Mother’s science-based view: Organics and Whole Foods are ‘scam of the decade’

USDA Organic logo with dollar signs

“USDA Certified Organic.”

These words may conjure notions of wholesomeness, healthiness, freshness and responsible consumer habits. I myself have traversed an arc from skepticism of the touted benefits of organics, to a complete boycott.

As a mother, now with two children, pressure has been building to switch to an organic diet. To alleviate well-placed family concern, my husband and I started purchasing organic apples, strawberries, and some of the other fruits and vegetables from the Environmental Working Group’s “Dirty Dozen” list. Never mind that in my estimation, organic apples in our area are at least 50 percent more expensive than conventional.

[Editor’s Note: For a comprehensive analysis of the claim that GMOs and the herbicide glyphosate are linked to autism, read: Will my child be born autistic if I eat GMOs? A scientist’s view]

So-called “Dirty Dozen” isn’t so dirty

Long story short, I’m glad I know better now. I’m not a fan of getting bamboozled. I have no qualms about saying that the EWG “Dirty Dozen” list is unsubstantiated. There is no compelling reason to buy organic, yes, even the Dirty Dozen. The Farmer’s Daughter USA does an excellent job explaining why the scientific methodology behind the EWG list is flawed. In addition to flawed methodology, the pesticide residue on conventional produce is only a miniscule fraction of the amount one would need to consume to have any discernible effect. For example, a child would have to consume an impossible 1,500 servings of conventional strawberries in one day before any effect occurred.

I will unabashedly say that “organic” food is the scam of the decade. We already know that organic food is no more nutritious than its conventional counterparts. You may be thinking, “Well, I buy organic to avoid toxic pesticides.” Alas, the idea that organic farming doesn’t use pesticides is brilliantly pervasive, and has likely helped the massive growth of the 63 billion dollar organic industry. In fact, organic farmers often have to use more so-called “natural” pesticides to achieve the same effect of synthetic pesticides. Just like conventional produce, organic produce shows pesticide residue in laboratory tests. Make no mistake, the pesticides used in organic farming are no safer than those used in conventional agriculture.

For me, boycotting organic is justified

I didn’t previously go as far boycotting organic, but I can no longer handle the pesky cognitive dissonance. Even after I learned that there is no reason to buy organic, I’d purchase organic bananas if the conventional fruit was too green. I’d pick out a box of organic cookies if it was on sale. Then, a slow resentment started to build. The word “organic,” often juxtaposed with other faddish words like “natural,” began to irk me. At least I knew that I was paying a premium for an empty image; a perpetually unfulfilled promise of added health, and a sorry excuse to feel righteous.

Many consumers purchasing these products don’t know better, so for that reason among others, I decided to opt out of this lie. Not only is there no tangible reason to buy organic, but it contributes to the sad weakness of America’s critical-thinking skills. The organic industry perpetuates the “natural is better” fallacy. Supporting this industry with my family’s money is like personally hindering scientific progress.

I’ve never set foot in a Whole Foods, and never will

If you shop at Whole Foods and care whatsoever what I think, don’t fret. I’ve heard from lots of people that it’s a really nice store with fancy cheeses, amazing bakery items, and a wide selection of ready-to-eat vegetarian options. That’s fine my friends, go nuts (do they have really good nuts, too?) In my opinion, Whole Foods helps promote the pretentious, judgmental false dichotomy that non-GMO and organic foods are somehow healthy and wholesome, while regular old food is junk.

This company that grossed more than 14 billion dollars in fiscal year 2014 — almost the same revenue as Monsanto, although Whole Foods is growing faster — devotes an entire section of its website to how “Values Matter.” This is an extensive section that self-righteously implies that Whole Foods upholds and sets the standards for food consumption morality, and that all other grocers are merely followers. Whole Foods shoppers get to bask in the trickle-down effect of these so-called “values.” I would never have believed that Whole Foods actually had a “Values Matter Anthem.” Alas, this pompous anthem truly does exist.

Spare us the value judgement, Whole Foods. This type of moralizing emanates not just from Whole Foods, but from the larger organic movement over all. The Big Organic Behemoth’s rhetoric creates a deceptively discordant image of people who care about their health versus those buying conventional food. The tacit message is that those neglecting to buy organic are lazy, parsimonious, poor, or gluttonous. Perhaps the mom choosing conventional produce is selfish, and doesn’t care about her child’s well-being. This exploitation of guilt to sway parents to shell out for organic food is, sadly, quite pervasive.

5 reasons to feed kids organic. Image of child eating corn.

GMO Free USA, please spare parents the unnecessary guilt trip.

These so-called “values” are completely ideological. Worse, Whole Foods is a leader in promoting the fallacy that GMOs should be avoided. The Whole Foods website states:

“We are the first national grocery chain to set a deadline for full GMO transparency and our GMO labeling go further than the state laws and initiatives for labeling that are pending. This means we are the first to do a lot of this work and will be paving the way for those who follow.”

This is clearly an attempt by Whole Foods to paint itself with the brush of a pioneer. It’s as if this company expects other grocery chains to thank Whole Foods for its seemingly groundbreaking work in GMO transparency. The truth is, this is yet another marketing ploy. The only way Whole Foods is paving is the way to scientific illiteracy.

As I’ve discussed previously, the overwhelming scientific consensus agrees that GMOs are safe. Genetic modification has the potential to feed and nourish the world’s growing population in the most sustainable manner possible.  I personally will no longer buy into the organic scam. The idea that parents like me don’t care about our kids is ludicrous. In fact, I WANT BETTER for my children. I want them to grow up knowing how to spend their money wisely. I want them to be able to smell a scam from a mile away. I want them to grow up in a more scientifically savvy country than America is today, and I’m doing my best to make that happen. My children love fruits and vegetables, but there is no way on this green, genetically dynamic earth that I’ll buy an organic fruit again. Except on the rarest of occasions like the other day when I bought organic apple juice by mistake. I’ll have to be more careful.

This piece was adapted from:  Why This Mom Boycotts Organic and Will Never Shop at Whole Foods

Kavin Senapathy is co-author of “The Fear Babe: Shattering Vani Hari’s Glass House”, due out October 29th and now available for pre-order. The science advocate and co-founder of March Against Myths’, her interests span the human and agricultural genomics and biotechnolgy realms.  Follow Kavin on her science advocacy Facebook page, and Twitter @ksenapathy

Additional Resources:

  • Whole Foods is only giving their customers what their customers want. I can’t blame them for that.

    • RobertWager

      True but they can be called out for their “black marketing”

    • Judy Nonarchi

      And if they want a rubber helmet because someone tells them the sky is falling, well, Whole Foods should sell one to them! (oh, and continue telling the poor suckers that the sky is falling)

  • Good4U

    I likewise can’t stand the smarmy, touchy-feely anti-GMO baloney that Hole Foods (also “Trader Aldi’s” and their ilk) uses as a marketeering tool to bilk their customers. I’ve been to Hole Foods more than once, and left without buying anything as a result of my revulsion to their tactics. As for giving their customers what they want, that tactic may work in some areas where their customers are mostly uber-affluent women who precede their grocery shopping experience with a visit to the local nail salon, or perhaps an aromatherapy session at the spa. It doesn’t address the needs of the majority of people who are simply trying to get by. The “organic” marketeers are spending millions of dollars to mandate labeling of transgenic crops because they want to put their competition at a disadvantage in the marketplace. They know that without forced labeling, i.e. fear based subsidy, they won’t gain any more market share than they already have.

    • Circaman

      And the award for cynicism goes to……….come ON UP!

  • Besides having food grown in richer, more nutrient dense soil, choosing organic and non-gmo foods is for more than just the pesticides we consume. The things sprayed on conventional produce has a bigger effect in the thousands of acres they are growing on with water runoff tainting so much of the ecosystem.

    I’m not a fan of how places like Whole Foods commercializes organic and non-gmo as marketing tools, but going to a farmer’s market is a great way to pass that, have better food for your family, and support better agricultural practices. Does the government only have $$$$ in mind? Sure, but eating organic used to be just eating before genetic modification (in a lab setting) came around. Our great grandparents did need to make the choice since that’s all their was!

    • Good4U

      Going to a “farmer’s market” is great; I do that too. It costs me more gas money, and discharges more CO2 to the atmosphere every time I travel to a farmer’s market (it’s a lot farther than my local grocery store), but hey, so what, it’s the “green” thing to do in our affluent society. That doesn’t mean that the items I buy at the farmer’s market are necessarily “organic”, and even if they might be, I know they have been sprayed with Bt, rotenone, or pyrethrin insecticides. I can see the residues on them before I wash them, just as I do with my grocery store produce. One thing is for sure though…the farmer’s market items are not GMOs. There is no such thing as a GMO fruit (except papayas from Hawaii) or vegetable. None have ever been developed or submitted for approval by the regulatory agencies that are responsible for making decisions on transgenics (GMOs). I also am quite certain that “the government”, i.e. the regulatory agencies, do not have $$$ in mind when making those decisions. The sole responsibilities of the U.S. EPA, and their counterparts in other developed countries, lie with protecting human health and the integrity of the environment. Any person who tries to bribe a regulatory agency, or to exert influence of any kind upon their decision making process, is subject to criminal prosecution. I know with certainty that anyone who comes into an EPA or PMRA (Canada) office with even a hint of nefarious intention would be quickly expelled. It’s considered extremely poor and unprofessional form, and is just not done.

      I also have a lot of experience in agriculture, and know very well what it was like before the advent of modern agricultural methods. Improvements in our agricultural system didn’t start with “genetic modification in a lab setting”. Many of our advances in agricultural productivity trace back to the mechanization of growing, harvesting, and storing agricultural produce which took place in the last half of the 19th century. Subsequently, improvements in plant and animal breeding, soil science and fertility management developed in the early 1900s, and then continued in the last half of the 20th century with the deployment of modern pesticides that prevent yield losses in the field. The net result of all of those improvements is a dwindling proportion of our population that is actively engaged in agriculture. In the 1850s the proportion of the U.S. population that were farmers was over 75%. By the 1990s (BEFORE any GMOs came on the scene), that proportion was less than 2 percent.

      Anyone who wishes to revert to the ways that our great grandparents used to produce food is free to do so. In fact, here’s my often repeated challenge to anyone who wishes to learn what it was like in the “good old days”: Take up family farming for a living, and never grow anything that derives from technology. Check back in with us in a year or two & let us know how well you are feeding yourself & your family…that is if you are not dead of starvation and have enough energy left at the end of the day to bang away on your computer…if you still have a computer & enough money to pay for your internet service, and if you still can pay your electric bill, and if you still have a house to live in. Frankly, I hope everyone who wishes for a return to our grandparents’ day would do the same. I’m betting that we wouldn’t hear from any of them again.

      • No, I’m pretty sure the way corporations like Monsanto can hold so much of the market share has something to do with money and the government.

        I know agricultural improvements didn’t START with genetic modification in a lab, that’s why I referred to that part specifically since other forms of modification like cross-pollination dates way back in history. I never said we should revert back to everything from our grandparents’ day, I was only noting that what they considered regular food is now viewed as weird in today’s world with packaged, processed food on store shelves.

        Do I still consume food produced through modern practices that our grandparents never did? Yep, but I’m conscious of everything that goes into my body and know to choose whole foods for my household. But, cool challenge though. Since you’ll probably still be on here in a year or two defending your stance to anyone who opposes your view, make sure to check back in with us to let us know if anyone accepted your repeated challenge and lived to bang away at their computer to tell you they made it…..if they are able to pay their bills or afford a computer, that is.

        • Ammyth

          I love how everyone who eats fresh food thinks that they’re so unique in today’s society, that nobody eats “the way our grandparents ate”. That’s such a crock and so pretentious to believe such a thing.

          I don’t eat organic and I don’t avoid GMOs because there’s no good reason to do either of those things. I also cook fresh food for myself and my family, and eat almost no processed, packaged foods. My kids eat fresh fruits and vegetables every single day. Almost everyone I know eats this way without feeling the need to buy organic. These are intelligent, college-educated people who care about their health and that of their family…but they also are intelligent, independent and educated enough to realize that organic is, for the most part, a huge lie and a waste of money.

          “…eating organic used to be just eating before genetic modification (in a lab setting) came around…”

          Statements like this are absolutely mind-blowing in their ignorance. “Organic” is a farming method. Genetic modification is not. You can grow GM crops organically. The two techniques are not mutually exclusive.

          • common sense

            Well, in a year or two, only R.C. is going to be here. Rest of us GMO eaters will be dead. Stay classy R.C.

        • Nicolas Baron

          “No, I’m pretty sure the way corporations like Monsanto can hold so much
          of the market share has something to do with money and the government.”

          Hahaha! What a fucking idiot. That’s simple economics. A big corporation=conspiracy?
          I can’t even tell if you’re serious.

          • If you can’t tell, then how are you able to claim I’m an idiot? I get economics, but when a business can hold a lawsuit on anyone that replanted their seeds for a second season, that’s not just simple economics. Thanks for the mature input to the conversation though, good job.

          • hyperzombie

            I get economics, but when a business can hold a lawsuit on anyone that replanted their seeds for a second season, that’s not just simple economics.

            Well no need to worry about that now, gen 1 GMO soy and corn are off patent. Next year canola will be added to the list.
            Not that it really matters anyway because the vast majority of farmers buy seed yearly anyway, GMO or not.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Yes, farmers do buy seed yearly. Why? (ask one!) Ask one. They’ll look at you like you ate a stupid-burger, and patiently explain that when you save and re-use seeds, the yield every year goes down because of the problems of weeds, or mold, etc. in the saved seeds. (do you save and re-use your toilet paper? Now you get it.)

          • Randall

            You are absolutely correct. The most vigorous seeds are those raised to specifically be seeds. Extra effort and expense is taken when raising a crop for seed. Often, methods are changed, such as plant spacing, and even climate (location).

            I find benefits buying non-GMO seeds off patent (yes, non-GMO seeds are patented, too) that have been raised specifically to be a seed–not a consumed product.

