things could be the case:

            1. I know I’m lying, because I’ve determined myself they’re in fact unsafe for consumption
            2. I don’t know whether they’re safe or not because I haven’t conducted extensive studies, but at the same time eating them myself I haven’t noticed any adverse effects so I ‘assume’ they’re safe (saying they’re safe while I assume they’re safe is bad for me legally)
            3. I know they’re safe, because I’ve determined myself they’re safe, but you don’t believe me because one of your kids got sick in some way which happened to be preceded at some point by your kid eating my pumpkins, so you go on a mission to prove my pumpkins were to blame so you’ve someone to point a finger to

            In #1 I’m a lying, fraudulent prick (which Science-Guy was saying Monsanto were concerning their Roundup product).

            In #2 I’m not lying outright, but I’m also not disclosing that I don’t know whether my pumpkins are safe.

            In #3 you’re being a prick because you’re employing confirmation bias to push your agenda, namely finding someone to blame for your child getting sick even if that cause wasn’t necessarily my fault and could have been due to other factors.

            Not that any of what I’ve talked about above has any specific relevance to the article’s text at hand, and I’m not sure why you brought up that paragraph in the first place.

            The idea that a single person can hide the negative ramifications of a product is so silly I won’t bother to dispute it
            Well, they could, or at least could try, but their success would depend on a very wide range of factors. But I guess we won’t be discussing that, so…

            “Also, high yield crop production that requires that all farmers purchase seeds from one corporation and making it illegal to save and reuse seeds (a tradition that is thousands of years old) does absolutely nothing except force farmers to buy their product or suffer legal consequences”

            I’m pretty sure that at no point are they forced to use GMO seeds, they could continue using their own crops and employ horticultural domestication practises which are thousands of years old to develop their own higher-yield cultivars without employing GMOs. Sure their profit margins would suffer as a result, but at least they’d be in control of their production! I mean, organic farms seem to be doing a banging job these days, so why can’t organic wheat farms do the same? Oh wait, many already do…

            “You want me to choose one? I choose the one were we can be sure the food is safe and don’t have to deal with corporations whether we want to our not. I choose the one were they are more concerned with the quality of the food and it’s affects on people than the profits of a company”

            Good for you. What point are you trying to make here?

            “The idea that changing the dynamics of creating food for the world is being tailored to suit the business practices of a corporation that has a legal responsibility to make a profit before anything else (including the safety of their product) is simply wrong unless they can demonstrate that there is an obvious positive benefit from the change. They can’t. They can only justify their profit margins.”

            Egh, I can think of one ‘positive benefit’, although it’s only positive in the eyes of some and grossly-detrimental in my eyes.

            That is to say, thanks to GMOs (among other technological advances) world hunger has been tackled rather well in the past century or so. Well, rather, before GMOs in the form of gene splicing things still improved thanks to advances in telecommunication and transportation, GMOs was just like a kind of NO2-boost to the ability for that ‘issue’ to be tackled.

            Meanwhile I’m of the opinion the world could do with having a massive portion of its population straight-up eliminated. We wouldn’t really need GMOs at all if we didn’t have to feed so many mouths – our ancestors sure didn’t.

            But well, here we are. In a world where people can choose to eat GMO-based foods, choose to eat non-GMO based foods or bitch about GMOs while probably still eating them all the same without realising it (or even willingly doing so while lying to themselves convincing themselves they’ve no other choice when in reality they do, they’re just not willing to deal with the circumstances such a choice could impose on them)

          • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

            “I didn’t know when I grow some pumpkins in my yard I’m conducting experiments on the human condition”

            I didn’t know this article was about you growing pumpkins in your yard. Oh, it’s not. So your basically using a false argument because putting on in the context of the article makes your comments silly. There is no honest way to compare you growing pumpkins in your yard to GMO produced foods for feeding the world. It’s, at best, a disingenuous argument.

            “my argument if you think my pumpkins are poisoning your kids (should I choose to sell them to you) you’re the one who’s under obligation to prove they’re doing so and that I’m directly responsible for that effect, that it’s not, perhaps, a toxin still present within the pumpkins’ skin which I wasn’t responsible for.”

            Again with the pumpkins. Well, if you were also creating these pumpkins, selling seeds to millions of farmers and then forcing them to purchase your seeds through government rules, regulations and judicial fiat which you pay for to benefit your company policies, you’d have a point. But growing pumpkins in your front yard is not the same as a corporation doing so over millions of acres of land for general use of the population at hand. Another disingenuous argument.

            “I mean, after all, I could tell you “my pumpkins are safe – or at least safe to the best of my knowledge” and you’d happily take them. This’d be me, GMO-Company-X-before-vilification, telling you my GMO-pumpkins are entirely safe.”

            Interesting assumption you make. You tell me what I would do and this is supposed to prove your argument? Your assumptions about my behavior? Well, you’d be wrong. I’d ask quite a few questions before I purchased your pumpkins to eat and if you told me that they were spliced with the genes of some animal or fish, I’d ask for scientific proof that you didn’t negatively affect the nutritional value of the food and have evidence that eating it would not harm me or my kids. The only way I’d buy your pumpkin without those questions is if you dishonestly sold them to me as being natural in the sense that there have been no manipulations of the product. So your scenarios are moot as you incorrectly interpreted how I would go about purchasing produce from someone.

            “I’m pretty sure that at no point are they forced to use GMO seeds, they could continue using their own crops and employ horticultural domestication practises which are thousands of years old to develop their own higher-yield cultivars without employing GMOs.”

            Monsanto disagrees with you.

            http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

            “That is to say, thanks to GMOs (among other technological advances) world hunger has been tackled rather well in the past century or so.”

            And despite GMOs, world hunger is still a factor all over the world. To say that it’s been “tackled” is like saying racism doesn’t exist in America because there’s a black president, a gross assumption to make you feel better.

            “But well, here we are. In a world where people can choose to eat GMO-based foods, choose to eat non-GMO based foods or bitch about GMOs while probably still eating them all the same without realising it”

            More BS. If the corporations don’t have to tell you that you’re eating GMO foods (and they don’t in America, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-votes-gmos-no-labels-mandatory_us_55b23f51e4b0a13f9d1828ef) then you don’t have a choice about whether or not you will eat them unless you grow your own foods.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “I didn’t know this article was about you growing pumpkins in your yard. Oh, it’s not”
            I know it’s not. It’s about a court case concerning libel.

            And yet here you come, bringing up something which doesn’t related to a court case concerning libel, and if I humour your unrelated remarks you get upset?

            “So your basically using a false argument because putting on in the context of the article makes your comments silly”
            What? Did you mean to say ‘putting one in the context of’? That’s what I did in my first comment on this article 5 months ago. If anything, it’s all y’all bringing all the out-of-context stuff up. All I’m doing is humouring the lot of you.

            “There is no honest way to compare you growing pumpkins in your yard to GMO produced foods for feeding the world. It’s, at best, a disingenuous argument”
            Sure there is. I could be growing GMO-pumpkins, I could be growing non-GMO pumpkins. I could be growing pumpkins with the assistance of pesticides and fabricated growth hormones, I could be doing so using nothing but naturally-occurring means (things/methods).

            Then again, this conversation has nothing to do with this article, so it’s a good thing I’m not the one who brought it up since talking about it is out of context.

            “Again with the pumpkins. Well, if you were also creating these pumpkins, selling seeds to millions of farmers and then forcing them to purchase your seeds through government rules”
            Again, I’m pretty sure farmers aren’t forced to buy GMO seed-stock in most, if not all of the world. I’m pretty sure doing so is a choice.

            “But growing pumpkins in your front yard is not the same as a corporation d oing so over millions of acres of land for general use of the population at hand. Another disingenuous argument”
            Egh, no. In South Africa farmers can grow with whichever seed-stock they please, and South Africa exports great swathes of its agricultural produce to countries like America where mere whispers of Monsanto sends shivers up the spines of hipsters within a 50-mile radius.

            “Interesting assumption you make. You tell me what I would do and this is supposed to prove your argument?”
            2.
            used to refer to any person in general.
            “after a while, you get used to it”

            Go look up that word’s definition. I find it remarkable how few people today are aware of this use of the word. While you’re at it, look up the word ‘hypothetical’, since what I was describing was a hypothetical scenario. It’s not a retelling of what has happened, it’s not a prophecy of what will happen. I mean, if it were a prophecy then there wouldn’t be 3 different scenarios, there’d only be the ONE TRUE FORETOLD!!1oneleven scenario; the one where you (as in you specifically) most definitely buy my pumpkins. I can only imagine how grossly inefficient shipping a lone pumpkin to wherever in the world you are would be for me from a business perspective…

            “Well, you’d be wrong. I’d ask quite a few questions before I purchased you r pumpkins to eat and if you told me that they were spliced with the genes of some animal or fish, I’d ask for scientific proof that you didn’t negatively affect the nutritional value of the food and have evidence that eating it would not harm me or my kids”
            Honestly, if you do this for everything you consume I am thoroughly surprised you’ve not yet withered away from starvation/dehydration being that you’d have had to wait such a long time to get your evidence (not to mention corroborative studies on the same consumable items to substantiate that evidence [and maybe further corroborative studies to substantiate those corroborative studies’ findings – you get where I’m going with this {maybe?}])

            “The only way I’d buy your pumpkin without those questions is if you dishonestly sold them to me as being natural in the sense that there have been no manipulations of the product”
            See hypothetical scenario #1.

            “Monsanto disagrees with you”
            Completely unrelated to what I’ve said.

            “And despite GMOs, world hunger is still a factor all over the world. To say that it’s been “tackled” is like saying racism doesn’t exist in America because there’s a black president, a gross assumption to make you feel better”

            Good thing I didn’t say world hunger had been eliminated. But yes, it’s been tackled rather well. The percentage of those starving has shrunk drastically in the past century. And no, it’s not like saying “racism doesn’t exist” because I’m not speaking in absolutes; that’d be all you (as in, you specifically – just so there’s no confusion here – man, this is going to get tiring…)

            “More BS. If the corporations don’t have to tell you that you’re eating GMO foods (and they don’t in America, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/… then you don’t have a choice about whether or not you will eat them unless you grow your own foods”
            No, really? That’s exactly what I already told you. Maybe pay a lil’ more attention to reading, eh?

          • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

            “And yet here you come, bringing up something which doesn’t related to a court case concerning libel, and if I humour your unrelated remarks you get upset?”

            Didn’t know I was upset? Thanks for telling me. Demonstrates how you make assumptions to prove your points.

            So let’s me get this straight. I give an answer to your question, “So are his findings factual or is their validity still unknown?” which is in context, then you go off on a rant about what no “sane” company would do as if a company has a mind that independently makes decisions. Then you run off about how a single person could withhold evidence of the detrimental affects of GMOs, so a company shouldn’t be liable (ridiculous on it’s face if your more than 15 and worked in a corporation) and then compare growing pumpkins in your front yard to growing foodstuffs for the world, again, ridiculous on it’s face.

            And somehow it’s everyone else’s fault that you were forced to make these ignorant comments. And that last comment about you telling me “exactly” what I said,is simply your inability to determine the difference between your statement and mine. You should take a class in reading comprehension as our comments were not “exactly” the same.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “Didn’t know I was upset? Thanks for telling me.”
            See the ‘question mark’ at the end of my sentence. It serves a specific function.

            “So let’s me get this straight. I give an answer to your question, “So are his findings factual or is their validity still unknown?” which is in context, then you go off on a rant about what no “sane” company would do as if a company has a mind that independently makes decisions”

            “I think there’s enough to start forcing the people who make these foods to have to start proving that they are safe instead of assuming it”

            This does not answer my question. It’s an inconclusive supposition on your part as to what may happen, based on… who knows what.

            Also, no, I am not going off on a rant about ‘sane companies’ “as if a company has a mind that independently makes decisions”. That’s why I specifically refer to them (them, they, plural) as a company (as in, not an individual but instead a group of people who work together or among whom there are those who may collude [verb come to a secret understanding; conspire]).

            “Then you run off about how a single person could withhold evidence of the detrimental affects of GMOs, so a company shouldn’t be liable”
            Except I don’t do this. Not unless you, as you appear to be apt to do, take ‘someone’ to mean, quite literally, one person. I’d love to see this lone person within a company the size of Monsanto who has such power they can control absolutely anything they want from the shadows. All on their own!

            “so a company shouldn’t be liable”
            Pretty sure I didn’t allude to this in the context of someone (again, in case I’ve not made it abundantly clear, this would not be a single person – just so there’s no confusion) within a company working to cover things up.

            I’m referring to a company not being liable to succumb to your (unspecific ‘your’) petty whims of providing ridiculous amounts of data on the potential effects their GMO crop strains might have but is not known to have despite the potential you (unspecific you) might turn around and decide to blame them for any sorts of ailments you (unspecific you) might face in the future because you (unspecific you) chose to eat their crops taking what they (unspecific they; Monsanto aren’t the only GMO company, as example) produced as ‘evidence it’s safe’ at face-value.

            If anything, naysayers are the ones who ought be responsible to prove the crops (or herbicides, pesticides, etc) are of the devil should they have real concerns about them, at which point the producer of said crops/etc could elect to conduct their own studies to prove the opposite.

            Except, of course, where a regulatory body mandates all of this is done prior to x being made available to the public; the way pharmaceuticals must be approved by the FDA in America, as example. These sorts of regulations are not universal however; which is why I brought up the pumpkins. If I (hypothetical I) grow pumpkins (hypothetical crop; it could be GMO, it could be non-GMO; it’s a hypothetical crop which does not exist in reality) then in my country (in this example, South Africa, since I’m most familiar with our own regulations in this regard) I am under no obligation to have extensive studies performed on the safety of my crop for human consumption if I aim to sell it to my neighbour. Even if I produce them en masse, someone would need to blow a whistle about my production and their concerns be brought to the attention of our Department of Trade and Industry, who would investigate the allegations laid against me; and those allegations could not be so simple as “my hypothetical child got hypothetically sick after eating the hypothetical pumpkins grown by a hypothetical person named Theo in that hypothetical place, and I want you to investigate”; they would need to be able to point to some specific cause for that illness which holds direct correlation to those hypothetical pumpkins and in turn, hypothetical me.

            Do you see how long these posts get when I have to spell everything out for you so as to minimize the chance for you getting confused? Go look up the term ‘nuance’ while you’ve got that dictionary warmed up.

            “and then compare growing pumpkins in your front yard to growing foodstuffs for the world, again, ridiculous on it’s face”
            Except it’s really not. GMOs and chemicals such as herbicides/pesticides address a rather specific problem (generally); that is the ability to reliably produce enough food to accommodate a growing population, whether local or remote, while minimizing input requirements (land, tending, soil fertility, pest-control; the list goes on in concepts various GMOs and chemicals address).

            “And somehow it’s everyone else’s fault that you were forced to make these ignorant comments”
            Where have I faulted anyone or claimed I feel forced to make these comments? Do you not realise I enjoy interacting with you lot, no matter how stupid you are?

            “And that last comment about you telling me “exactly” what I said,is simply your inability to determine the difference between your statement and mine. You should take a class in reading comprehension as our comments were not “exactly” the same.”
            Good thing I didn’t say our comments were exactly the same. I said I’ve been telling you exactly the same thing; namely that if you want to not eat GMOs then, get this:

            go grow your own non-GMO crops.

            Ironic I would be told by someone with the reading capabilities of a preschooler to ‘take a class in reading comprehension’. I can only hope you’re not natively English-speaking, because if you are you put whoever taught you English to shame.

          • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

            Yeah, I saw the question mark. You say that as if the implication of your question was not that I was upset. I didn’t say anything that implied I was “upset”, you inferred and used it characterize my perspective. How disingenuous of you.

            You also characterized my response as “an inconclusive supposition on [my] part as to what may happen, based on… who knows what.”