          • common sense

            In R.C.’s case, it was a grass fed, certified organic stupid burger.

          • Kavin Senapathy

            Can a software company sue another entity for using its product after the license expires?

          • Of course, but seeds are not CD’s and this business model sets us up for something similar to the Irish Potato Famine should something that harm’s Monsanto’s seeds starts to spread.

          • hyperzombie

            GMOs are not a variety of the crop, they are only traits, therefore this could never be a problem. There are 100s of varieties of crops with the GMO traits inserted.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Huh???? (I’ll ignore the “harm’s”)
            Want to explain this wacko theory and reference to the potato famine?

          • Sure.

            Genetically-engineered crops will stimulate the evolution of “superweeds”
            and “superbugs” which will necessitate higher doses of chemicals and make
            food supplies more vulnerable to pest damage.

            The outcrossing of engineered traits to other plants also poses a major
            threat to food production.

            In addition, the adoption of genetically-engineered crops is likely to
            reduce genetic diversity, resulting in fewer and fewer types of food crops;
            the narrowing of the genetic base of food adds to the likelihood of pest
            and disease epidemics.

            Many of these problems stem from the fact that genetically-engineered crops
            will be grown in industrial monocultures. Other forms of agriculture offer
            far safer, proven andecologically-benign means of protecting crops against
            pest damage.

          • Randall

            Having GMO crops produces fewer superweeds and superbugs than there would be without GMO crops.

            I have more superweeds and superbugs in my non-GMO crops than I have in my GMO crops.

            I farm 70% non-GMO. Some crops I farm organically–meaning compost is the only input.

          • Thank you, Randall, for explaining your situation. I honestly appreciate your non-aggressive response and with you being a farmer, I really can’t argue with what you have to say here.

            I don’t have time to go back and forth with all of the responses here, but some are legitimate and I also can’t offer a rebuttal. Either way, I am happy with choosing non-gmo and organic, but don’t harness any ill feelings to those who act otherwise.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Great! Talk to more farmers!!! Did you know, RC, that many many farmers grow BOTH gmo and nnon-gmo? in rotation, etc. And some grow gmo, non-gmo, AND organic. Just sayin.’
            The more you talk to real farmers, the more you will learn. Just keep your mind open and can the hype you’ve learned over the years, and you will learn a lot.

          • Randall

            I’m firmly convinced that GMO is better for the environment.

            I use less toxic pesticides on the RR trait crops, and zero insecticides on the Bt trait crops.

            Overall, GMO crops yield more per acre using fewer inputs than Certified Organic crops.

            Read the comments by “organic mom” for a confirmation–if a Certified Organic farmer has pest attack, they are limited with what they can use.

          • Ammyth

            ALL pesticides breed resistance in the pests they’re intended to combat. That was happening before GMOs, before glyphosate and before Monsanto. That’s always happened, and it always will. So-called “superweeds” are just a lame talking point that anti-GMO, March-Against-Monsanto types have latched onto to scare people.

            Stop getting your news from websites that have the word “natural” or “earth” in their names.

            “herbicide resistance is a problem for farmers regardless of whether they plant GM crops. Some 64 weed species are resistant to the herbicide atrazine, for example, and no crops have been genetically modified to withstand it.”


          • Judy Nonarchi

            And thank the agricultural goddesses that we use glyphosate now INSTEAD of atrazine (shudder).

          • Guest

            Glyphosate is not a pesticide at all.

          • Ammyth

            Well, yeah, technically it is. Herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, etc. are all pesticides.

          • Good4U

            I (don’t) hate to break the news to you, R.C., but there are no such things as “superweeds” or “superbugs”. Those are fear-mongering terms dreamed up by the anti-technology zealots. They want people be duped into thinking that transgenic agricultural crops which are engineered to prevent pests will somehow induce some form of resistance in the pests that would not happen otherwise. That’s false. The truth is that weeds, bugs (insects and arachnids), pathogens (fungi, bacteria), and other types of organisms which become resistant to a particular type of pesticide can still be controlled by other pesticides with different modes of action. They are no more “super” than resistant pests that develop within conventional agricultural systems, including in so-called “organic” agriculture where pesticides are used. Take pyrethrin for example: the usage of pyrethrin by “organic” farmers very quickly leads to failure because insects can readily develop resistance to it. The only way to control them at that point is to switch to using a different pesticide, such as Bacillus thuringensis, which produces toxic proteins that then kill the insects. The pyrethrin resistant insects are in no way “super”. They just can’t be controlled with pyrethrin. It happens all the time. You just don’t know it.

            As for your slanted fears about narrowing of the genetic base, you are clearly not aware that transgenics is happening all around you, and even in you, every day of your life. Microorganisms and viruses transfer genes willy-nilly from one species to another all the time. Transgenics has been happening since the beginning of life on this planet, and none of it was controlled in the slightest way by human activity. It’s happening in the soil environment, in plants, in animals, and essentially in every living niche of the biosphere (the part of the earth where life exists). Bacteria in your own gut are transferring genes from their cells into yours, and vice versa. It’s happening right now, as you sit at your computer, fat and happy, but ignorant of the very process of transgenics that has taken modern humans more than 1.4 million years to figure out. The sad fact is that with all of the available education, too few people are motivated enough to seek it. I challenge you to really look into it and try to understand it, not just waste time on vaporous ideology.

          • Ha ha, I (don’t) love your use of parentheses. What’s the point?

            I’m well aware of the genetic occurrences in my body and all around us, thanks for explanation though. I do agree that too few people take the time to look into things around them, one of them being what they put in their body and feed their children. I don’t have that issue, and nice blind statement on my physical appearance. I actually have a standing desk setup in my home and am far from fat. Notice I’m not trying to hide anything as you can click on my picture profile if you’d like.

          • Randall

            Irish Potato Famine? ? ?

            It is the current model–ie: relying on science– that has avoided these types of disasters.

            In 2012, there was a prediction of another Dust Bowl. In 2012 there was the most severe drought on record in much of the midwest.

            What happened?

            I’m going with the results science has produced.


          • Verna Lang

            Interesting that you brought up the Irish potato famine. That was a small country that had a blight that wiped out the crop they relied on as their main source of nutrients. If there were a wide spread blight in a crop like cassava in Africa, where about 800 million people rely on it, we would see an even bigger tragedy in the making. It would take conventional methods of crop breeding at least a decade to come up with a resistant strain of cassava. That blight is already starting in Africa. GMO technology might be the only method of producing a resistant cassava fast enough to prevent famine on a continental scale. Demonizing a company like Monsanto, that only has about 5% of the seed market, is hardly a valid reason for throwing out GMO technology. GMO has already proven that it can quickly and safely fight blights by saving the Hawaiian papaya crop.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Not really. These transgenes are incorporated into diverse genetic backgrounds. The use of transgenes does not constrain genetic diversity.

          • William

            There are at least 3,000 varieties of potatoes. Also, there was no famine in Ireland just a failure of the potato crop allied with a decision by the English plantation owners to export cattle, pigs, sheep, barley, wheat and oats rather than feed the starving Irish peasants.

          • Larry

            “there was no famine in Ireland”? Ask some Irish people if they agree. Man made or not. It was certainly still a Famine.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            RC, puh-leeeze look it up; LOTS of seeds (hybrids, organic seeds) are patented. Have been since 1930.
            You can’t violate patents.
            Get it?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Concerning the replanting of genetic material, please appreciate that laws allowing the protection of plant germplasm have been in place since 1930, long before biotechnology. Also, Monsanto and other companies do not sue because of accidental pollen or seed contamination. They sue when farmers intentionally save and replant seed.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            That is correct, despite all the hype and misinformation to the contrary.

          • Larry

            Farmers rarely grow their own seed anyway. Way too much trouble. They have been buying new seed long before Monsanto and the GMO scare.

        • Larkin Curtis Hannah

          Concerning the large market share that Monsanto has, it is because the farmers really want their technology. My family has a good sized farm in Indiana and my nephew buys these materials because they provide him with flexibility and enhanced profits.

        • Judy Nonarchi

          “….something to do with money and the government.”
          Conspiracy rants, anyone?

        • madattak

          “corporations like Monsanto can hold so much
          of the market share”

          Funny you should mention that! Do you know why Monsanto has such a large share of the GMO market? Because the paranoid raving of the anti-GMO lobby made the government put mountains upon mountains of restrictions and redtape on GMO research, which makes it effectively impossible for any small company to enter the market.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      “better food” ? How so? Yes, farmers markets do support local farmers; yay! But “Better food for your family” — ?? On what do you base that statement?

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Well, our great grandparents are dead.
      I’d love to see you justify how you believe farmers markets get us “better food” (really? better in what way?), and I really want you to elaborate on “better agricultural practices.” Really? Like what?
      (oh, and “that’s all their was” should read “that’s all there was.” Words matter.)

      • Yep, good catch on the grammar. Should I call out your lack of capitalization in parentheses? Words do matter, yes, but did you not get my meaning anyway?

        Sorry, I’m done commenting, but you can keep replying to your replies with accusations and insults all you want. Try spending time with family a little though.

        • a20havoc

          “Try spending time with family a little though.” smh. Always with the imperatives, you people. That’s the point, though. You and your ilk always think you know what’s best for everybody else. Despicable.

  • Jim Leupold

    Wow, Ms. Senapathy,

    This sounds like little more than a really bitter diatribe that makes you sound like you’re on staff with Monsanto’s or Dow! While there are organic products that still may contain some pesticides, restrictions and regulations will get stronger, and it’s often because that organic land was part of the typical chemical agri-business for a decade or much more.

    There are more and more organic soil enhancers that do nothing but replace naturally-occuring organic microbial solutions into the soil and create plants that are so healthy that pesticides are unnecessary. Less water is needed, and most importantly, the soil is not degraded to the point where it’s useless. Chemical fertilizers do add nutrients to the plants, but the soil is increasingly attacked. And, the amount of pesticides and chemicals that end up in our lakes and rivers and groundwater? Devastating! There’s a constant algae bloom in which nothing can live at the mouth of the Mississippi at the Gulf of Mexico – the size of Connecticut – from what we’re doing up and down the Mississippi on farmlands and factory farms.

    Why are entire countries and regions of the world turning their backs on the GMO and chem-agriculture industry? Because they’ve found them to be just dandy? I think not.

    New organic products actually increase yield, nutrition, taste, bolster the soil, help clean up the water and actually cost LESS than the chemical fertilizers and the pesticides which are sprayed on our crops by people in HAZMAT suits!!!

    Not exactly as nature intended…..


    • Miles Stockdale

      This is a great post. Starts off with the obligatory shill accusation syndrome, followed by a basic denial of pesticide use with organic farming, then some woo about soil, other countries must have banned it for a reason, the old BS that organics is more nutritious, and it costs less to produce (in which case why would it cost consumers so much more? and do you really think that farmers are so stupid that they wouldn’t switch to a cheaper method especially as it brings higher prices? Must be a conspiracy), HAZMAT suits!!! (worn by responsible organic farmers as well) and finally the cherry on top – nature!!

      I give it an 12 out of 10 on the Dunning-Kruger scale.

      • You win the internet today, Miles! Well said!

      • The Herald

        “This is a great post. Starts off with the obligatory shill accusation syndrome…”

        And ironically being of the defensive within a mentality of a “this or that” polarization and convenient categorization of those by what some position they hole may be from what is not endorsed or appraised in a certain manner that is appeasing.

        “the old BS that organics is more nutritious, and it costs less to
        produce (in which case why would it cost consumers so much more? and do
        you really think that farmers are so stupid that they wouldn’t switch to
        a cheaper method especially as it brings higher prices? Must be a
        conspiracy), HAZMAT suits!!! (worn by responsible organic farmers as
        well) and finally the cherry on top – nature!!”

        And such a reaction from a “rational Skeptic” from “evidence”(in conjunction with a mentality fixated on what is embodied on a categorization as “science” and the superficiality of linear chronological progression of “science” and the attributed output in which to be seen as not adhering to that devotional outlook would be to adhere to the “old” as being of the allotment of uselessness and obsolete and those not “logical” enough to be some kind of “enemy” of progress) built from absolute convictions on general and not static principles,system(s),and functionality with testing and absolute conclusions drawn in part from results on reductionistic and isolate parts as completely representative of a designated whole (such as “organic”/certified organic produce)and the relationship with the rest of actuality(as with the vast magnitude of variation with the degree of nutrient uptake and profile thereof from and of the plants in relationship to such aspects as the soil quality of the specific environment that it is grown in and how well or how “bad” certain kinds of plants fare under environmental conditions that the plants are being grown in).

        “I give it an 12 out of 10 on the Dunning-Kruger scale.”

        And “everyone” would suffer from the so called “Dunning-Kruger effect” with a certain state of mind of how “wrong” someone or something relating to that someone is as subjected to what one subscribes or aligns with being “the truth”.

      • Ryan

        Ooh, Jimmy got served. Hard. Gently apply ice to burn.

    • Jim Leupold

      Farmers are not stupid at all, Miles. But they’re naturally afraid to play around with what they’ve now been told to do and what they’ve done for half a century. Unfortunately, there are a million acres in the US that were once arable and are now considered unusable for growing anything. That’s not from putting natural nutrients into the earth. China has 20 million acres of unusable land because they went whole-hog with chemical fertilizer. Countries are CLAMORING for something different. Farmers will have to do their due diligence. As many are doing, newer solution organic farming techniques are being used on small plots, and they’re beginning to find as good or better yields with better taste, higher nutrition and leaving behind better soil.

      Chem-farming had its time, but it’s simply not sustainable. With new organic farming, chemicals can be cut in half. We can all close our eyes and our noses and deny that all these chemicals have done no harm to our earth, but we’ve already done that for too long. Mankind has a chance to do things that nurture the planet we live on. Why would we not take that chance?

      • Nicolas Baron

        I’d like to see your source for all those claims.
        Especially “with new organic farming, chemicals can be cut in half”.

        • hyperzombie

          Yeah,i like what the heck is “New Organic Farming” ?

      • Ammyth

        I’m not sure farmers or “entire countries and regions of the world” believe or do any of things you think they believe or do. You presume a lot. And stop using the word “chemicals” since you clearly have no idea what it means. Everything is a chemical. Water is a chemical.

        And organic farmers need to use *more* of the chemicals they use for insecticides and herbicides because they’re not as effective. Roundup-Ready and Bt corn, on the other hand, have allowed farmers to use less pesticides on their crops.

        “On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.”

      • Tim Duffy

        Just for the record, on his own LinkedIn resume page Jim lists himself as “Client Procurement” for Earthcare International which promotes (sells?) something called “SumaGrow” which is apparently a liquid organic
        microbial solution – he also recently organized a Kickstarter campaign trying to raise $250,000 dollars for the same product (he came up a little short, just $249,000+ short) – So I’m not calling anyone a shill but it certainly sounds like Mr Leupold has some self-interest involved in this discussion…

        • Jim Leupold

          Absolutely, Tim. BTW, I haven’t asked for nor received a dime for any of that work. Why? Because I believe in the issue, and I believe in the product. I work full-time in another industry completely, but I truly hope Earthcare with SumaGrow continues to be incredibly successful. The Kickstarter project was a lot of work but a lot of fun and basically an experiment in crowd-funding. I think people realize that this company and product will do really well anyway…fact is, whether we understand it, know it or believe it, we ALL have a vested interest in making our earth cleaner – in as many ways as we can – especially where it’s proven to work and where it’s financially feasible.

          • Kavin Senapathy

            Jim, I’m the author of this piece, and I am also no shill. I write in my free time outside of my job, children, and family, because I care about these issues and scientific progress.

        • Clifford Ageloff

          I’ll call him out! Wow a REAL shill not a poser like the rest of us. ;)

        • Judy Nonarchi

          Tim, thanks for researching this!!! a bit of a conflict of interest and “shill game” goin’ on…

      • Randall

        We farmers have test plots all the time. Why do you think we are “afraid to play around with what [we’ve] been told to do.??”

        I find your statement insulting would like an explanation or apology.

        I’m running test plots of microbial solutions right now–and have been for three years.

        Perhaps you are unaware of the hundreds of snake-oil products we farmers are presented with each year?

        • Jim Leupold

          “Afraid” was the wrong word, Randall. “Cautious” would be better – because of the “snake oil” products and because farmers are feeding 7 billion people, and whatever they do has to work. Arguably, farming is the most important job on earth.

          More tonight or tomorrow…..

          • Randall

            It wasn’t the “afraid” part that rubbed me the wrong way, it was the “been told what to do” part.

            To me, that is what makes it sound like we can’t tell what is going on on our own farms.

            Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, or maybe you are not coming across the way you want?

      • Ammyth

        You really don’t give farmers enough credit. I think the best people to make decisions about the best way to farm…are farmers. Not activists or agricultural luddites or people who make money from scaring people on the internet. Farmers are generally a pretty savvy, intelligent and conscientious bunch and they are quick to adopt or abandon technologies if they feel it will help them, help their land, etc. They’re not afraid of much….except perhaps misinformed activists seeking to remove some of the tools at their disposal with no good reason.

    • Sorry Jim, there are actually quite a few flaws in your statement. I actually was just involved in a discussion surrounding the idea that the use of manure, which is relied on heavily in organic farming, could be having a larger effect on the algae blooms here in Canada. Many organic farmers are overloading the soil with P, in efforts to get more usable N out of this organic fertilizer. The P then leaches into groundwater. The difference with synthetic fertilizer is that you can be much more accurate and apply only the amount that the crop will use to help avoid any leaching. (good farming practices should include soil testing to determine this in both conventional and organic ag.) The reason organic products contain pesticides is because organic farmers spray them and use them for crop protection, NOT because of what is in the soil from the farming methods before. Every farmer needs tools to control pests, it has nothing to do with the health of the plant. Organic farmers need to protect their crops too, and they have many different chemicals that they can use to spray their crops, probably some of them require ‘hazmat suits’. I understand you feel strongly about your views on organic agriculture but I respectfully ask you to consider the possibility that you may have believed some false advertising along the way. I am a farmer and I think we deserve the opportunity to teach people how things really work in agriculture – not what one sided picture that a marketing campaign has painted for you.

    • Clifford Ageloff

      Dude that algae bloom will get bigger with more organic fertilizers too. Nice try though.

  • Chad Stachowiak

    Anyone have any article citations for any of the following?:
    1) comparing the insecticide/herbicide runoff per unit area of a synthetically sprayed area vs non-synthetically sprayed area
    2) degradation time of synthetic and non-synthetic herbicides and pesticides
    3) list of most used, by volume preferably, synthetic and non-synthetic herbicides and pesticides

    • hyperzombie

      3) list of most used, by volume preferably, synthetic and non-synthetic herbicides and pesticides

      Why volume or weight? Would you measure other groups of substances this way?
      For example, would drug use be down if users switched from Marijuana to Meth, way less volume?
      Would alcohol consumption be up if users switched from vodka to beer?

      • Chad Stachowiak

        What unit of measurement do you recommend? Also, can you provide me with such a list or a potential source to investigate?

  • Viriato77

    The rampant conflation of topics by the anti-GMO comments is incredibly underwhelming. Can you even clearly state why you are against GMO?

    • Indeed. One phenomenon I keep encountering is an argument that boils down to:-

      (1) Glyphosate is harmful
      (2) GMO’s are harmful.

      Quite bizarre. Firstly, (1) is highly controversial. But even if (1) is true, (2) doesn’t follow.

  • marcbrazeau

    “I’d purchase organic bananas if the conventional fruit was too green.”

    Organic bananas are one of the most environmentally reckless foods you can buy. To grow bananas without synthetic fungicides, organic bananas need to be grown on land that is completely free of the fungus that attacks Cavendish bananas. The only way to accomplish this is to clear jungle to make room for new banana plantations.

    I don’t boycott organic, but that is one organic choice, I will never make again.

    • Robin

      That is what people with obsessions over the word “natural” don’t get. They’re hurting the environment.

      • Humanswillbefree

        Your comment is so insane… You must have an IQ of probably in the low double digits. Hurting the environment? 250 years ago there was pristine land, air, and water. Now today, the environment is so toxic, they have to put other chemicals in the water to clean it. The air is so dirty it looks yellow. The land is overrun with toxins that run into the water system so much so that the fish are dying, and you call creating food without pesticides hurting the environment LOL!!! if there is another word lower than stupid that would be you.

        • Robin

          I’m 100% sure you didn’t even read marcbrazeu’s comment on banana trees.

          He explained in detail why it hurts the environment to grow banana trees without synthetic fungicides.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Is it really an obssesion to eat organic natural foods the way mother nature intended it? Lets flip marcbrazeus comment around and look at it from the other side you so brazenly oppose for wanting REAL FOOD. In the last 250 years we have gone from pristine water, air and land, to now having the most poluted water ways that fish cxan’t ecven live in, ground saturated with chemicals/pesticides and CAFO farms flooding the water ways with feces, and air polution from the by products of the fuel industry. But you are stuck on Bananas??? We are the most TOXIC in the history of humankind!!!! We run around like mimicking mutaed cancer cells on thre macro level. It is a refelction of our conciouness as a species.

          • Robin

            “Is it really an obssesion to eat organic natural foods the way mother nature intended it?”

            Appeal to nature is a fallacy, so yes I’d say it’s an obsession. Growing food in a farm isn’t natural. Let alone computers and medicine. The only natural way of getting food is picking berries from wild bushes. So give me a real reason your type of food is better. All food is “REAL FOOD”.

            “In the last 250 years…”
            I know! I am an environmentalist myself. You don’t have to preach. That’s why I welcome farming practice that don’t cut down rain forest, which both in itself releases CO2 and gives fewer trees to remove CO2 from our atmosphere. I can’t tell exactly how much of a danger to anyone’s health it is, but if forced between poison and global warming I’ll choose to be a bit poisoned.

            “But you are stuck on Bananas???”
            Nope, this includes lots of more crops where the choice is to grow where you already grow it or cut down more forest. The latter is done awfully often in the third world. Another example of how nature fallcyists hurt the environment is insistence on extracting ingredients, resources etc when they can be made syntehtically. We deplete nature by going out to get “natural” substances. Substances that our bodies will take just like any other, since they have the same chemical composition. It’s the reason you can drink recycled toilet water: Becuase nothing is wrong with H2O itself.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Hi Robin, sorry my comments were aimed towards this article and GMO’s in general. I didn’t know we are talking about clear cutting forests which usually is done for cattle farming in South America. I am clearly on your side when it comes to that, but where you go off course is that you’re okay with synthetics in your food which is why these people are going out and extracting resources from mother nature and clear cutting forests for their resources. So if your environmentalist yourself you would understand that eating cleaner is the quickest way to stop clear cutting forests. Food has a direct impact on your consciousness or your unconsciousness, which has a direct correlation to your overall awareness of who and what you are. If you do not know who and what you are you will think that nature is separate and different from you, and this is what causes this disease/mentality of we are separate from nature, therefore we can go in and do whatever we want to nature and make it submit to our unconscious ways. The companies clear cutting forests are the chemical companies, the oil companies, and the pharmaceutical companies. I hope this is starting to make sense for you that it is important that we eat less artificial foods, less processed foods, so we can detox our minds and our pineal glands, which is our connection to our divinity and knowing of who we really are.

          • Robin

            Been a while since I was commenting on this article.

            First of all, thanks for a polite comment.

            Anyway, No, we don’t have psychic abilities. Just no :/ Mental capacity, which are indeed affected by food, but psychic powers refer to reading minds and telekinesis. But food doesn’t make us “aware of who we are”, it gives us nutrients for a body so that it can process thoughts on science and philosophy.

            Yes, resource extraction plays a large role in destruction, but you fallaciously insert “pharmaceutical companies” when you list off resource extractors. If you, yourself, care so much about the environment, you need to stop and think about what’s really best for it, not hold on to arbitrary pre-conceived notions about what’s good an clean.

            I will eat what’s good for the environment, period, and if bananas are either poisoned(It need to be proven that pesticide-grown bananas are poisoned though) or destructive I will not eat bananas at all, at least until a variant comes up that doesn’t need pristine soil or pesticides.

            But our bodies are not magical. They need nutrients, and will be happy to get them. They will get sick because they get substances that really are toxic(If you drank oil, yes you’d get sick, because oil has toxicological properties), they do not panic that there’s something synthetic about the food. Beceause what also riles me is “less artificial foods, less processed foods”. Can you even define those terms and why food in those categories is bad? And last of all “detox our minds and our pineal glands”. The liver detoxes the body, not some woo diet. If you want to detox, research the liver, take whatever helps it, do not overburden it(by drinking too much alcohol for example). Pay your janitor.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Lets break down you comments….and I’m not going to quote sources because you have not QUOTED ONE SOURCE. You do your own research, as should everyone else. Stop being lazy, it is your body and life. Big Pharma loves LAZY people to exploit.

            First off, you still are somewhat still asleep.

            I want to put this out there…. You are clearly a paid poster for Big Pharma.

            Ahhhh…Yes we do have psychic abilities, you mean you just don’t know how to use them yet.

            Food plays a big role in your pshchic abilities opening up. See, certain foods carry a much higher vibrational quality, like fruits and vegetables. If you have eaten them for any period of time exclusively you would know one of the side effect is hightened psychic abilities.

            If you have not eaten a diet like this you would have NO CLUE.

            If I were to ask you… Who are you? What would be your answer? I don’t think you have a clue yet.

            Food has the power to change your mood, your outlook, and how your body reacts or doesn’t. The right foods are powerful.

            It has already been proven that we all have psychic abilities. Science is up against a wall called Quantum Phyisics, and the double slit experiement proves humans change consciousness, when they get involved.

            Your comment….”but you fallaciously insert “pharmaceutical companies” when you list off resource extractors.”

            They are extracting compound from nature and thery use synthetic chemicals attempting to reproduce them. Where do these chemicals come from? Thin air?

            Thery are definately gross polutters, and it has been prove that all their chemicals have have been found in women and their fetuses. It has also been found our sewage system, which gets flused into the ocean. Where do you think all Big Pharma’s chemicals go?

            Your comment “But our bodies are not magical.”

            Oh really? YOur body doesn’t ever have to consult with you on how to breath. How to pump blood and how fast or how slow to regulate your heart. It is all done for you, not to mention it heals itself. You control none of it.

            If that is not magical then I would love to hear your definition?

            Your comment…”beceause what also riles me is “less artificial foods, less processed foods”. Can you even define those terms and why food in those categories is bad?”

            Organic whole foods make you angry?

            Lets start with processed foods, which are toxic to the body over time.

            In the last 50 years or so when toxic processed food production came into full swing, people now have disease’s doctors don’t even understand. These diseases were not even around in the prior 100 or 200 hundred years!!! The cancers and all other diseases are exploding!!! So, you can eat all the processed foods your heart desires, Zombie.

            The artificial chemicals, that these companies put in the foods(The same companies you work for) are toxic to human beings. Thery cause obesity and ever disease under the sun. The chemicalization of our food has clearly harmed people.

            The more a processed food people eat the sicker they bacome. It is as simple as that.

            Detoxing your body with fruits and vegatables juices, also helps clean the liver, kidneys, and your whole and complete system. “The Gerson Diet” is a clear example of this.

            You know what overburdens the live, is synthetic chemicals and processed foods that contain those synthetic chemicals, that you are defending. How do you not know this?

            Your comment….Research the liver? WTF?(read above and learn something)

            So when you say “Woo Diet” Are you saying ORGANIC REAL WHOLE FOODS are bad for you? Something humans have been eating for tens of thousands of years. I know it is hard to wrap your narrow thinking mind around, but try.

            To sum it up, our bodies love REAL WHOLE FOODS from nature, that man has not put his evil chemicals into. Our bodies thrives when eating fruits and vegetables.