            It was based on the article pointing out that other scientists had peer reviewed his work, and found it good science. If his work is good science then there should be more questions asked about simply allowing corporations to say it’s safe without demonstrating that the his science, not his person, is not valid. It’s relevant because it’s the food that people are eating. That’s why your “go grow your own non-GMO crops” is BS also. I don’t just care about myself, I care about other people too. Just making it safe for me is selfish and stupid in the long run.

            “Not unless you, as you appear to be apt to do, take ‘someone’ to mean, quite literally, one
            person. I’d love to see this lone person within a company the size of
            Monsanto who has such power they can control absolutely anything they
            want from the shadows. All on their own!”

            Why would anyone have assumed the word “someone” did not quite literally mean one person? Aside from the definition of the word, it certainly didn’t in the context of your response where “someone within that company working to their own interest” was referenced. Or did you mean that a group within the company would be conspiring against the company? You weren’t clear as the context does not imply a group. But hey, three posts later you clear it up by saying it wasn’t your intent to have me use the word as defined, but as you wish to define it after the fact. Sounds disingenuous to me.

            “If anything, naysayers are the ones who ought be responsible to prove
            the crops (or herbicides, pesticides, etc) are of the devil should they
            have real concerns about them, at which point the producer of said
            crops/etc could elect to conduct their own studies to prove the
            opposite.”

            The naysayer did demonstrate a high probability between tumors and GMOs. That’s what the peer reviewed study demonstrated. Did the “producer of said crops/etc” elect to do studies to prove the opposite (as my initial response said they should be doing given the findings of the study in question)? No. The smeared him and his colleagues in an attempt to ruin reputations and hopefully the credibility of the work. In other words, to metaphorically, as I said in my initial response, kill the messenger.

            “Do you see how long these posts get when I have to spell everything out
            for you so as to minimize the chance for you getting confused? Go look
            up the term ‘nuance’ while you’ve got that dictionary warmed up.”

            No. What I see is a pathetic attempt at coming up with a way to criticize me for you not being able to use your original scenario to prove your point and when I made that point you started adding details. Again, disingenuous.

            Good thing I didn’t say that you said our comments were exactly the same. I never said that if you don’t want GMO crops to grow your own. I said that if you aren’t told they are GMO foods you don’t have a choice as to whether or not you are eating them. Those are two different statements, a fact which appear to be lost on you. Maybe it’s to nuanced for you.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “You say that as if the implication of your question was not that I was upset”
            No, I do say it as though the implication is that you might be/might have been upset. Emphasis on the word “might”.

            “you inferred and used it characterize my perspective. How disingenuous of you”
            If you’re going to make this sort of remark you might want to look at your own messages where you say such things as, to quote from top to bottom:

            “To say that it’s been “tackled” is like saying racism doesn’t exist in America because there’s a black president, a gross assumption to make you feel better”
            This remark of yours, as with several others of yours, is borne of a gross incompetence in reading comprehension. This doesn’t stop you from making a baseless remark on how you seem to perceive my character (read: “disingenuous”, a word you seem to be rather fond of)

            “And somehow it’s everyone else’s fault that you were forced to make these ignorant comments”
            I’m still waiting for you to answer my questioning of this remark, as I don’t see such a response in your latest reply either. Maybe I’m just not reading it through thoroughly; who knows.

            “It was based on the article pointing out that other scientists had peer reviewed his work, and found it good science”
            Sigh. Go read my first comment on this article again, and note the part I’ve quoted several times now, namely:
            “‘may have been right’ and ‘discovered x causes y’ aren’t the same thing. The former describes a potential thing while the latter describes a known/proven one.

            So are his findings factual or is their validity still unknown?”

            There is a very big, very distinct difference in legal parlance between “may have been right” and “x causes y” or “was correct”. This article is about a court case concerning libel. Court cases concerning libel have absolutely nothing to do with your statement that “I think there’s enough to start forcing the people who make these foods to have to start proving that they are safe instead of assuming it”

            Basically, your ‘answer’ was out of context, irrelevant and did not ‘answer’ anything’. It was nothing more than a general remark, like saying in a case which reaches a point of “there may have been more than one shooter involved in JFK’s murder” that “I think there’s enough to start forcing people who’re investigating this to start proving there were rather than just assuming it”.

            “If his work is good science then there should be more questions asked about simply allowing corporations to say it’s safe without demonstrating that the his science, not his person, is not valid”
            Except his science has only been corroborated by organizations with vested interests so far, as far as I can tell. That’s not ‘good science’ by any stretch of the imagination; it’s exactly the opposite.

            “It’s relevant because it’s the food that people are eating. That’s why your “go grow your own non-GMO crops” is BS also”
            Continually saying “this, that, the other thing is BS” is not refuting a point with a counter-argument, it’s a mindless retort which serves no purpose for convincing your opposition.

            “I don’t just care about myself, I care about other people too. Just making it safe for me is selfish and stupid in the long run”
            As is this narrow-mindedly gross interpretation of the argument I presented. Fact: you do not need to make use of GMOs to produce crops en masse for serving large populations rather than just yourself. There’s only so many times I can repeat this point. If you don’t want to use GMO seed stock, then don’t. No, Monsanto and other GMO organizations are not going to come out and sue you for not using their seed-stock. What they do is sue people for saving for re-use seeds from crops grown from purchased seed-stock; much like a publisher sueing someone for scanning an reprinting a book. Want to sell a book? Write your own.

            “Why would anyone have assumed the word “someone” did not quite literally mean one person?”
            Have you ever read any pieces of fiction (or even the countless pieces of non-fiction) which make use of the word? It’s used more times than I’d venture you could count to refer to an undefined amount of people (one or many).

            “But hey, three posts later you clear it up by saying it wasn’t your intent to have me use the word as defined, but as you wish to define it after the fact. Sounds disingenuous to me”
            I cannot be required to consistently accommodate your repeated demonstrations of illiteracy. Go read some books rather than anti-GMO blog posts. Learn how to better understand and use the English language for a change.

            “Did the “producer of said crops/etc” elect to do studies to prove the opposite (as my initial response said they should be doing given the findings of the study in question)? No”
            As far as I’m aware, Monsanto (in this specific case), have.

            And it’s exactly those studies which this case concerned; ones which may have been falsified by Fallous (and/or anyone he colluded with, but principally that one man as prime suspect [go look this legal term up]) from where further investigations could be carried out.

            “The smeared him and his colleagues in an attempt to ruin reputations and hopefully the credibility of the work. In other words, to metaphorically, as I said in my initial response, kill the messenger.”
            Again. If their science was factually grounded and the results repeatable, then they would not be engaging in libel and a case for such taken out against them would fall flat before it gained momentum.

            Based on what I’m seeing he (Séralini) gained little support and drew lots of criticism for this study of his.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair#Scientific_evaluation

            You don’t need to look at only this Wikipedia article to see scientists the world over meting out the same criticism for the studies.

            “Good thing I didn’t say that you said our comments were exactly the same”
            “You should take a class in reading comprehension as our comments were not “exactly” the same

            “I never said that if you don’t want GMO crops to grow your own”
            “If the corporations don’t have to tell you that you’re eating GMO foods (and they don’t in America, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/… then you don’t have a choice about whether or not you will eat them unless you grow your own foods”

            “Those are two different statements, a fact which appear to be lost on you”
            No, I know they’re two different statements. What I’m getting at is what I’ve been getting at since I started replying to you.

            Basically, if you don’t like GMOs, grow your own non-GMO food and stop whining. You can say you “care about everyone else”, but in reality it’s not your job to care about everyone else. Let them care for themselves unless they ask you to care for their interests as well. Else you’re forcing yourself into others’ business without their consent.

            Which is rather disingenuous, being it serves your own interests more than theirs.

    • Rob Bright

      Certainly runs counter to all the hyperbolised accusations against him from corporate meat-puppets and the corporations themselves. Looks like all their screams of “GMOs are proven safe!!” was just more industry propaganda and pseudoscience…

    • razorjack

      The Seralini study was a toxicology study it was not looking for cancer or tumors.

      The corrupt GMO pesticide industry likes to talk about the tumors because it diverts attention from the seriously troubling toxacollogy results that the industry is trying so hard to suppress.

      • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

        Again, that a herbicide has toxic effects should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. It’s specifically made to kill (a variety) of plants. Only a fool would think it’s 101% safe for anything/everything which is not its target plants.

        I mean, it’s marketed as a ‘weed killer’, but it also kills grass. Kinda odd, don’tcha think?

        • Rob Bright

          And yet claims of its absolute safety — safe enough to drink! — are still rampantly expressed by all the pro-GMO activists out there in social media land. The point is Monsanto knew it was carcinogenic since the early 90s and continued to espouse how harmless it was.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Wait, early 90s? I thought razorjack’s been saying this stuff’s been known since the early 80s, back when they first released it for sale?

        • razorjack

          You don’t even know what the Seralini study was about or what they were doing.

          You are throwing crap at the wall and hoping some of it will stick.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Yes, you’re right, I don’t know what the study was about and I never claimed to nor said I cared for what it was about.

            I’m going to quote myself again since you missed it the first time. The parts which matter to me, which are specific to this article and its wording, are:

            “‘may have been right’ and ‘discovered x causes y’ aren’t the same thing. The former describes a potential thing while the latter describes a known/proven one.

            So are his findings factual or is their validity still unknown?”

            Please pay attention this time.

          • razorjack

            LOL!

            We are discussing science and you are not going to get by with that kind of obfuscation.

            You are a joke, and I am done with you now.

  • Deborah Yaya

    I will tie from the neck – like they do to the ducks for fattening the liver – Mr Obama and few criminals from his entourage including Hillary and make them swallow by force GMO until they get the tumor….

    • Muddy

      what about Bush, Chaney, Clinton, other Bush, McCarthy, Kerry, McConnel, etc. etc. etc???

      • Rob Bright

        Equally guilty.

      • Deborah Yaya

        but he promised something else, a change, a difference, if I do remember right… what about the ludicrous gift of the Nobel for Peace .. ahahaahah

        • Rob Bright

          He DID promise to have GMOs labeled. (Around the same time Michelle was growing her organic garden and singing the praises of organic foods.)

          • Deborah Yaya

            but you have in US only 6 chemicals forbidden by law while in Europe we have 140 chemicals that cannot be used by the food industry because hazardous to health. Think … stop to live a dream.

    • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

      How does this have anything to do with PRESIDENT Obama and Hillary Clinton? Oh, it doesn’t. You’re one of those people who find something negative to say about the black man in the White House no matter what the subject.

      • Rob Bright

        Seriously?! Obama runs on a promise to label GMOs and instead does the opposite and puts MORE ex-Monsanto employees in the FDA. Hillary openly supports GMOs, speaks ion Monsanto’s behalf, and receives a nice chunk of change for her efforts. Now she has an ex-Monsanto employee running her campaign for her. Are you completely out to lunch?

        • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

          So until the current President and Hillary Clinton had these specious connections you mention, Monsanto was a small time operation that had little to no power. Wait, that’s ridiculous. Your ability to put the blame on this on those two and ignore how Monsanto and GMOs got where they are today says so much about your POV. Your dislike for those two people puts you out of touch with reality.

          • Rob Bright

            Never said I didn’t like Obama. (In fact, I think he’s done some great things.) Monsanto’s been around for 100 years (consistently damaging the environment and human health.) Now they’re the biggest seed producing corporation in the world. They’ve never been a “small time operation” — at least not in the last 50 years.

            Corporate corruption and collusion with government has been an ongoing game for Monsanto, and they’ve been very successful at it. Since Reagan, the deregulation mantra of government has worked nicely for Monsanto and the biotech/agrochemical industry.

          • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

            And I’m still trying to figure out what Obama and Clinton have to do with a GMO suit in a country on the other side of the Atlantic.

      • Deborah Yaya

        Has he done anything to stop it? no he is personally coming to Europe to propose the same devastation and he does know it. Europe is the field that he has been maneuvering for war, for his hellish corporations, terrorist alley (Turkey) ecc. Hillary Clinton ? she forgets to listen at what she says.

        • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

          Are we still talking about a law suit in which a GMO study demonstrated that GMOs caused tumors or have you gone off on some tangent? Why don’t you thread all the bits of information you have and tie them into a coherent rational comment and try again.

          • Deborah Yaya

            GMO study testing length was reduced when a group of French researchers found that it causes tumor on mice after 3 months. It does not ring you any bell the fact that you Americans have the highest death rate for cancer ..42% almost 1 on 2..think before you go to place your vote, it is for the world future beside yours.

          • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

            Still trying to see how any of this has anything to do with the article. You’re failing miserably to make that point.

          • gitdestroyer

            hi Deborah, I am not commenting on the subject, I just want to clarify something if I understood you correctly.do you think that 42% of Americans die of cancer? in 2012 from the government agency The Center for Disease Control (CDC) the death rate from cancer is 185 per 100,000. maybe it is a typo, but if it isn’t, you need to find a true source of information.

          • Barry Edelson

            THE CANCER RATE WAS GOING UP LOOOONG BEFORE GMO’S . But facts never get in the way of unsubstantiated beliefs do they…

    • Paul A. Wilburn

      Deborah, I agree with you. Additionally, I wish to touch your Yaya. Nothing weird or sexual, just a touch.

  • PhoenixM

    When the linked articles that allegedly “prove” Salini’s prowess and truth come from Salini’s own website… well, let’s just say that I’d expect better sourcing from a seventh-grader.

    • MaryAnnH

      I just googled it myself and found many different articles covering the same court case. You do realize that court records are public information, right? Some records can be sealed, but generally not the entire case, and certainly not the final adjudication.

      • PhoenixM

        He was vindicated on charges of deliberate fraud. That’s it.

        “A court has ruled that French Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini was
        correct when he concluded that GMO food, when fed to rats, caused
        serious health problems including tumors.”

        No. No no no. In no way did the lawsuit establish that his research was good science. All it did was decide that he wasn’t deliberately trying to present falsified results. The spin this website is trying to put on this case, i.e. stating that a libel victory means that Seralini’s science and conclusions are right, is completely false.

        • Rob Bright

          That’s a serious case of denial you’ve got going there…

          • PhoenixM

            That’s a serious case of “can’t read” that you have going there.

          • Rob Bright

            More gibberish from the uninformed…

          • PhoenixM

            More gibberish from someone who won’t let facts get in the way of his “OMG GMOs are bad because they’re unnatural!” stance.

          • Rob Bright

            Not my problem you’ve been duped by corporate “tobacco” science and propaganda, and the hordes of pro-GMO scientism zealots who wouldn’t recognise real independent science if it bit them on the @ss.

          • PhoenixM

            I guess any second now you’ll accuse me of being a paid shrill for Monsato or some similar garbage. Yep, I’m in the pocket of Monsato, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, the Military Industrial Complex, and, um, I guess any other organization you can come up with that must be in on whatever conspiracies you believe. People who believe such conspiracies end up on sites like these, where the echo chambers of the like-minded reinforce your belief in “the things mainstream media doesn’t want us to know!”

            Still waiting on my damn check from Monsato, though…

          • Rob Bright

            Why would YOU bring up being a shill? I never did. I guess you can’t respond to my response so you decided to deflect, detract, dodge, thrust, parry… pathetic.

          • PhoenixM

            I’ve responded to ALL of your responses that were worth responding to (i.e. accusing me of being duped by corporate tobacco science and propaganda doesn’t rate a real response, as it does not even pretend to be a fact-based statement). Honestly, I feel like I’m playing chess with a pigeon, who has knocked over all the pieces and crapped on the board but is still strutting around feeling victorious.

          • razorjack

            I agree with every thing the poster has said. You are responsible for the way you present here and you are presenting like an industry PR astroturfer with a disinformation agenda.

          • Rob Bright

            That’s you looking in the mirror. You’ve presented no credible sources and haven’t reasonably refuted any of mine. You got nothing. (And that’s YOUR pigeon shit on the board.)