            Pay attention to what you are aloowing into your TEMPLE. When you allow Big Pharma into your TEMPLE, Big Pharma will poison you, control your mood, and thoughts, as thry have controlled your thoughts, because you are defending them.

            Wake up and take back your mind. It is only a choice, if you love FREEDOM.

            Then you are not free. Thery will steal your freedom, as they have been doing for some time now.

            You have some decisions to make to take back you life.

            Will it be the Red pill or the Blue pill?

          • Robin

            “I’m not going to quote sources because you have not QUOTED ONE SOURCE”
            Neither have you, not even from NaturalNews. What’s the problem?

        • Sher De Lune

          You can just go live in a cave now and hunt and gather all of your food. No need to subject yourself to modern practices at all. Buh-bye.

      • tofucatnip

        Ten likes for bullshit like this? What kind of crackers are on this thread? Sub-educated and evidently feeling REALLY threatened.

        • Robin

          Thanks for the personal attacks, mate :)

    • basics

      To add to this, organic food takes up way more land, and uses way more water than conventional or GMO food. Not to mention the plants produce less fruit. All other arguments aside, organic food is NOT a sustainable long term solution, especially when taking the environment into consideration.

      • William

        Sent from Samsung Mobile

        ——– Original message ——–From: Disqus Date:07-01-2015 8:18 AM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: comment on Mother’ s science-based view: Organics and Whole Foods are ‘ scam of the decade’ Settings

        A new comment was posted on Genetic Literacy Project

        basics (Guest):
        To add to this, organic food takes up way more land, and uses way more water than conventional or GMO food. Not to mention the plants produce less fruit. All other arguments aside, organic food is NOT a sustainable long term solution, especially when taking the environment into consideration. 8:18 a.m., Wednesday Jan. 7 | Other comments by basics

        basics’s comment is in reply to marcbrazeau:

        “I’d purchase organic bananas if the conventional fruit was too green.” Organic bananas are one of the most environmentally reckless foods you can buy … Read more
        You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about activity on Mother’s science-based view: Organics and Whole Foods are ‘scam of the decade’.
        You can unsubscribe from emails about activity on Mother’s science-based view: Organics and Whole Foods are ‘scam of the decade’ by replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings.

    • tofucatnip

      All farm land used to be wilderness at some point, Einstein. But it’s nice to know that you’re such a keen steward of nature.

      • marcbrazeau

        Yes, but we need to STOP clearing more land for agriculture and use the land we have. You can’t grow bananas certified organic without clearing new land. That’s madness.

  • organic mom

    Just out of curiosity, why are you so angry? Your so-called research is nothing but a regurgitation of a few articles recently written which support your uneducated view of what organic farming is. You have little insight or actual experience in farming of any sort. The USDA organic program is poor and becoming worse as they count any food or crop as organic if it meets as 95% organic ingredients or farming. I happen to own an organic produce company and we DO NOT sell anything that is not 100% organic. We do not believe in IPM. If a crop fails due to disease or pest,then we are simply out of that item until next growing season as our growers take it to be a personal affront to use even approved chemical actions. We use hormone traps and nematodes for pest control, as well as a mixture of clay and water as a deterrant . This might be the “chemical residues” you so incorrectly described. To begin with, you cannot see the pesticide residues on most conventional produce because all pesticides are required by law to be water soluable. Then, the ground is completely saturated making it impossible to wash them away as they are taken directly into the root system of the plant. I could go on and on but I’ll stop here because I have already given you enough additional information for you to research and do not think your chemical-addled brain can handle much more.

    • hyperzombie

      I happen to own an organic produce company

      Wow, an another “Industry Shill”

      as a mixture of clay and water as a deterrant

      Diatomateous clay is highly toxic to bees and most insects

      • Judy Nonarchi

        Ah, ta heck wid da bees and insects; at least she’s “pure.”

        • Why are you attacking those who don’t share the same views as you? It IS possible to just discuss in a better manner. Are you mad for some reason? Are you trying to justify your choices or something? If you want to disagree, wonderful, but tell us why you disagree, don’t just put what we say in quotes in an attempt to make fun of others. What does that get you?

          • Verna Lang

            I think the the line of the original poster, “I could go on and on but I’ll stop here because I have already given you enough additional information for you to research and do not think your chemical-addled brain can handle much more.” set the tone for this discussion. The implication that if you do not fall for the deceptive marketing practices of organic, you are poisoned with chemicals, cannot reason, and are uninformed, hardly qualify as not attacking those who don’t share the same views as you. There are some valid reasons for supporting small scale organic methods of agriculture, but food safety and better nutrition are not among them. Marketing surveys decades ago revealed that those valid reasons were not important enough make consumers open their wallets to pay more for organic. Organic foods would still be a niche market if marketers did not use scare tactics to create the illusion that organic makes you a better and healthier person because “chemikills.” As for doing my research, as I was going through my degrees for Biochemistry, I saw molecular biology take its first faltering footsteps with the discovery of how to sequence DNA, through the early discussions of scientists on how to regulate their own research, to watching the it run with the first successful GMO products like Humalin. I helped train some of the scientists working in the field. Now some graduates of Google U come along and tell me I am uninformed and chemical-addled? If I were to agree with all the organic marketing misinformation being spewed out on the internet, I would first have to put my doctorate through a shredder and completely forget how to read a scientific paper. Many of the anti-GMO crowd support the idea that anthropomorphic climate change is real because of scientific consensus. There is actually more hard science and more scientists supporting GMOs. How anyone can rationalize that dichotomy, I’ll never know.

          • Julie Marie Totsch

            I’d like to read one or more of these studies. How does a nonscientific person get her hands on them.

          • Verna Lang

            This is a pdf file of a review of the marketing practices of organic sector. It also has an extensive list of references, many of which will pop up if you copy and paste the title in a Google search.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Yup, RC. I do get cranky with hypocritical purist arguments based on hype rather than science. I do get cranky with fearmongering and exaggeration (“saturating” the ground with chemicals). I attack sloppy reading based on Food Babe-type pseudo science. So sue me.

          • Cranky, huh? Might want be a cause of poor nutrition. I’ll pass on suing, just hope you’re able to overcome crankiness. I’m sure both sides are guilty of exaggerating their words, but I don’t think I was fearmongering

      • Randall

        Diatomaceous Clay, an ingredient of dynamite.

        • Larry

          Yes and chlorine is an ingredient in table salt. Meaningless. Diatomaceous Clay…
          harmless to human. Clay with tiny shells of Diatoms.

      • k8blujay

        highly toxic to bees and most insects… among other things. I looked into using that to control the fleas in our house the dog brings in… Nope.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Well, you obviously have lots of money (or grow very teeny little plots) if you “simply” take failed crops out of production. That’s sweet. But it does not represent the real world of modern farming. But I’m sure you are perfectly aware of that.

    • Randall

      We do not believe in IPM. If a crop fails due to disease or pest,then we are simply out of that item until next growing season

      Using a conventional pesticide to save a crop is more sustainable than allowing the crop to go to waste.

      the ground is completely saturated

      Take a grain of salt
      Cut it in half
      Take a half, mix with 10 drops of water
      Spread evenly over a square foot ground.
      That is what you call saturated.
      That is glyphosate, and other pesticides are less that 10% of that rate.

      making it impossible to wash them away as they are taken directly into the root system of the plant.

      Not true. Some pesticides are, and some are not systemic. It is ironic that you would lecture someone else on their alleged lack of ag knowledge.

    • Ammyth

      Great post, alternatively titled “How to Make Famine a Thing Again”. There are six billion people in the world, and there’s no conceivable way that they could all get fed if farmers just started to surrender entire harvests to pests. I hate to use the word since it’s become such a cliche among social justice warriors, but you are definitely speaking from a position of *privilege*.

      • Judy Nonarchi

        Right, Ammyth … privilege combined with ignorance. Nothin’ wrong with being ignorant about something if one has an open mind and curiosity to know more. But organicmom has none of those attributes, and is happy to spew ignorance from this position of privilege. A superior attitude combined with an inferior mind just results in sloppy babbling.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Organic mom (is that all ya got? Come on, throw a bit of science or somethin’ in here — just being a mom doesn’t cut it for credibility) —
      You don’t use IPM. You don’t use integrated pest management. Wow. IPM is considered best practice among serious farmers. Unless you really don’t give a D**M about your neighbors’ crops with weeds and insects.
      Not using the best IPM practices is both ignorant, and selfish to other people around you.
      I liken it to people who BRAG that they don’t get their kids vaccinated, as they have the nerve to bring in their feverish kid into my day care center. Ignorant and selfish.

    • ****MAVERICK****

      If you’d like a concise reason why organic is a sham, they share the same truck. Rolling around in the same truck, even if they were pesticide free they aren’t by the time they reach your grocer.

      • ****MAVERICK****

        I’m not, haven’t you seen a grocery store truck unloaded? They’re all bouncing around in the same area with their pesticides getting spread in every direction.

        • tofucatnip

          Your ignorance of the rules governing organic distributors is breathtaking. Please don’t spew such crap.

          • ****MAVERICK****

            There is no ignorance, I’ve seen it. I encourage you to actually witness it and get back to me. Until then you’re just talking out of your ass.

    • First Officer

      Thank God then that Organic as practiced by you is not the dominant form of.agriculture today. “Sorry everybody. But the crops failed this season. Come back next year for food.”

  • LabelGMOs108

    Ah, guess who runs the Genetic Literacy Project? Executive Director Jon Entine, a long time GMO pusher Organics basher on a similarly bias Monsanto front institute on the campus of UC Davis. UC Davis, once the darling of “tobacco science”, now receives funding from Monsanto. Funny how nothing really changes.

    Want the real fact on GMOs?
    Read this new global report, The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes.
    It will curl your toes and open your eyes.

    Free download:

  • B

    youre a pathetic money hungry bitch is what it sounds like

    • JPEnge

      I’m pretty sure it doesn’t sound like that to anybody but you.

    • Ammyth

      You’re a pleasant one.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Oh, B ….. you’re a woman hater!!! So sorry for you !

  • B

    If you cant afford to eat organic then don’t, but GMO’s are about banned everywhere but America and few others. Think what you want you’re only hurting yourself. GMO foods are allot more cheaper because they grow more. Maybe one day when you get a better job besides these poorly written articles, you will be able to eat organic someday. I mean really who wouldn’t want to eat organic? Same taste no chemicals/poisons. Look at the ingredients of the same thing one organic and one not, 10 ingredients compared to 50 right? Organic stuff doesn’t allow in crap in it. I feel bad for you’re children, who your’e slowly killing with the poisons you’re feeding them. I recommend looking into cheaper organic fruits and veggies for your children, just cause you’re eating poison doesn’t mean you should force them too.

    • Kavin Senapathy

      Guess what, B? I’m a real person. When you tell me I’m
      poisoning my kids, which happens sadly very often, you’re going too far.
      If I were actually poisoning my children, I’d be a criminal and a bad
      mom, neither of which I am. My husband and I are fortunate enough to be
      able to afford all of what our family needs, and a hell of a lot of what
      we want. We understand that we can feed our
      family healthy food without having to pay a premium for ideology. Then
      again, there are a lot of people out there who either need to sacrifice
      for organic, or can barely put food on the table period. I’m sick of
      this elitist attitude, using classism to shame and berate parents for
      arbitrary meaningless choices. There are plenty of parenting choices
      that matter, and choosing organic is not one of them. What I argue is that choosing organic is actually a poor choice, based in fear and ignorance. If people like you
      have the nerve to tell me I’m poisoning my children, you would put your
      name to your claims. Oh wait, you’re disingenuous cowards. As I always
      say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – put up or
      shut up.

      • Judy Nonarchi

        Kavin, that’s EXACTLY what he and others do … do the shame / blame thing (inarticulately, but I could read through all the grammatical errors and see that’s what he was doing).
        I want to thank you for taking on the hype, the arrogance, and the absolute narcissism of these shamer / blamers who love to fearmonger.
        Thank you for taking them on.

    • Aaron Johnson

      Chemicals, I know, right? I did a little digging on a food my wife buys often. Can you even guess what contains all these chemicals?

      • k8blujay

        I’m thinking an Apple…

      • Robin

        A candy heart contains less ingredients. Therefore the candy heart must be healthier, right? Hehe.

    • k8blujay

      I kinda find it funny that you call out Kavin for her “poorly written” articles, but then you don’t even know that “allot” isn’t even a word… and you don’t know when to use your or you’re.
      I’m not against organic foods per se… but I’m going to buy the cheaper of the two… why? Because I don’t have money to burn and starving my family is more atrocious than feeding them “poisons” that can be washed off regardless of whether it’s organic or conventional.

      • Sher De Lune

        Allot is a word. It was just used inappropriately in B’s poorly written comment.

        • k8blujay

          You’re correct and I stand corrected… incorrect word usage is still incorrect. ;)

          • Sher De Lune


      • Judy Nonarchi

        Yes, “allot” is a word, as in “He allotted me 10 minutes to finish my work.” This guy meant “a lot,” but his whole rant is reflective of his sloppy mind, full of sloppy grammar. Utterly consistent.

    • Voice of tReason

      not only scientifically illiterate

    • Ammyth

      GMOs are not banned everywhere. *Some* GM crops are banned in *some* regions of *some* countries, but not very many and certainly not even close to everywhere. And in any case…a lot of countries still ban homosexuality. Maybe we should do that too? Or do you think that we’re capable as a nation of setting our own rules?

      Here’s a list of bans for you…you can see that it’s not quite as extensive as you seem to believe.

    • Matthew Lee Loftus

      “GMOs are banned everywhere but America and a few others.”

      – No they aren’t.

      “Think what you want, but you’re only hurting yourself.”

      – This statement presupposes that GMOs are unhealthy and that not buying organic is equivalent to harming oneself, which is circular reasoning because that is precisely the assumption that is being challenged.

      “Maybe one day when you get a better job besides these poorly written articles and will be able to buy organic. I mean really, who wouldn’t wan to buy organic?”