          • razorjack

            You sound like you are. Are you?

        • razorjack

          An industry corrupted scientist was convicted of forgery for forging another scientists name on a letter urging the retraction. The industry is so paranoid about the toxacollogy results in this study that they are willing to use criminal behavior to try and suppress it.

          The study was peer reviewed three times and remains in the scientific literature today.

          • Rob Bright

            There’s just no reasoning with these pro-GMO activists and zealots. The scientism is trapped deep in their brains and they are immune to independent research. (Only corporate tobacco science for them!)

          • razorjack

            Absolutely right!

    • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

      So now all you have to do to be credible is to discredit the work that is referenced. Can you do that or do you simply assume it’s incorrect because you don’t like the results?

      • PhoenixM

        Quite a few people seem to have already discredited it.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair#Scientific_evaluation

        • Rob Bright

          Guess they were wrong, too, eh? (open your eyes…)

          • PhoenixM

            Um, one organization (ENSSER) defended his study, and the ENSSER is known to have an active anti-GMO agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Scientists_for_Social_and_Environmental_Responsibility

          • Rob Bright

            Not to mention the multiple journals that offered to republish, the hundred or more scientists who wrote an open letter condemning the original fraudulent retraction, and the judge who heard this case. Are you really THAT thick?

          • PhoenixM

            “hundred or more scientists”. There you go with that reading comprehension issue again. Let’s try the *actual* quote from the article:

            “signed by about 130 scientists, scholars, and activists”. How many were scholars and activists, versus how many were actual scientists? And scientists in what fields? I can go online right now and get THOUSANDS of activists to sign a petition in support of pretty much any trigger issue for them; signatures of scientists, scholars, or activists means nothing if they have no specialty in that field.

            And again, the judge hearing the case was NOT judging the science! He was judging whether or not fraud was committed.

          • Rob Bright

            Not my fault if the article above is mistaken. Maybe you should try doing your own research on the matter. Here, let me help you out (It’s 150 scientists now, BTW):

            http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/press-release#.V0inePkrLDc

          • PhoenixM

            Thank you for linking to an “article” that was literally written and produced on the website of an organization that exists for the express interest of fighting against GMOs. And oh, look at that – it has the same editor as Seralini’s website! Wow, go figure. Nope, no bias there. http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/About#.V0ioleR5LNA

          • Rob Bright

            At least it’s independent. The facts are actually facts. What industry-funded astroturf sites do you subscribe to?

          • Rob Bright

            Let me guess. The GLP? Biofortified?

          • razorjack

            Crickets …….

          • PhoenixM

            “Seralini is independent it is the corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk
            pseudo-science cult ideology that must be protected from real science
            and the truth at all costs.”

            Sorry, but you thought there was something there to actually respond to? You thought that you presented something other than an emotion-laden diatribe that didn’t actually *say* anything concrete?

          • razorjack

            It is a fact. Most smart readers get it right away while industry PR astroturfers try and spin it all away.

          • PhoenixM

            “Fact”. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

            Dude, I’m out of here. I’ll go back to my evil overlords at Monsato and tell them that I tried to do their bidding, but was outsmarted by Razorjack, who so very cleverly linked to “unbiased” articles on websites which literally state that fighting against GMOs is their mission. My masters at Monsato will pound the table and say, “Curses! Foiled again by Razorjack!!!” Because of my failure, they’ll refuse to pay me my usual two million dollar shrill fee this month, and might even send some assassins after me (because that’s what they do to their enemies, don’t you know?).

            Or, I’ll just shake my head, and remind myself that, by definition, half of the people in this country have a below-average IQ. Though in all seriousness, intelligence and propensity for delusion do not necessarily share an inverse relationship; a person can be really smart but still believe the wackiest of things.

          • razorjack

            LOL!

            Foam at the mouth and sputter and spit on your troll drool.

          • Rob Bright

            That’s hilarious, given you’ve posted nothing credible and have only discharged your own emotionally driven, ideologically based, opinions.

          • PhoenixM

            IT’S NOT INDEPENDENT! IT HAS THE SAME EDITOR AS SERALINI’S WEBSITE!!

            Simply saying that Seralini does not officially endorse this site does not make it independent, particularly considering that it’s run by the same people. My God, I can’t believe I even have to argue this point with you.

          • Rob Bright

            Spare me your duplicitous rants! You support faulty science from corrupt corporations and condemn those who expose it. You’re a corporate meat-puppet and tool at worst, and a naive, ignoramus at best.

          • razorjack

            Seralini is independent it is the corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science cult ideology that must be protected from real science and the truth at all costs.

          • razorjack

            There is nothing but your industry PR atroturfer attempts to smear the scientist in your claims that the Seralini website is not accurate and balanced.

            The real corrupt interests in this sordid affair are Monsanto and the rest of the paranoid GMO pesticide industry.

          • razorjack

            Apparently you are only looking a sources that support the corrupt GMO pesticide industry attempts to suppress this important science.

            Get you head ot of the corrupt disinformation echo chamber and read about the truth here: http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

          • PhoenixM

            And this is an organization that exists because they believe that “Many of the problems facing society today are as a result of the irresponsible use of science, design and technology” , including
            (surprise surprise) “how much risk is being taken with the accidental and controlled releases of genetically modified organisms into the environment.”

            In other words, this is literally an anti-GMO site. And yet you have the gall to accuse others of disinformation? Apparently YOU are only looking at sources that have some variation of “GMOs are bad” as their mission statements.

            http://www.sgr.org.uk/pages/why-sgr

          • Rob Bright

            So now you’re defending corporate science — research they won’t publish, make publicly accessible, or even peer review. You have no credibility, and you certainly are in no position to criticise other INDEPENDENT scientists who show the corporate science is bunk.

          • razorjack

            Nonsense.

            You will call any site that accurately reports the facts about the corruption of the GMO pesticide industry of our scientists and scientific institutions. THat is what they pay the industry PR astroturfers to do to deceive the public.

        • razorjack

          Wikipedia is not a valid source for information like this because of the corruption of the editorial process by the industry and their PR dirty tricks minions.

          See the truth here: http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            x is not a valid source because I say so.
            Peer review.

            It exists in science, it exists anywhere else, and for a wiki article to have any validity it tends to need to cite sources.

            The way you’re, y’know, trying to cite a source.

          • razorjack

            It is a fact that corrupt industries are using PR armies to try and influence wikipedia article to spin their agenda. Everyone who spends time on this issue knows that is happening and that the corrupt GMO Pesticide industry is behind the corrupting behavior.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Have you ever actually visited the ‘sources’ sections of articles? Or do they conveniently not exist to you so you can simply harp on about “muh corruption”?

          • razorjack

            I have personally seen how these wikipedia pieces are manipulated by industrys with the deep pockets who corrupt the editorial process. Wikipedia has been corrupted and there is nothing there that can be trusted because of the industry manipulation and censorship through the editorial process. Sources are sources. There are legitimate sources ad there are asroturf industry disinformation echo chamber sources. We all see which ones the industry PR astroturfers cite here.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            By that same logic anything and everything people like you post are deliberately fabricated to push your own agendas against GMO companies, etc.

            Peer review. There’s a reason I mentioned this.

            If a particular source looks suspect to you or you disbelieve it, you are required to disprove it using adequate sources of information to the contrary and, ideally, research of your own.

            Not to simply say “hurr durr PR, evil corporations, astroturf, industry”.

            Give me or anyone else one good reason any of us should believe you, some unknown on the internet, over a wiki article’s sources section. By any stretch of the imagination of the latter is as riddled with corruption as you say, there is no good reason to believe you aren’t the same fighting from the opposite corner.

          • razorjack

            You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

            Readers can see how you present here, and you present like an agenda driven industry PR astroturfer on a disinformation mission.

            You are fooling no one here.

          • Ben Magno

            No, you’re all fooling yourselves. It’s great living in an internet bubble ain’t it? While some people can learn pas the age of 12, the internet is a great way to convince yourself you’re already correct.