      – This claim not only erroneously assumes that the reason Kavin writes these articles is because it’s her primary means of income, and that money is her motivation for doing so, but it also erroneously assumes that the cost of organic food is the only possible reason that might deter someone from buying it. Did you even read the article? She stopped buying organic altogether as a matter of her personal principles and she even explained why.

      “Same taste no chemicals/poisons.”

      – This claim incorrectly assumes that organic food does not contain chemicals (what are you eating? Quark-gluon plasma?), and that GMOs contain poisons. Both of these assumptions are demonstrably false. Organic certification does not necessarily mean no pesticides, nor does it connote safer pesticides or lesser quantities thereof.

      Organic approved pesticides:

      Rotenone is an organic pesticide that is a neurotoxin with a suspected link to Parkinson’s.

      Chronic exposure to copper sulfate often used in organic farming increases risk of anemia and liver disease. Copper sulfate can be corrosive to the skin and eyes. Vineyard sprayers experienced liver disease after 3 to 15 years of exposure to copper sulfate solution in Bordeaux mixture.

      “Look at the ingredients of the same thing one organic one not. 10 ingredients versus 50”

      – Produce doesn’t normally come with an ingredients list, but if it did, you’d see that the equivalent organic versions would contain just as many scary sounding names as their GMO counterparts. Moreover, this statement also naively assumes an inverse relationship between the number of ingredients and the healthfulness of a food. This is demonstrably false as well. If it were true, then consuming zero food at all would be the most healthful of all, which is clearly not the case. Humans require certain macronutrients and micronutrients for optimal function. The degree to which a set of dietary habits fulfills those requirements is not adequately assessed by merely counting ingredients.

      “Organic doesn’t allow crap in it.”

      – This assumes that GMOs do “allow crap in it,” a claim which you’ve been consistently incapable of backing up.

      “I feel bad for your children, who you’re slowly killing with the poisons you’re feeding them.”

      – Again, this statement incorrectly presupposes that GMOs are poisonous, a belief which you’ve been unable to support with evidence, and which is refuted by overwhelming scientific evidence collected and analyzed by people several orders of magnitude more qualified and knowledgeable than yourself. This entire tirade has been nothing but a misinformed rant attacking the author with absolutely no substantive evidence for any of its premises.

      • William

        Agree 100%

      • Judy Nonarchi

        Matthew, you’re making logical arguments with an illogical “mind’s-made-up, brain’s-slammed-shut” person. Like trying to teach a pig to sing; waste of your time, and it only irritates the pig.
        I like your cogent arguments!

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Um, “poorly written” ….. who was YOUR proofreader? Spelling and grammatical errors all over. Goes with your thinking; sporadic, all over the place, full of errors, full of presumptions and accusations. “Poison….” (yawn)

  • Christopher

    There seem to be as many opinions as assholes in these responses. Fascist much?

  • Judy Nonarchi

    I, too, am getting cranky about “organic, natural” food. And have been boycotting it. Why? 1) I don’t appreciate disingenuous advertising (Alfalfa’s in Colorado, where I recently visited, even has a sign saying that organic produce has more cancer-fighting antioxidants. Wow. They should be shut down for that kind of BS.) 2) I’m getting pretty sick and tired of the superior attitude, based on some kind of feelings of entitlement, of organic shills. 3) organic has a LOT more fecal contamination (which actually DOES make people sick, unlike gmo foods). Look it up.

    • Harry Phillips

      The cancer fighting of anti-oxidants was done in petrie dishes, when it went to human trials they found higher levels of anti-oxidants INCREASED the risk of cancer.

      Petrie dish =/= works in humans.

    • Humanswillbefree

      Then keep buying your pesticides and chemicals see how far that gets you in this life. It is dumb people like yourself who will pay the ultimate price. Natural whole foods that are organic have healing properties and the story.

      • Spencerich

        Evidence? i’ll wait.

        • Humanswillbefree

          100’s of millions spent on blocking this supposedly awesome technology and telling people where it is being used. Why?? If it is so great, why not tell everyone? See…it is not good for you and that is why they are blocking it. Organic foods label everything that is organic. It is shady they are afraid to tell people where it is being used. Why??? Please any of you pro-GMO’ers Let us all know:) Not one of you can anywhere in any of your comments.

          • JP

            “Proof.” It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

          • Humanswillbefree

            That is a none answer to the questions asked above. But I understand that is common in the pro-GMO community. When you can’t answer simple questions of why they are spending so much blocking labeling if it is good for you????

          • Larry Tiffany

            As stated for a THIRD time now, any scientific based evidence to your initial claim would be appreciated. Otherwise, your opinion is just that.

          • Humanswillbefree

            The evidence is everywhere in the condition of the people ingesting these foods. Just open your eyes and look around…and all you see are obese people which is a form of sickness. Inflammation is everywhere you turn. What more evidence do you need???

          • Rob Bairos

            People have been getting fatter long before the advent of biotech in the mid nineties.
            What are you trying to say?
            GMOs, being so evil, are able to affect someone years before they eat their first bite?

          • Humanswillbefree

            it’s a combination of things Rob. Chemically processed foods, unethically treatment of animals and extremely poor farming practices.GMO’s are poison to your body and the story. But if you want to eat them, have at it. You will pay a price just know that. They won’t even be able to trace what your illness is that they will definitely do test after test after test charging you hundreds of thousands of dollars if you don’t have insurance. So go on being GMO apologist and keep eating processed chemically laden crap food, and you won’t have to worry about terrorists, or car accident, because your body will take you out, due to Excessive abuse by its owner.

          • Rob Bairos

            Farming practices have increased in safety year over year, as our knowledge has grown. It was actually the advent of biotechnology that allowed, among other things, farmers to avoid costly (and toxic) sprayings of insecticides. It is also the advent of biotech that helps address many of the shortcomings of animal husbandry today. I’d recommend vegangmo for a fresh perspective.

            PS. I have little patience for the ‘You just wait and see!’ quasi-religious warnings that take the place of actual evidence based discussion.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Mono-culture farming practices are clearly not working because they abuse the soil. The soil is key, and if the soil is overworked, and not resupplied naturally with the nutrients it needs, it reflects in the crops. Everybody knows this who has a garden, if you grow tomato in your backyard it doesn’t taste anything remotely like tomato from the store, but yet you say farming practices have improved how? When the quality of the food that is produced, taste like nothing, you have to agree that that is not in improvement.

            P.S. since you’re so impatient, and you don’t like waiting, all you have to do is look around and see that 75% of people are obese or fat and the medical industry is booming. If that’s not evidence enough for you, then I don’t know what is.

          • Rob Bairos

            Taste is a function of variety and freshness.
            Add to the fact, personal selection bias, and I think you realize why your own home grown food tastes better.

            I once read an interesting article in which conventionally grown tomatoes were less flavourful because breeders bred out traits that caused color splotching, inadvertently breeding out specific taste traits as well.
            Using GMO techniques, they were able to switch these genes back on, but of course were unable to consume them, given the regulations involved.

            “all you have to do is look around and see that 75% of people are obese or fat and the medical industry is booming. If that’s not evidence enough for you, then I don’t know what is.”

            Obesity is a function of sedentary lifestyle combined with growing affluence and high fat diet. Explain to me why GMOs make you fat again?

          • Humanswillbefree

            Hey Rob you are a disgrace to humanity…. you are a paid shill for the GMO Industry. I love how you just just explained away my organic homegrown tomato taste, due to shit farming practices and my PERSONAL selection bias lol!!! I don’t think it tastes better there is a store bought tomato that has ever come close in my entire life incliding Organic. Thank god you have not been able to ruin tomatoes yet.

            Please explain in detail why your industry will not label products that use GMO’s?? What are you so afraid off. If you’re beloved GMO’s are so great why wouldn’t you tell the world where they are?

            No one in the Pro-GMO community seems to have an answer for this question. Why?

            You clearly have no idea about nutrition. When you claim obesity is a function of sedentary lifestyle that is pure bull. Nutrition is 80% to working out, which is about 20% on the importance scale. You could work out until you’re blue in the face if you don’t eat the right foods organic whole foods, lots of fruits and vegetables, it won’t matter how much you walk around.

            First of all where are the GMO’s in the foods? I know the answer to this question, but 90% of people don’t know where they are. Then you make corn syrup, which is made up of GMO corn, this contributes toobesity.

            GMO’s cause inflammation in the body, not to mention tumors, and all sorts of allergies. This leads to disease.

            Look I know you’re a paid poster and your paid to avoid any serious answers so I think I’m done here.

            Now go get your paycheck boy.

          • Rob Bairos

            “Hey Rob you are a disgrace to humanity…. you are a paid shill for the GMO Industry.”

            Ad-hominens are the mark of a weak argument. Thanks for living up to expectations.

            “I love how you just just explained away my organic homegrown tomato taste, due to shit farming practices and my PERSONAL selection bias lol!!!”

            If your tomatoes taste better than any organic, what exactly are you trying to say?
            As it stands, flavour has nothing to do with the specific traits involved in biotech crops which is what we’re discussing.

            If you disagree based on your own home garden, then please present your double-blind empirical studies showing as much.

            Claiming that your home-grown stuff is tops, is hardly scientific.

            “Please explain in detail why your industry will not label products that use GMO’s?? What are you so afraid off. If you’re beloved GMO’s are so great why wouldn’t you tell the world where they are? No one in the Pro-GMO community seems to have an answer for this question. Why?”

            I’ve answered this question whenever asked. I suspect you ignore the answer..

            The answer is that GM is a breeding method, not an ingredient. One of many breeding methods used in the industry in fact. To single out this method, and not the dubious breeding methods employed by others gives absolutely no biologically relevant information to the consumer, especially considering no credible evidence whatsoever linking this breeding method with any increased risk of any kind.

            “You clearly have no idea about nutrition. When you claim obesity is a function of sedentary lifestyle that is pure bull.”

            Actually I said sedentary lifestyle and high fat diets.

            “..if you don’t eat the right foods organic whole foods, lots of fruits and vegetables, it won’t matter how much you walk around.”

            Obviously fresh fruits and vegetables are important to a healthy lifestyle. Who claimed otherwise? But the Organic-ness of any of it has absolutely nothing to do with relevant nutritional content. I can point you to the studies that show this, though somehow I suspect you’ll ignore them with insults.

            “First of all where are the GMO’s in the foods? I know the answer to this question, but 90% of people don’t know where they are. Then you make corn syrup, which is made up of GMO corn, this contributes toobesity.”

            The corn syrup or the fact they’ve been bred with GE techniques?

            “GMO’s cause inflammation in the body, not to mention tumors, and all sorts of allergies. This leads to disease.”

            According to who? You can’t just pick the 1 or 2 dubious articles out of hundreds that happen to agree with you and claim to be on the side of science.
            If you’re referring to Seralini and his rats, ask yourself why the pics of non-GMO fed rats with horrendous tumours are never mentioned by your ilk.

            “Look I know you’re a paid poster and your paid to avoid any serious answers so I think I’m done here. Now go get your paycheck boy.”

            Weak, *and* cowardly, not to mention false.
            Also Ironic considering one of us is using our real name, and the other an anonymous handle..

          • Humanswillbefree

            You know what’s worse than ad hominem’s… Is paid posters paid by the Monsanto’s of the world to push their GMO agenda, not to mention extremely deceptive and cowardly.

            If your tomatoes taste better than any organic, what exactly are you trying to say?

            You made a claim that farming has improved. The way they do things may have become more efficient for them, but the end product for the consumer is crap and tasteless.

            As it stands, flavour has nothing to do with the specific traits involved in biotech crops which is what we’re discussing.

            You’re right it has nothing to do with biotech, because biotech is purely about increasing profits, to the detriment of the consumer. The consumer gets a chemically infused products and risks his or her life in the process, just so your corporate GMO buddies can line their pockets.

            I’ve answered this question whenever asked. I suspect you ignore the answer.

            Really? Of course once again you will avoid that question like the plague because it opens you up for the world to see what you are truly promoting, which is toxics and poisons.

            If you answered economics, that’s nonsense organic food needs to label their food organic, and that definitely adds to their bottom line. Why wouldn’t GMO’s if they are so great label their foods? Rob, you claim that this technology is a benefit to humanity, so tell us where the hell it is!

            Please tell us all why you won’t label where it is? Quit avoiding the question.

            According to who? You can’t just pick the 1 or 2 dubious articles out of hundreds that happen to agree with you and claim to be on the side of science.

            Just look around Rob, everyone is walking around with massive inflammation GMO’s are not the only thing causing this, but they are major contributing factor. America is 75% fat to obese. That speaks louder than any scientific information you can come up with.

            As for empirical evidence? Where’s yours, all you have done is made claim after claim about how great GMO’s are where is all the empirical evidence Rob?

            Please show us one independent study that isn’t done by an industry shill like yourself.

            Quit denying that your paid poster, because no one sits around and sucks the ass of the devil, without getting some benefit from it.

            Weak and cowardly? Also ironic considering one of us is using our real name and the other an anonymous handle…Lol…

            Or you mean, you’re claiming to use your real name and not an anonymous handle, there is a difference Rob. We are on the Internet in your name does not matter, what matters is your voice and what you support or don’t support.

            Here’s what is clear, is that you support chemicals, gene splicing, and poisons for food production. I just find that rather disturbing.

            Please once again, I ask you to tell us all why your great product can’t be labeled on the food that it’s in?

          • Rob Bairos

            Allow me to summarize your position:

            Shill!! SHILL!!! SHILL!!11 (from an anonymous account)

            Evidence. Shmedivence!! Look around!!!!

            Why shouldn’t we label??! (Ignores answer)

            Here it is again:

            “The answer is that GM is a breeding method, not an ingredient. One of many breeding methods used in the industry in fact. To single out this method, and not the dubious breeding methods employed by others gives absolutely no biologically relevant information to the consumer, especially considering no credible evidence whatsoever linking this breeding method with any increased risk of any kind.”

            Tell me what you don’t understand this time.

          • Humanswillbefree

            GMO’s a toxic way to make foods and they are experimenting on humans. They this is crap food and they want to hide it in the food system.

          • Rob Bairos

            alternet? You actually admit to reading alternet publicly? Good grief, grow up.

          • Humanswillbefree

            You actually proudly back GMO’s poisons publicly? WAke up and get conscious of what you are spreading: toxic poisons for humans.

          • Dodi Ellis

            I do NOT want glyphosate in my body! HENCE LABEL THEM!!!

          • Rob B

            Many varieties of GMOs have nothing to do with glyphosate.
            And glyphosate is also used in non-GMO crops.

            Why don’t you ask for labelling all pesticides used in a product?

            Unfortunately, the organic industry would never allow that to happen, as they rely on more more toxic (though natural!) pesticides in their production.

          • lame

            It varies for each company, some companies do not use pesticides at all, and some are purely organic with no pesticides whatsoever however some organic food can never be pure because there is too much DDT in the environment where some crops are planted (eg. china)

          • Rob B

            Of course it varies per company, but I’d love to see any large scale organic farm that does not rely on pesticides. However the whole thing is besides the point anyways, making the false assumption that pesticides are harmful.

          • agscienceliterate

            Then don’t eat them. Your desire is not an obligation for me to label for that purpose.

          • Dodi Ellis

            Humph, how the heck can we know if they’re not labeled? Geez.

          • gmoeater

            Labeled as what, exactly? “Contains GE ingredients”? Says nothing about safety, allergens, or nutrition. It’s a political label. You really don’t know which foods have GE ingredients? It will take you less than a 30-second Google search to list the half-dozen foods that are produced with genetic engineering. Do that. And then eat organic or non-GMO certified. You do have the capacity to do that, right? Your desire for a label is sweet, but doesn’t fit my need as a consumer for an accurate label on food that means something regarding nutrition. Your “rights” end where my nose begins, as the old saying goes. Do your own research and don’t get all whiney because the gub’mint, which you don’t trust in the first place re: food safety, won’t cater to your childish whims for a meaningless label. Grow up. Put on your big boy pants and stop sniveling. Geez.

          • Dodi Ellis

            How the heck can I enjoy the chips at my local Mexican restaurant?!

          • gmoeater

            Maybe you can’t. Oh, wait — go organic! Eat at Chipotle’s! Get some e.coli with your organic chips. You can’t spell “chipotle” without “e.coli.” Go for it. Quit whining. Put on your big boy pants and make your own food decisions, like an adult.

          • Dodi Ellis

            And you’re obviously one of the Monsanto rats

          • gmoeater

            Thank you! I would love to consider myself brilliant enough to be paid by Monsanto. Can you help them get me my check?
            You find it really hard to bend your mind around the fact that many people support biotech without getting paid to do so. But keep practicing. You’ll get it.

          • Dodi Ellis

            Yes, you are right, GMO is a misnomer. It should be GE, yeah.

          • gmoeater

            “GMO” is a term that was made up by anti-tech activists. It is not technically correct, because the food produced is not an “organism” or a “thing,” but food produced through a process, just as mutagenesis (look it up) is a process for developing seed varieties. GE means genetically engineered, which better represents that the food is developed through a process. Like mutagenically-created organic grapefruit, for example, which you don’t seem to have a problem with.

          • gmoeater

            You sound pretty entitled. You want, therefore I should.
            Grow up.

          • Dodi Ellis

            so you admit you’re one of the Monsanto rats.

          • gmoeater

            I do NOT want useless misleading political labels on my food. Hence look up your own food! Eat non-GMO certified or organic. You do not have the right to force useless political labels on my food.

          • SubstrateUndertow

            GMO is not a breeding method ! ! !

            A GMO (Genetically Modified Organism)
            is a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic.

          • agscienceliterate
          • SubstrateUndertow

            You see the world as a reflection of yourself !

          • agscienceliterate

            Exactly the opposite. I see the world as it is. Through non-– self. You have cited and anti-– GE definition of genetic engineering, which is erroneous.

          • Rob B

            Given that you and I contain genes from other species, and laboratory processes are also used in other breeding techniques, this is still a breeding technique.
            There’s no test to distinguish GM bred from conventionally bred, as genes don’t travel around with a history sheet stapled to them.
            Also GMO does not always involve trans-gene, but internal edits (CRISPR)
            Also mutagenesis (adopted by organic), involves scrambles thousands of genes randomly.

          • SubstrateUndertow

            You don’t get to redefine words via your ownsubjective chain logic !

            breeding |ˈbrēdiNG| noun
            the mating and production of offspring by animals

            Genetic engineering (GE) is the modificationof an organism’s genetic composition by artificial means, often involving the transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism into a plant or animal of an entirely different species.

          • lame

            Sorry youre wrong about that. Another ignorant scientist. There are genetic communication lines through evolutionary periods and genes communicate. By placing lines of genes that would otherwise be impossible to arrange in nature, you are violating communication pathways of nature. Your logic doesnt work and you are making a leap assumption that A should be B because C is B, while not knowing how nature works because we still do not understand how gene communication works. Sorry nice try now go back to learning how science works.

          • Rob B

            I look forward to reading your published paper on the subject.

          • Ada

            I am always curious how IF one is NOT anti GMO one is considered a shill, clearly on Monsatan’s paycheque, but if one is PRO organic (which is a huge industry) this is considered TOTALLY altruistic. Whole Foods is doing this FOR US. Sure.

          • Duane Kosmicki

            Yes Monsanto are sick psycophant fucktards

          • Damo

            Do you really think Monsanto is paying someone to debunk you? You are an unimportant worm, Monsanto knows that, that is why they would never pay for internet commentors, because they would pay a lot of money for one person to turn. Who cares about one person, millions already know the truth.

            My guess is he is bored, as am I, and just don’t want you spreading misinformation.

          • Dodi Ellis

            I’ve grown tomatoes in my backyard every summer and of course I attend to my soil with compost to replenish. The taste is NOTHING like any tomatoes bought in store, including organic.

          • Rob B

            Isn’t that a result of freshness?

          • lame

            No it is not , it is the breed of tomato. Garden bought varieties such as Burpee use seed lines from decades ago when tomatoes tasted very different.

          • Rob B

            In other words, nothing to do with GM modifications per se.
            Which ironically in this case, can be used to re-introduce the splotchy characteristics of older (yet less saleable) tomatoes that gave them their improved taste.

          • SubstrateUndertow

            Anyone over 60 knows that the average tomato use to be wonderfully delicious no mater where or when you bought it.

            Now most all have no taste and poor texture.

            You can talk till your blue in the face but you can not talk us into believing that our direct sensory experiences are faulty !

          • Rob B

            There are no commercially available GM tomatoes anywhere.
            You are correct however, in that most tomatoes today have lost much flavour, as a result of traditional breeding methods which selected for color consistency over taste.
            Ironically, GM techniques have shown which genes were lost and could reintroduce them (best of both worlds), but regulatory processes stop that from happening.

          • Spencerich

            The reason we dont label GMO’s in food is the same as the reason we dont label the chemical composition in a blueberry, there’s no major difference, its a small chmical change at best. If the organic industry is so high and mighty why dont they label the chemical compostion of there products. What it is a pointless and wastefull idea that isn’t needed? Thats why GMO’s don’t either, and im still waiting for proof that ” Natural whole foods that are organic have healing properties.” Don’t worry I’m still waiting.

          • Humanswillbefree

            That’s a great technical reason why they don’t label, but the main reason it should be labeled is because 90% of the population wants it labeled. You believe in freedom right? You believe in free choice? Then people should have the right to know if this particular unnatural technology is in their food. You are what you eat and a story. You have the power to create yourself every single day, with every piece of food that you put in your mouth. Is that difficult for you to understand? organic clean fruits and vegetables have healing properties. Read the Gersten therapy for starters. They tried out on your own body and then you will understand all the healing properties. I don’t eat GMO’s and I’m not overweight, I don’t have inflammation, and I don’t even have to work out much To stay in the same exact shape as when I was 18 years old. just because of what I put in my mouth, that’s it. Now, you understand you are what you eat and that doesn’t hit you in a deep place and there is no reasoning with you.

          • Michael Newman

            If 90% really buy into this labeling push, why didn’t the referendums pass in a landslide? Why were these missing from ballots in almost all other states? I’m thinking that number is a really high exaggeration.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Because Corporations are now allowed to put UNLIMITED money into any Campaign. On top of that, they purposely made the questioning very deceptive in how they worded the measures. It barely passed in each of the states. Which means next time in those states it will pass. There are 3 or 4 states that it did pass already. We are fighting against the dirtiest of corporation on the planet, that label these same foods overseas Lol!!!

          • If some people decide to start a business, they become its shareholders. If the shareholders of a business decide to spend some money on a campaign, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?

          • a20havoc

            I didn’t even have to read his/her reply. I knew what it would be: “EEEEEVIL CORPORATIONS prevented it!” These people are always the same. The sad thing is, they actually have some influence. Just another sign that people in this country are getting more stupid, vapid, and ignorant.

          • Michael Newman

            This is how the conspiracy chumps live, thinking corporations are somehow motivated to kill their customer base. You don’t find many analysts nor economists in the conspiracy consumer camp. It requires a suspension of rational thought to get suckered into those rabbit holes.

          • a20havoc

            For real. I know from experience what you DO find in this crowd (e.g., AcresUSA, GM Watch, Natural News, etc) is an over-abundance of “experts” with little to no education, “doctorates” from unaccredited correspondence schools, or “advanced degrees in life experience.” They really do have ONE expertise, though–self-promotion, the ability to make total baloney sound credible, and filling those nice fat bank accounts. The only “green” these shysters care about is the lettuce in their wallets. But WE’RE the ones making bank from Monsanto. Come on.

          • Dodi Ellis

            Because Monsanto infiltrated the FDA and the government.

          • Sher De Lune

            Do you mean “Gerson Therapy”? As in controversial quack cancer treatment Gerson?

            And yes, I guess I am what I eat, and a story. Everyone is a story, am I right? ;)

          • Damo

            If so many people want it labeled, why do they continue to buy unlabeled food? Especially since they can grow their own, or buy that which is clearly labeled organic or GMO free?

          • Humanswillbefree

            What is wierd is that the do label the same exact foods and products overseas in Europe and 58 other countries. Why not here? Give a straight anawer not the one they told you to write of your script.

          • You’ve been given a straight answer about 6 times already.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Your a paid shill trying to FOOL everyone, withthis crap.

          • Kewl, the shill gambit, LOL!

            The truth is, to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never taken a red cent from Monsanto or any other organics’ bogeyman. I’m a doctor of philosophy who writes literary fiction, specialising in parody and satire. Here are links to my PhD thesis and the novel I completed in March. Happy reading:-



            Having said which, I suppose it’s possible that my broker has bought some Monsanto shares, but I would have to check with him, because I honestly don’t know if this is the case. No problem if he has, of course. I think they’re an excellent ethical investment.

          • Humanswillbefree

            So you are British, that knows growing GMO crops are banned in Brittian(you do import them through the beef that eat GMO’s).

            Yet, you are, attempting to school Americans and TELL them, they should eat these GMO poison foods, something you do not have to eat yourself?

            You are a pompous Brit meddling in American affairs once again.

            This is getting better all the time.

            Flatulence? Richard Craven? Who promotes GMO poisons to the American public, while trying to sell his novel on Amazon were any two bit person claiming to be an author can load up their rubbish and pretend they are an author.

            Good Luck Richard Craven….you better go back to school.

          • I hope and trust that GMO’s will be grown in Britain, the USA, and everywhere. I want you to eat them, and I want to eat them myself.

            As to your suggestion that I return to school, I’ve already got two degrees, a Master’s with distinction, and a PhD, and I speak French fairly fluently as well as basic German and the rudiments of various other Romance languages besides French. Moreover, having taught Philosophy and Logic for several years at University, I do tend to feel that I have outgrown school. Perhaps you’re right though. I could always brush up on my sciences, and come up with even better arguments for GM technology.

          • lame

            Education and degrees doesnt make someone a good scientist. I think history has proven that a few million times already.

          • Organic products online india

            Thank you for sharing this bloging products online india

          • lame

            The answer is because there is too much money in Washington.

          • lame

            Who is to say there is no major difference. The human DNA is almost 100% the same, do you think black and white people have no major difference when you see them on the street? What an asinine logic.

          • Michael Newman

            And there’s the bullshit shill accusation. Weak.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Because you are a shill. Anyone who cares about their personal health would want this labeled…The same companies label the same products in Europe…Now what your answer to that? Economics? It’s a harmless technology? What? Let us all know?

          • Michael Newman

            Again with the shill bullshit. Are you a shill for big organic? See how ridiculous that sounds.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Because you are! What kind of person would argue for poison In your foods? Only a person who has an interest in the poison flourishing. Or who stands to profit from it. A normal person to cares about their health does not want poison in their food. It is that simple. I will pay more for food that is clean and food that is poisoned, how come you don’t get that(See profit statement above)??????????????????

          • Sher De Lune

            I am a normal person. I certainly don’t want to eat poison in my food. However, I am certain that our food supply is not poisoned. The only people stating that GMO foods are poison are those who are shilling for Big Organic. Big Organic, that wonderful industry that is raking in big bucks on their “organic” fruits and vegetables. Organic fruits and vegetables which, by the way, are doused in pesticides when grown, contrary to what BIG Organic tells you. WAKE UP sheeple! ;)

          • pyogenes

            Do you really think he’s getting paid? That is some serious tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense. Take a look at the claims you are making.

            We don’t label GMOs because they are substantively equivalent to non-GMO produced crops. GMO corn is much closer, in terms of risks and harms, to natural corn than it is to GMO beets — so why would we label things based on how they were produced, rather than the ingredients within them? I would be in support of labelling if harmful pesticides were used, for example, because that actually matters.

            You seem to know a lot about nutrition… but then you ignore the fact that corn syrup from GMO corn is chemically indistinguishable from corn syrup from natural corn. No characteristic of GMOs is inherently bad. How do you justify the naturally produced but toxic potato and zucchini strains that were developed recently?