            Learning requires being wrong. Dismissing what you don’t like as “corrupt” is just a way to avoid critical thinking. But, you’ve got your bubble to give you cool points for your buzzwords, and make you feel better.

          • razorjack

            I can see that they have dispatched another industry PR astroturfer to try and redeem the failure of the other ones here.

            You all sound like a group of parrots with your PR scripted industry disinformation echo chamber nonsense.

          • Rob Bright

            Maybe he’ll learn something. According to him you “have to be wrong” to learn something, so he’s got that going for him…

          • Ben Magno

            “PR scripted industry disinformation” – Thanks for the chuckle. Of course, I should have realized that you were so gosh darned right about everything, despite real work and research saying otherwise, that anybody who could possibly disagree – on the internet – must be paid to do so.

            Keep tossing out that accusation with nothing in reality supporting the claim, whatsoever.

            I like to vent at idiots as a hobby.

          • razorjack

            You are looking in the mirror and venting at the idiot here.

          • Ben Magno

            Did you seriously just argue “Nuh uh, you are!”? You’re adorable!

          • razorjack

            Still at it I see.

            Sucks to be you.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            No, I present like a neutral party who wants actual facts rather than angry internet commenters who just throw buzzwords all over the place. That you think I’m pushing an agenda along those lines shows prejudice against dissidence directed at your own agenda.

          • razorjack

            You are not the judge of how you present to people here.

            We all see through your duplicitous smoke screen.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Ho? So I don’t know why I feel the way I do about things, only people like you on the internet, do?

            Christ almighty, that’s a kind of stupid I’ve not encountered in a long time…

          • razorjack

            You are looking in your mirror and projecting your own self loathing here.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            In case you didn’t figure it out based on my very first comment on this article, I was happy all those months ago to see the truth of either party’s side; namely Monsantos or Séralini’s.

            Fact of the matter is, however, that at the time the article’s wording suggested that their findings were as of yet inconclusive.

            As I said in that first comment, and I quote: “‘may have been right’ and ‘discovered x causes y’ aren’t the same thing. The former describes a potential thing while the latter describes a known/proven one.

            So are his findings factual or is their validity still unknown?”

            See me asking a very specific question there?

            If his findings were/are factual, their validity known, then good for him. If they weren’t/aren’t, then boo. Either way, big whoop – I for one don’t particularly care.

          • razorjack

            For some one who “doesn’t care” you sure spend a lot of time spreading industry spin and lies here.

          • Rob Bright

            Exactly. He cares so little it’s driving him crazy…

          • razorjack

            LOL!

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            I’m not ‘spreading industry spin’, because I have no vested interests in any of the companies nor anti-GMO armchair scientists’ agendas. To me it’s all one popcorn-worthy show and I generally don’t give a toss since if worst came to worst I’d grow my own food in my garden, as I already do to some extent (generally without the use of any pesticides or packaged fertilizers, no less – not because I’m anti-pesticides, but because I usually don’t need to).

            I’m also not ‘spreading lies’; I have not presented anything as ‘fact’, I have merely asked for un-biased factual information rather than clearly-biased agendas being pushed by a handful of what at this point I’m confident are internet-crazies; the like not to be trusted since they don’t seem to conduct their own research either (there’s a reason I’m placing particular emphasis on this word – ponder it before you reply)

          • razorjack

            Nobody cares about you or what you think.

            Most people want to see real ethical science.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Odd, I could’ve sworn I saw two guys agreeing with me and one agreeing with you in our exchange, so far. I’d say the odds are stacked in my favour if we’re going to play the “who’s thoughts are cared about more” game.

          • razorjack

            You are not counting right.

            I’m done with your ignorant trolling.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            You’re right, so far I’m seeing three people liking my earlier responses to you, two specifically talking to me with regards to you (and Rob).

            Meanwhile you appear to have Rob liking your posts and responding to you with regards to me and the other ‘astroturfers’.

            But then, it’s not like I care for popularity contests or all that, since in another 5 months or so when this article again spreads somewhere more netizens will come and express their agreement with either of us and the numbers will have changed again.

            Anyway, for someone telling me they’re done with me so many times, you sure do seem to be spending a lot of time responding to me… or is it my ‘trolling’ you’re responding to? I’m not sure; I tend to avoid judging how others present themselves online. Well, with some minor (this is a pun, in case not obvious) exceptions.

          • razorjack

            I am not interested in your needy energy sucking troll drool.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Ooooh, I get told I’m a troll with fair frequency (even though I really am not trolling on this post – at least, I wasn’t with you until now) but this is the first time I’ve ever been told my ‘trolling’ is ‘energy sucking’.

            I guess in that case since it doesn’t matter what I say I’ll be regarded as a troll by some of the internet’s finest of idiots, I might as well just keep doing my thing, sucking at their energy like that; I guess that’s where the drool comes from, all that excess energy I can’t seem to swallow…

          • razorjack

            Are you going to buzz off or do I need to start flagging you?

            I have repeatedly told you I was done with you.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Feel free to flag me; it’s not like you’ve exactly any reason to. I’m doing naught but responding to your responses at this point 😉 If that were flag-worthy then, well…

          • razorjack

            Sure thing pal.

            LOL!

            You are a very uniformed and ineffective troll.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Rich coming from someone who appears to go around looking for similar articles to paste the same copied pieces of text to, where I can’t even remember how I came across this article some 5 months ago.

          • razorjack

            Nobody care about your little ego woes.

            I’m done with you.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            As an aside, since you’ve clearly missed it so far, I don’t care for his studies’ contents. I don’t care for Monsanto’s studies’ contents. I don’t care for any of that. What I care about is the part I quoted to you twice, since legal proceedings are something I do care about.

            Whether in support of the good or the evil, legal proceedings ought to revolve around provable fact or, at the very least, justifiable suspicion.

            Not on “maybes” or “potentials”.

            Else I could take a guy to court because he maybe owes me money; and if called into question I could say “well he could potentially” owe me money.

            That’s not how legal systems work nor is it how scientific studies which should be conclusive work, either.

          • razorjack

            Nobody cares about you or what you care for.

            Take your narcissistic little flea circus sideshow some where else.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Then why did you even begin with me if you’ve so little care for what I care for?
            Did you feel the need to beat your own narcissistic chest for the internet to see rather than just chortle sensibly before moving on along without bothering to reply to someone you deem an idiot?

          • razorjack

            Tell it to the hand.

            I’m done with your ignorant troll BS.

          • Rob Bright

            Clearly, someone like yourself who believes any crap they read on Wiki knows what he’s talking about…

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Except I don’t. There’s a very good reason I make constant reference to the ‘cited sources’ section of Wikipedia.

            Because, y’know, sometimes I don’t believe what I’m reading, so I go check the sources. And when I don’t believe the cited sources either, I go look for more sources of information on my own. I continue doing so until I’m satisfied I’ve seen enough corroborative evidence to feel what I read may be true, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to automatically assume it must be true, either.

            If I instead simply believed whatever I read then by all accounts I should have long-since joined the camp of anti-GMO folk out there since they cite so many different sources which aren’t addled by the big bad evil corporations!

            Except I’m not an idiot.

          • razorjack

            You could have fooled the smart readers here. We see how you present.

            What we see is what we get.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “How I present” is, in your little world, confined to how you tell me “I present”, not how I do in reality.

            I basically cannot say anything which is not in agreement with you else you’ll tell me off, throw buzzwords at me and lump me in with everything you hate.

            In other words, there’s no winning with you, only joining you. Dialogue with you is not possible, only listening to your biased monologue.

          • razorjack

            It is only your industry group think bias that causes you to accuse truth tellers of bias.

            You’re a cute little baby troll, but not believable at all to someone with any knowledge of the issues.

          • SageThinker

            There is a HUGE conflict within Wikipedia about what sources may be included and what may not, and often some editors reject good sources that apparently go against their agenda to defend the industry, and they lawyer and they get sympathetic admins to enforce bans, and they get certain people totally banned from editing. It is not neutral even what sources are in a Wikipedia article. I appreciate your reliance on sources, Theo, but please note that this is even subject to bias because of what sources are presented and which are omitted by forceful agenda pushing on these articles.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            I’d like to see what sorts of ‘good sources’ get rejected; the only ‘good sources’ I’ve consistently seen rejected and cause editing crap-storms on the site have been ones pointing to dead-ended blog-posts which haven’t cited their own sources of information. Basically, anecdotes tend to be no bueno unless the anecdote itself is what the portion of a wiki article is referencing and has reason to be referenced.

            Example, fictitious defamation court-case by Harold against Susie for accusing Harold of sexual harassment at Big Corporation X: Susie claimed she had been sexually harassed by Harold on her blog, whilst simultaneously admitting she had no witnesses nor evidence of the act occurring[¹²] – here, despite the blog being just that, a blog, and being an anecdotal account, it’s relevant to the article because it constitutes part of the ‘evidence’ used in the case’s proceedings.

            Meanwhile, an article about a case against Chemical X by GMO company Y generally cannot use anecdotal items or blog posts as informative sources for an article, whether in support of or against that company’s product. The info needs to be cross-referenceable or in the case of an experiment’s findings being presented, reproducible with a thorough account of the steps taken. A cited source stating something as vague as “Sciency-people found that doing a thing to rats using Chemical X by Company Y made the rats get sick” would obviously get rejected.

            A cited source giving thorough accounts of what was done and what the outcome was, which can be replicated by others, oughtn’t get removed. If it does, consistently, then again someone will have collected evidence of the source being removed and needs to expose that with more than a simple claim of ‘seeing it happening from the trenches’.

          • SageThinker

            Papers in peer reviewed journals get rejected if they don’t fit the agenda. CBS news reports get rejected. Things like that. There is serious agenda pushing that’s anti encyclopedic.

          • SageThinker

            I for one spent months just to get a couple of lawsuits included in an article that is about lawsuits involving Monsanto and several people on Wikipedia spent those months arguing against including them — why? Why would anyone spend months and 100,000 words arguing against including solidly sourced articles about lawsuits about PCBs liabilities by major U.S. cities in a Wikipedia article that is about legal cases involving Monsanto? Seriously, that’s pure bias right there, and it’s proof in the pudding that Wikipedia is highly guarded by industry dogs to game the articles to be more favorable to the industry. It’s obvious to one who’s been in the trenches. You don’t have to believe me but you can check the talk page history of various articles, and if you’re very serious about looking at evidence and if you seem to have an open mind (which i think you do) and not to be prejudiced from the outset, then i could show you evidence. It’s not seen at a glance, though. It takes time to understand the context and the actions of the people involved.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            “Why would anyone spend months and 100,000 words arguing against”
            Surely their argument against your sources were within those 100,000 words? Link to the talk page in question and where to start reading?

            “Seriously, that’s pure bias right there”
            Well, keep in mind that what you’re presenting to me right now doesn’t give me any real information, it basically just states (anecdotally) “I had good information but Wiki editors refused to include it because they’re biased”.

            “You don’t have to believe me but you can check the talk page history of various articles”⁽ʷʰᶦᶜʰ﹖⁾

            “You don’t have to believe me but you can check the talk page history of various articles, and if you’re very serious about looking at evidence and if you seem to have an open mind (which i think you do) and not to be prejudiced from the outset, then i could show you evidence. It’s not seen at a glance, though. It takes time to understand the context and the actions of the people involved”

            Go for it. I’d wager that on this article’s comments at least your post oughtn’t be ‘censored’, so even if I don’t delve into it, someone else might, and that someone may in turn begin compiling a concise catalogue of evidence which corroborate your claims and expose a problem within the articles’ editing/moderation/administration.

            Until sound evidence surfaces however I’m neither here nor there on whether a company like Monsanto ought to be hated or supported. What I do see is what I can get in stores and that, even if it might give me cancer some years down the line, it happens to be keeping me fed and alive right now.

          • SageThinker

            Their arguments were bogus wikilawyering with an obvious agenda. You don’t need to believe me.

          • SageThinker

            I’ve seen it and been there, too. I confirm what razor is saying here. I’ve seen serious gaming of the Wikipedia mechanisms by a core group of people whose mission is to maintain industry propaganda messaging in the articles related to the industry. It’s bad stuff. It’s pretty darn evil, as it distorts human knowledge for the profit of an industry.

          • SageThinker

            Theo, razor is correct on this point. I’ve been in the trenches and seen the huge level of “Wikilawyering” that goes on about articles related to the chemical industry. There are people on there who exist to defend the industry’s interests in the realm of knowledge as reflected by Wikipedia. You cannot trust the articles there within this topic to be unbiased. They contain huge bias. It’s all there to see on the talk pages if you dig deep and are not prejudiced with industry rose-colored glasses.

          • http://theolubbe.com/ Theo Lubbe

            Good thing I’m not prejudiced with industry rose-coloured glasses, because I and many others don’t rely solely on Wikipedia, we simply use Wikipedia as a starting point for information-gathering being its articles tend to be what we’d come up with anyway; concise forms of our gathered information.

            As I said elsewhere already: if you’re uncertain as to the validity of what you’re reading on Wikipedia then go cross-reference the information with sources other than those cited by the article.

            No, wordpress blogs generally do not constitute good sources information (despite how many seem to be rather eager to use them as such).

            What I am prejudiced against are people who crawl out of the woodwork with clear agendas or bias against x who shoot down absolutely anything which is not in support of their argument. Razorjack and Rob would be two such people.

            Wikipedia articles are not nearly as ‘corrupt’ as most might think; ‘wiki-lawyering’ can only go so far, because the internet does not forget. If x is consistently removed from an article and that x is factually correct, then someone is going to collect evidence for the world to see of that thing being removed.

            Oddly, for the claims such things are removed, I have yet to see one person provide evidence of it occurring. Instead I only see claims it does.

          • SageThinker

            I didn’t say at all that you use Wikipedia only for your information. What I did say is that Wikipedia is biased and so even if you use it as a start for finding sources you will then begin with bias.

        • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

          So you ignore the fact that all that criticism occurred prior to the ruling that this article references. You ignore the fact that all that was used to retract the original article and that there was a response to the criticism. The criticism did not demonstrate the study was wrong as other publications, not tied to the GMO industry, peer reviewed it and published it.

        • SageThinker

          Everyone should know that the Wikipedia article is a highly contested article, and that industry wanks on Wikipedia guard the page to reflect the industry preferred version like mastiffs at the emperors palace. The industry PR effort reaches into Wikipedia. Jon Entine (the industry’s propaganda suave) edits Wikipedia, as do many other minions of the industry. Check the pages on “glyphosate” and “Monsanto” etc. It’s climate change denialism in another field. It’s evil stuff. Check out the “work” of the editor named “Jytdog” on Wikipedia.

    • razorjack

      You can read about the sordid truth about the Seralini affair here: http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

  • USN_RET

    This article says nothing. Eating too much sugar makes you fat. So I eat too much GMO sugar & I get fat. Did the genetic mods cause me to become fat? No, the sugar did. So what’s the complaint?

    • Adamant

      Are you reading the same story as the rest of us? This is about the results of a libel lawsuit against a paper.

    • http://www.thecityofkothos.com Von Bailey

      Except they aren’t talking about “fat”. Also, in America by 2018, food labels will have to tell people how much sugar is in a product so that a person can make an informed decision about how much they actually consume. There is no such requirement for GMOs. It is assumed they are safe until it can be proven different, against the onslaught of hundreds of millions of dollars paid to destroy the reputations of those who point to the problem.

  • Adamant

    Talk about wagging the dog. Story is about libel case and the headlines are presenting it as if GMOs have officially vilified. No such joy bubbies.

    • Rob Bright

      The libel case was about Monsanto and GMOs. Lots of joy bubbles, to say the least. (Guess you missed that part…)

      • Ben Magno

        Yeah, the study was never vindicated. His defense was being grossly incompetent, not setting out to do a misleading study.

        He was awarded 1 euro.