            GMOs do not cause cancer or any other negative health condition. This is agreed upon by the WHO, USFDA, AMA, AAAS, ASM, RSM, and literally every other reputable scientific body across the globe. We have 30 years of data, including multi-generational studies, which support the notion that GMO foods are entirely safe for human consumption.

          • Humanswillbefree

            “Do you really think he’s getting paid?”

            That’s not the question here, I’d love any view to show any proof of all of your claims that GMO’s are good for or even comparable to organic foods?

            I have been asking for scientific proof and no one seems to be able to produce any.

            You should label them because 96% of the public want them labeled. They want to know what they are buying.

            We’re talking about the food that goes into human beings mouse, that affect their health that affect their mentality, that affect their prosperity.

            This is not something to be taken lightly like it has been by the pro-GMO people here on this comment section.

            The fact that a few people decided that it was okay to feed humanity without any clear-cut testing to what this technology will do to you in the future, is a very scary prospect.

            Who made them God? who made them the ultimate decider for hundreds of millions/ billions of people?

            “GMOs do not cause cancer or any other negative health condition. This is agreed upon by the WHO, USFDA, AMA, AAAS, ASM, RSM, and literally every other reputable scientific body across the globe.”

            There has been no independent testing to verify your claim? the only testing that has been done is the French study and you will not like the results. Of course, they had to figure a way to discredit that report because it was so damaging to the GMO industry.

            And just so you know doctors used to promote cigarettes on commercials in the 50s and 60s, touting them as a health benefit! they used to spray DDT on crops until they discovered that was not a health benefit. They used to use arsenic on crops until he found out that was not a health benefit.

            These were all backed by the same alphabet letter associations you listed above.

          • Sher De Lune

            My poor, poor mouse. Being force feed all those nasty chemikillz.

          • RamblingRunner

            Here is research that was funded by the EU (Not Monsanto)


          • advocate

            If whether or not he is being paid is irrelevant, why did you accuse him of it to begin with?

          • Dodi Ellis

            It’s been a year now. Your last paragraph is false.

          • lame

            It was also agreed upon that tobacco was safe in the world of pre-genetics before the vast scientific evidence over 60 years decided that it was definitely not safe at all. All of the organizations you speak of are idiots to make broad statements like that when they do not themselves understand or admit to understanding modern science completely. Citing them is not saying very much. Those multigenerational studies are not significant and many of them are not well designed studies at all. They had the same type of multigenerational studies for tobacco, but nicotene can take 50 years to kill someone. How would 30 years be enough to know? Lets not forget that those studies are also only targeting what they have in their imagination as “safe”. Maybe GMO might not cause cancer, but it may disrupt bacteria which can cause flora imbalances and ultimately cause cancer indirectly from gram negative bacterium, or perhaps it affects bacteria gene transfer and thus epigenetics, or perhaps it just makes men sterile. The problem is we dont know. It all depends on what they are looking for in an answer as to what is safe. They cannot possibly know every variable of safety, only what they are actively looking for. The problem is that what is not safe will show up in things they were NOT actively looking at. This is why scientists and engineers are hopelessly stupid.

          • pyogenes

            Actually, scientists and doctors were the first to exclaim that tobacco has harms. Your stance is very confusing to me: you choose to ignore the experts? Do you ignore doctors and engineers? Every scientific agency worldwide agrees GE cultivars don’t pose any elevated risks. Who are you to disagree? Surely people with PhDs understand these systems a lot more comprehensively than you do.

            If everyone followed your reasoning, we would never have new technologies. Forget about mobile phones and skyscrapers.

            I urge you to do some more research. The only people claiming GMOs cause harm are people funded by organic firms. Don’t celebrate ignorance.

          • Damo

            You are so misinformed it is criminal. Calories spent minus calories burned is the calculation everyone uses (except for you) in figuring out why someone is fat. We don’t move and we eat high calorie convenience foods. Go away!

          • lame

            Not entirely true, obesity is more complex than this. The way your body acquires and uses food and how it is digested has a major effect on how those calories are being used. You can starve yourself all you want but while you may be skinny on the surface, it may not solve the underlying cause of obesity.

          • Dodi Ellis

            GMO creates havoc in our bodies. Our bodies don’t know what to do with glyphosate so they’re being stored in our body fat, leading to diseases.

          • Rob B

            You just made that up of course.
            But thinks for pretending to have an informed opinion.

          • Dodi Ellis

            You’re obviously a Monsanto rat.

          • gmoeater

            Does that mean that supporters of biotechnology automatically get paid by Monsanto? Syngenta? Pioneer? Cargill? For our brilliant insights and information, and ability to sway the opinions of people like you, Dodi, whose mind is thoroughly made up already? Yes, I do think I am worth being paid for my brilliance — thank you. Please let those seed companies know I am waiting for my check.

          • Dodi Ellis

            Can’t you see how Monsanto is treating our Mother Earth?

          • Rob B

            When you next speak to them during one of your out of body trance sessions, let them know they’re late on their cheque!

          • lame

            There are a lot of people who eat organic food and are still fat. Lets be a little more logical it is not helping

          • pyogenes

            GMO crops can and have been grown in polyculture. They also decrease the emissions of greenhouse gases by encouraging no-till farming techniques.

          • Damo

            Thank you!! Plus, no-till doesn’t deplete soil.

          • Lee Sledd

            Obviously, you don’t know what evidence is for those of us with higher standards. Let me clear it up for you: since we are talking human health, a massive accumulation of clinical data = evidence

          • Damo

            Just stop it. Have you ever been on a farm? Organic or otherwise? If you have been (or studied history) you would know the organic (the way we used to do things) farming techniques deplete soil and have caused civilizations to go extinct. It almost happened to us, in the 30s. Please, I can’t stand this idiocy anymore!!

          • Damo

            10 years in, and no increase in these mysterious diseases you speak of. Must be all the GMOs are biding their time before they make us sick.

          • Dodi Ellis

            It started in the 70’s with high fructose corn syrup in the soda pops as well as other processed foods.

          • Michael Newman

            How does this account for obesity in the 1980’s? Your timeline doesn’t line up.

          • Humanswillbefree

            I guess there was a shift change and new company paid posters are taking over. It lines up perfectly, in the 80’s it was nowhere near what it is now.

          • Michael Newman

            Weak shill gambit? Come on. I was there in the 80’s. And the 70’s. Food was not healthier then.

          • Dodi Ellis

            GMO started in the 70’s!!! My favorite soda pop, Dr. Pepper, ALL OF SUDDEN made me sick in late 70’s!!! That was when I STOPPED drinking soda pops, I didn’t realize it was GMO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP that replaced normal sugar in its ingredients!!! IT’S PROOF ENOUGH FOR ME!

          • Michael Newman

            Which GMO corn existed in the 1970’s? See page 27 of this document. The first GM corn was approved in 1995.

          • Dodi Ellis

            Thanks for pointing this out but Monsanto infiltrated FDA and the government. There have been so many lies, my head spins! I just listen to my body and watch the rise of obesity and diseases. Three friends died of cancer in the last three months for chrissakes!

          • Loren Eaton

            The first GMO row crop to reach the market was Round Up ready soy in 1996. HFCS is made during post harvest processing and is identical regardless of whether the CROP is GMO or not. And HFCS is calorically identical to cane sugar. Your level of ignorance is epic.

          • Dodi Ellis

            First of all, I listen to my body. Although HFCS is calorically identical to cane sugar BUT they are NOT biochemically identical nor are they processed the same way by the body! Later, when glyphosate emerged, all of sudden HFCS is more dangerous. The way you put others down reflects the kind of person you are.

          • Loren Eaton

            ‘The way you put others down reflects the kind of person you are.’ I’m sorry you’re chafed a bit….but the only difference between the two is the RATIO of fructose to glucose (55%:45%). There is no glyphosate or protein or nucleic acid in the sugar…period. I’m also sorry you can’t handle the fact that 90% of what you write is flat out incorrect. Oh, and ‘nor are they processed the same way by the body!” Evidence please (and not from listening to your body;-)

          • Dodi Ellis
          • TheDonkey 883

            the glycemic index of high fructose corn syrup and sugar is different,so that pretty much ends the arguement that the body doesnt know the difference.

            so, table sugar is half fructose and half glucose and high fructose corn syrup is from gmo corn, contains mercury often, doesnt induce the insulin response, raises triglicerides, doesn’t satisfy the appetite, and a host of other differences that are not even necessary to go into.

            maybe, the science that studied hfcs to be safe is the SAME science that sudied hfcs to be unsafe

            buyer beware, the seller is not on your side, not even the SAFE organic non-“toxic” holy foods

          • pyogenes

            Obesity is a result of complex socioeconomic factors. When eating 5 burgers from McD’s value menu is cheaper than making a roast chicken with salad, people are going to be overweight.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Also, compounded by the fact that McDonald’s buns have GMO in them, burgers and Chicken are cattle’s and chicken fed GMO corn and soy, and Coca-Cola that is loaded with GMO corn syrup, You have a recipe for obesity.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Uh, what does the process for growing food have to do with obesity?
            Does chemical mutagenesis for organic seeds “cause” obesity?
            Does radioactive mutagenesis for organic seeds “cause” obesity?

          • Sher De Lune

            Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? FIVE (5) sodium laden burgers with carbohydrate loaded buns are the cause. And any person drinking any soda is going to gain weight. Period. If you subsist on a diet full of convenience foods you are going to gain weight. END OF STORY. ;)

          • Stevefio

            He needs a government sanctioned “scientist” to provide evidence. He doesn’t have common sense.

          • Humanswillbefree

            You are the first sane commenter in this comment section. This comment section is like being lost in Zombieland and they are all fighting/arguing for their poisons.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Inflammation is up.
            The stock market is up.
            There are more gmos being planted.
            Therefore, gmos are responsible for the stock market going up.
            And a rising stock market obviously causes inflammation.

          • Anecdotal evidence isn’t the same as having proof. Approach this with empirical evidence, and then you might have a leg to stand on.

          • A *lot* more.

          • Josie

            diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, autism, the list goes on. GMO’s aren’t natural they are man made.

          • Damo

            Because none of those diseases existed before GMOs.

          • Erin Freight Train Macoy

            I eat GMO and non-organic produce daily and I am neither obese or sick.

          • Lee Sledd

            Just look around you, the sun goes around the earth! If intuition were our only guide, we would still be burning witches. Look- you COULD be right about GMOs. What you need is a few mountains of evidence to support your intuitive fear. Back to the lab. Until the data is out, lalalalalalala

          • Damo

            It is called increased calorie consumption. That is actually pretty much a well known fact that we are fatter because we consume more calories. Look it up.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Where is any of your evidence for anything you say? Show some science based proof that it is good for you? You can’t produce that because no one else has to this point anywhere.

          • Duane Kosmicki

            Where’s your evidence creep ditto!

          • pyogenes

            Labelling would imply there is something wrong with GMO-produced foods. We introduce mandatory labelling on ingredients, not development processes.

            Cultivars produced by biotechnology have no greater risk than their parent crops, and have lower risk than mutagenized crops (which are everywhere), and yet GMOs are subject to stricter regulations.

            GMO foods pose no risk to human health, and no greater risk to the environment than organic foods. They are nutritionally equivalent to or better than natural foods. GMO crops reduce pesticide usage when used properly.

          • Humanswillbefree

            “Labelling would imply there is something wrong with GMO-produced foods”

            Would it really? Organic foods are labeled and they get a premium. Cigarettes are labeled and they are still selling. The same exact products are labeled in Europe, Asia, and Third World Countries by the same exact companies.

            They are spending 100’s of millions blocking it for the moment.

            “GMO foods pose no risk to human health, and no greater risk to the environment than organic foods.”

            Load of bull crap. If they pose no risk then….

            label them, 96%-93% of the public wants to know!

            To know how big a number that is, only 50% of the public votes in a Presidentail Election.

            “GMO crops reduce pesticide usage when used properly.”

            Farmers and reporting they have to use more roundup every year and there are now super weeds that are not dying.

            Where you get your info from…..please provide scientific proof for all your claims?????

          • pyogenes

            Organic foods are labelled by the company, it’s optional – sort of like “Kosher”. There are also labels which say “GMO-free”, aren’t those good enough?

            It is not true that “96-93% of the public wants to know”. How do you explain the recent ballots which FAILED to institute mandatory labelling in several states?

            As for providing evidence, here you go. I urge you to at least glance at these. Please stop trusting websites with an anti-GM bias:

            American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for
            special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have beenconsumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences onhuman health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

            World Health Organization: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

            American Society for Microbiology: “The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.”

            On pesticides from a very large meta-analysis: “On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%” (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629)

            Why we shouldn’t label GMO foods:

            How anti-GM activists support labelling to negatively influence consumer opinion:×1024.jpg

            An old leader of Greenpeace who regrets starting the anti-GM movement:

            Glyphosate is a very, very eco-friendly herbicide in comparison to many of the alternatives (pendimethalin, metalochlor, fluazifop, metribuzin, etc). Very low concentrations of glyphosate are applied (0.01 g/ft2) many months before harvest, and its mechanism of action is so specific that it is otherwise benign. Glyphosate does result in herbicide tolerance, but the alternatives are much worse.

          • Humanswillbefree

            “Organic foods are labelled by the company, it’s optional – sort of like “Kosher”. There are also labels which say “GMO-free”, aren’t those good enough?”

            Wow, you are really sucked into this… the organic food label is not optional is mandatory by the USDA. Now, kosher is optional, and the goods and products that are labeled non-GMO that is because those particular food producers paid to be scrutinized by the non-GMO project, and they pay extra money to have that label on their product. That should be proof that labeling is extremely important.

            All these government agencies you list, used to think DDT was healthy for humans, used to think cigarette smoking was healthy for humans, and the list goes on and on.

            We’re talking about feeding humanity and being accountable for the food that people are ingesting in their bodies that have the potential to cause great harm to them physically and mentally.

            That is not something to be taken lightly understand?

            All these pesticides in a bend and sprayed since 1939 have completely polluted our water systems, and the air and the ground.