        He counts on loud ignorance bubbles of the internet to justify their feels, even write entire articles, based on a headline.

        FYI: science is done in the lab, not in courts.

        • Rob Bright

          Utter gibberish…

          • Ben Magno

            What about it was factually incorrect? Courts don’t decide science. The study remains garbage. He went to court because under French laws, he was accused of motivations to do a fraudulent study, and it couldn’t be proven the fraud was deliberate.

            That means, the court decided he was just an idiot. Nobody outside of Seralini’s book deals, paid speech circuit, and pay-to-play journals ever validated the actual study.

            Also, Seralini himself (and the actual study) make no claims about GM food causing tumors. Since the science was so bad, the pictures of Sprague-Dawley rats were released for shock value, because people love pictures of substance.

  • Jamie Brahm

    Take one transgenic gene splice – the number of metabolic products of that one DNA change is unknown – you don’t know what your changing in fact, exactly, just one of the effects that it has, broadly. Then you get that metabolic soup, and you through it into the human body, where not only might the gut permeating chemicals might chelate , oxidate, effect the DNA replication or other effects, but that same soup is also modified by the human bodies metabolic processes (ie we don’t know exactly how novel compounds we be metabolized). Long story short, while there are risks in all novel foods, such as chemical additives, the risks of nontransgenic versus transgenic of unintended and unknown metabolic consequences on the human system are higher. It would not suprise me if their were carcinogens, oxidants or auto-immune effects of some resulting plant complexes, and without chemical specific cell testing which would never happen, no one would see it coming. Except someone who is just naturally skeptical.

    • razorjack

      The new NAS report says that all crops created by genetic engineering,
      CRISPER and mutagenesis should be subject to pre-market safety testing
      which is not currently done on any GMO organism.

      Cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs should be pulled from the market until proper safety testing is done.

      • ethrop

        BS, razorboy. The NAS report says nothing of the sort.

        • razorjack

          Yes it does.

          “Every newly introduced plant should undergo safety testing regardless of how it was created, the report states. But, it also says, the fact that
          previous GE crops have not caused health or environmental problems does not mean that all prospective GE plants should be presumed to be benign.”

          Chairman Gould says:

          “Absence of evidence is not absence of effect,” Dr. Fred Gould, a professor at North Carolina State University and chair of the Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, told UPI. “We’re very clear to point out that with very subtle long-term health effects, it’s really difficult to point out such a thing.”

          “The NAS also overlooks the fact that there is massive published evidence in the public domain that GMOs and the toxic chemicals that always accompany them are dangerous — to human health, to animals, the environment and climate stability.”

          http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36145-three-take-aways-from-the-nas-study-on-gmos

          • ethrop

            … and what it says in those quotes doesn’t mean what you think it means. 😉 @ “le rasoir” hehe.

          • razorjack

            So you and the other industry PR astroturfers say.

            Smart readers will make up their mind without listening to industry sponsored liars.

          • Rob Bright

            Antiscience zealots like ethrop have little to contribute…

          • SageThinker

            “ethrop” — What? You have your agenda, but you cannot force dialog in the way you’re trying to do. Have integrity or go away. You’re here for rhetorical scoring, and you’re not making the dialog any better for anyone so just go.

        • Lannie Loeks

          Troll much?

      • James Cook

        In short we simply don’t know. It’s not that I’m against GMO but too many things like a super-high rate of autism, etc., are occurring in the only country with pervasive GMO crops. And this is coming from the son of a farmer who uses GMO seed but getting hybrid seed is near impossible because the lead time to order it is getting longer and longer…out to 18 months…and it has probably cross-pollinated with what’s left of the hybrids. We may be left with a Fukishima of getting rid of GMOs if they are found to be contrary to healthy life. Many farmers are actually looking back to hybrids becaused Mother Nature is working her magic and overriding the GMO types interestingly enough. Hopefully Mother Nature wins. The costs of the Monsanto monopoly are going to undo GMO just as easily. Let’s hope.

        • razorjack

          Yes. The pesticide industry dominated seed business is limiting the production of no GMO seed in order to maintain their market shares on the more profitable GMO seeds that also need their pesticides in the cultivation.

          This is what market monopoly can do.

  • ethrop

    What sort of rubbisj is this? The court found that Seralini was the victim of libel because the accused had said his study was fraudulent. The court decided that Seralini didn’t intentionally falsify his results. What this comes down to is that the court ruled that Seralini is a worse scientist than ever thought before.

    • Rob Bright

      Such gibberish. Open a text book and get a clue…

      • ethrop

        I think Robbie is lonely. Sweet. But lonlely. 😉

        • razorjack

          Troll, flagged

        • Rob Bright

          C’mon over and keep me company, ethrop (if that IS your real name.)

    • razorjack

      You need to do some real research and stop spewing the corrupt GMO Pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber lies.

  • ethrop

    I specially love the byline: “March-against-monsanto.[com] reports:” What are you, a newsletter for unicorns and special snowflakes?

    • Rob Bright

      Why don’t you cite some corporate gibberish science from the GLP or Biofortified. Clearly you love their unicorns and snowflakes…

  • SageThinker

    People should also read about what happened to Tyrone Hayes when he found an “inconvenient truth” about atrazine, a pesticide made by Syngenta.
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation

  • waloso

    what a bullshit website this is.

  • The Reader

    Don’t put all the blame on Obama. Think of all the voters who had a chance to ban GMOs and demand GMO labeling on their food and didn’t follow through but chose to believe the political garbage from the people who make big money off of GMOs and the people who might have to spend some in order to bring labels up to code (had it won). Such narrow minded blaming on individuals is what’s ruining our country. We have to accept responsibility sometime, and now would be nice.

  • Dar Darley

    What about Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who announced similar research in 1998 at Rowett Institute Scotland, and was treated in the same fashion? It would be good to include this in the article to show there is a pattern of discrediting scientists.

  • Randje K Randje

    That’s because of the insane amount of money they stand to gain with GMO acceptance proportionately equivalent to the amount they will lose when the truth comes out

  • tipsybass

    this makes me incredibly happy. so many arguments about frankenfoods…one asked for the proof, which i couldnt produce, because the science was quieted due to politics and shady dealings of the pesticide companies. i really feel vindicated. and @jamiebrahm:disqus you are absolutely correct. i was a bio major in college, and with as much info as they wanted me to retain, it was hard for me on tests. but seriously. messing with the dna messes with the organism and its systems. we dont fully know what the human body metabolizes, and how it affects it as a system. im totally nerding out over here, its been a long time since my passion about this was used.

  • lindi23MN

    GMO’s crept into the American food supply in 1996 with no government testing and Monsanto has continued to further entrench itself though fear and intimidation. Anyone that defends the black-hearted leviathan that is Monsanto is either clueless, on the take or a troll. Monsanto is destroying people’s lives all over the world. Indian farmers are committing suicide due to false promises about GMO seeds and in Argentina, children are born with birth defects and their parents have high cancer rates. Monsanto has caused children to be orphaned or born with horrific birth defects but they deny everything as usual. Stop Monsanto before it poisons all of us. https://www.rt.com/news/206787-monsanto-india-farmers-suicides/ http://www.dw.com/en/pesticide-illness-triggers-anti-monsanto-protest-in-argentina/a-17013525

  • Kriegar

    All about money. Always.

  • Neil Armstrong

    I will never knowingly consume GMOs & think others should not, use the precauntary principle.

  • Barry Edelson

    How Ironic … The same people who denounce the anti-global warming side for stupidly denying the scientists …
    Ironically, many of those same people deny the majority of scientists who , because of global warming,… and the population exploding …. realize that if we don’t come up with GMO’s that can can resist; – extremes of temperature, – extremes of drought and floods, – resist the massive increase in insects altready beginning, – and the huge loss of arable land- … BILLIONS AND BILLIONS WILL EITHER STARVE, OR DIE IN WARS OVER WATER AND FOOD . A couple of those ” hydroponic farms” will feed a few billionaires, but they ain’t gonna make it for the billions around the world ., especially not the little farmer in Africa or Bangladesh.