            That is not okay, I’m sorry you feel okay with it.

          • pyogenes

            I’m leaving this conversation. The GLP article we are all replying to provides plenty of evidence that you are entirely wrong.

            You should trust the experts.

          • Humanswillbefree

            It is about time. When you have nothing but claims with zero proof, it is time to hang it up.

          • Damo

            Considering you are wrong about the Organic label, the rest of everything you say suddenly makes sense. You are a blithering idiot.

          • Damo

            It is also common everywhere else to ask for proof before believing unbelievable claims.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Proof to you is that everyone else should provide back like when big tobacco claimed the exact same things. You are the new Big Tobacco. And you will be paying out claims in the future when all this catches up with your company.

          • Michael Newman

            Simply a fear of technology. It’s an irrational fear of the unknown. This is hardly a reason to ban an entire technology.

            Your organic food is already labeled. It’s also easy to spot by the price premium. All organic food is labeled. Why do you need all the other food labeled non-organic? I know why, but I’d like you to just say it.

            Instead of demanding it be labeled nonorganic or GMO or whatever, shouldn’t you push for a surgeon general warning that “this product is poison and will kill you?” Or a label that simply says “poison!” How about a nice skull and crossbones?

          • Humanswillbefree

            I love technology Mike. Sorry, but I dislike poison technology that is a complete dark experiment on human beings. It’s not just me that want it labeled 90% of the public wants it labeled. But what no one on this PRO-GMO comment section will dare answer is why won’t they label it? The exact same companies label the exact same products overseas. Why spend 100’s of millions trying to blcok it? All your ideas are even better than just labeling it. Good job!!

          • a20havoc

            I hope someday humanswillbefree of people like humanswillbefree. He represents all that is unlikeable about the sanctimonious organic “movement”, which is raking in $63 billion per year on false claims.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            ” Because it is poison/toxic.”

            Everything is toxic ( even water) if you ingest high enough levels of it.

            “Organic foods label everything that is organic”

            The definition of organic is “noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon”.

            Poison ivy is organic, go ahead chow down.

          • RamblingRunner

            I’ll make a compromise. I’ll agree to label GMO if you agree to label conventionally bred and/or Organic food as, “Created through random, uncontrolled mutations that have not been rigorously tested for safety.”

            Is the above statement true? Absolutely. So why not label it?

          • Humanswillbefree

            Here is what you are lying to people about: GMO’s ARE COMPLETELY different than humans improving their crops. GMO’s splice in gene’s with pesticides and other toxic gene’s foreign to the plant species. That is NOWHERE the same as what humans have done in the past. What scientists are doing today has become exactly what you said uncontrolled mutations, that the scientists have NO CONTROL over. It is affecting humans and animal life, they do know it causes allergies, and a host of unknown dis-ease’s, and probably autism, which has spiked since the inception of GMO’s. YOu must be getting paid by the GMO’s industry, a complete sellout to you kids and family. Thank you!

          • RamblingRunner

            And here is what you are lying to people about. Traditional breeding creates completely new genes that have NEVER EXISTED BEFORE on Earth with NO TESTING. Since they never existed on Earth before mutations, one can just as well call them alien. You are right, humans are using genes which already exist, not inserting foreign genes which have never existed on Earth.

            In addition, GMOs do have testing and is better controlled. In addition to that addition, ~8% of mammal DNA (including part of what codes for the placenta) is actually inserted (again, randomly and without control) by viruses. That’s right, around 8% of your DNA, including part of what coded for the method of how my wife gave nutrients to my son, is from viruses. So the argument that nature doesn’t insert genes from “toxic” substances into things is wrong.
            I’ve been eating GMOs for years and I’ll put my health up against yours any day of the week. Finally, there is no evidence linking GMO to autism, and there is evidence that the incidence of autism has remained fairly constant, it’s just the criteria that has changed.


            Finally, if I’m getting paid, I haven’t seen a single check yet. Did you know that Exxon makes over 20 times as much as Monsanto and the WHOLE OIL INDUSTRY can only buy a total of 1 scientist to say that global warming isn’t real. And yet, Monsanto supposedly controls ALL of (the much bigger field) of bio-tech? How does that work? Why isn’t Exxon, with over 20 times as much money, buying up scientists left and right? Why aren’t the Exxon bought scientists publishing in journals? Where are they?

          • Humanswillbefree

            Guys like you are dangerous because you flat out lie and are okay with it.

            You are lying to confuse good people. You are paid to do it for the GMO industry.

            When GMO’s came out in the early 90’s and started causing people all kinds of health problems that Doctors to this day can’t even explain.

            Autism is fairly constant? Another bold face lie. What is constant is it keeps rising every year and it will soon be 1 out 20 kids get Autism a 4000% percent spike since GMO’s were introduced!!!

            GMO’s are only tested by the GMO industry’s paid scientists, who have a serious profit motive, and it has been proven they falsify reports to satisfy their Masters.

            Anything down in nature is far more powerful than anything man can create. See science isn’t above man as you would have unsuspecting people believe, science is copying mother nature and playing the isolated chemistry game. That’ why everything these scientists and corporations come up have so many side effects that damage human beings. They don’t know what they are doing.

            You can claim that science isn’t bought and paid for, but the facts are Monsanto pays the scientists not and independent group and Monsanto has final say of what goes on or off the reports.

            Sorry shill. Keep eating your GMO’s zombie.

          • RamblingRunner

            Nope, no lies and I’m certainly not getting paid. I posed an article showing the autism rates have been consistent, it is the criteria that changed. GMOs have existed longer than the 90s, GMO bacteria has been making insulin since the 1970s. In the US, GMOs are tested by the USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the FDA and the EPA. The average length of testing is 11 years. If Monsanto has bought up all those scientists, why can’t Exxon, with 20 times the money, by up the smaller group of climate scientists?

            Why can’t the oil company have the final say in what goes into the reports on global warming? Explain that to me please.

            “Anything down (sic) in nature is far more powerful than anything man can create”

            You write from your computer. And what are the side effects of chewing willow bark? (A natural substance) What are the side effects from an Asprin (A man made substance derived from willow bark) You can eat natural willow bark and get your bleeding ulcers. I’ll stick to my Asprin.

          • Humanswillbefree

            You are right on it….on the clock right now?

            You are dangerous to humans and you would be run out of town with a pitch fork, when eventually you are found out down the road.

          • RamblingRunner

            Why isn’t Exxon able to buy up all the climate scientists?

          • Humanswillbefree

            They run an ENERGY monopoly….what planet have you been living on? And the Gov’t subsidizes Exxon’s operation.

          • RamblingRunner

            And yet, every scientific paper (but 1) accuses oil and CO2 emissions as causing global warming.


            They are impotent in buying up climate scientists, but somehow Monsanto, at 1/20 the money, has bought up every bio-engineer? What planet is that possible on?

          • Chad Chaplin

            It is obvious you believe what you are told, especially if it fits with your preconceived notion of good and bad, wholesome and not. Everything you have posted is simple rhetoric fed to you by someone else. And you eat that slop up like the noncritical thinker you show yourself to be.

        • Humanswillbefree

          Where is your evidence that this Technology is healthy for humans….please show us all your scientific proof??

        • Alula Haile
        • SubstrateUndertow

          The sheer organic complexity( as in complex interdependencies) of nutritional metabolics is orders of magnitude beyond our present scientific ability to meaningfully model such multi-varient systems as to be completely meaningless.

          Neither side in this debate can meaningfully call on science for anything approaching decisive proof. This whole debate is happening in an evidentiary vacuum !

          Some global anecdotal evidence could be usefully kicked around:

          1- Large comparative epidemiological health outcome studies

          2- logical evolutionary food chain arguments could be made

          3- The long term dangers of GMOs to distort the overall interdependency coherence balance as established by millions of years of intertwined eco-system evolution.

          4- While Round-Up ready crop residues are not directly poisonous to humans they have serious negative effects on human microbiota health which in turn causes a multitude of negative effect on our immune systems as well as on many other metabolic sub-systems

          etc. . . .

          • gmoeater

            Pure gobbledegook. You have any citations for your speculative babble?

      • WnD

        Youve been bamboozled by marketing. Healing properties… are you fucking kidding me?

        • Humanswillbefree

          Look in the mirror joker. The brainwashing is so deep that you think people who want clean real foods are being brainwashed? The only one who is fighting for their poisons/chenicals/pesticides in their foods is YOU! Hahaha!!!

      • Firstly, GM technology reduces the need for pesticides. Secondly, EVERYTHING is made of chemicals, duh!

        • Humanswillbefree

          You are truly stupid. Everything is chemicals…Go drink some Jasco/DDT/Agent Orange/Lol!! And see how long you live.

          GM reduces pesticide use? Really? They are having to spray more and more everyday because of SUPER WEEDS.

          This is by design of your Masters that you worship….who’s only goal in this life is total control of humanities food system…and therefore total control of humanity.

          Wake up, it time to educate yourself.

          • “You are truly stupid. Everything is chemicals…Go drink some Jasco/DDT/Agent Orange/Lol!! And see how long you live.”

            I think you’ll find that everything IS chemicals. Water, for example, is a molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Did you not know this? Bless!

            “GM reduces pesticide use? Really? They are having to spray more and more everyday because of SUPER WEEDS.”

            I think you’ll find, if you talk to farmers, that GM DOES reduce pesticide use. However, just in case you don’t believe them, here’s a meta-analysis showing exactly that. Happy reading! …

            “This is by design of your Masters that you worship….who’s only goal in this life is total control of humanities food system…and therefore total control of humanity.”

            Gosh! Thorazine may help you.

            “Wake up, it time to educate yourself.”

            Thanks for the advice. I don’t think I need any more education, now that I have my doctorate in Philosophy. Would you like to read it by the way? It’s the motivation, expression and defence of an original theory of modality – i.e. of necessity, possibility & related notions. Here’s a link to the copy held by the British Library:-


          • Humanswillbefree

            Everything is not isolated chemistry. That is the chemistry that poison pushers like yourself and the poison companies you work for like Monsanto.

            Everything is made up of compound elements in nature. I think that’s really the word you are fishing for elements that chemicals.

            Toxic chemicals are man’s domain. And the companies you work for, you know, the poison pushers like Monsanto, Bayer, and Sygenta.

            You know what, I think bipolar medicine may help you, because you have to be crazy to believe eating poisoned is good for you.

            Not to mention the fact that you don’t think you need more education, is a clear sign that you are very small minded and most likely have a double digit IQ.

            There is no helping someone who doesn’t want to learn anything.

            But, what I can do is stop you from trying to ignorantly push your poisons on the rest of the world, By just putting good information out there, so that people of sound mind and that our wake could possibly be guided down the right path.

            See, the path you want to take them down will be a painful one full of poisons and death.

            You are another paid poster/Shill. How many are on the payroll?

          • Oh dear, I seem to have reached the end of the internet.

          • hyperzombie

            I hope Humanswillbefree didnt get too much “Crazy” all over you.

          • Thanks, he is rather odd, isn’t he!

          • hyperzombie

            That is putting it mildly…

          • Humanswillbefree

            Listen Flatulence, the only thing you have reached the end of is your mind. WAKE UP!

          • Very good, but you’re not quite there yet, and I’ve got a game of conspiracy-theorist bingo I’m quite keen on winning. This is why I’m asking you please to say “wake up sheeple!”

            Also, did you get a chance to read my PhD thesis? Once you’ve got through that, I’ll send you a link to the novel I’ve just published.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Again you talk about showing things and you produce nothing. No links, nothing. I guess you are liar also. Besides pushing GMO poisons….Here is what they do to you…..The Serilini study porved everything. Tumors and cancers….right on!! Keep promoting poison GMO for your Master!!! Lol!!

          • The Seralini study proved zilch. The Seralini team said it proved that GMO corn gave rats cancer. But the rats they used were genetically predisposed to get cancer anyway. Everyone knows this! Even I didn’t have to look this up, and I’m no scientist.

            Anyways, can you PLEASE say “wake up, sheeple!” It would make me so happy, and I would win my game of conspiracy-theorist bingo. Go on, pretty please!

          • hyperzombie

            .The Serilini study

            LOL, if you actually look at the study and the data, the only thing that it proves is that he is very good at cherry picking data.

          • Humanswillbefree

            As are MonSATANo and all GMO companies.

          • Randall

            I have more “Superweed” and “Superbug” problems in my non-GMO crops than I have in my GMO crops. This is why:

            Resistance (aka Superweeds or Superbugs) are a management issue, and are controlled by changing “Mode of Action.”

            GMO production gives us another Mode of Action, thereby reducing the overall resistance problem.

            This explains why the “Superweeds argument” points out a strength of GMO production–not a weakness.

            GMO production results in less overall resistance, not more.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Hey buddy, you’re to wake up one day and realize that you are poisoned humanity with these crops. You will not escape the negative karma you are building by pushing these poisons and growing these crops.

            The reality is that we can grow just as much organic food around the world and have a sustainable environment.

            You can’t do that with genetically modified organisms.

            The Indian farmers already found this out the hard way and they are committing suicide and massive waves.

            These companies who have managed to convince the Supreme Court to get the first patent on life, have created human slaves out of farmers.

          • Randall

            The subject was resistance. Will you address that?

      • Judy Nonarchi

        I’m sure you have some science to back that up, right?

        • Humanswillbefree

          Please show us your INDEPENDENT science study?

          I’m sure you can’t provide ANY science that shows it is safe.

          You want to know why?

          Because the only scientists that have looked at it are paid scientists by the companies who are prodicing these poisons and claim they are safe, who are supposedly self regulating themselves.

          This is kind of like the Wall St and the Bankers regulating themselves and we all know how that went, as we are in 17 Trillion in debt.

          Then there are people like yourself who dare to attempt to put the burden of proof on the consumers and not the people who invented this poison food.

          When it finally all goes down you will looking like Big Tobacco and paying out Billions in damages. For destroying nature and the eco-systems, not to mention our food system,

      • Scott Foster

        Well, if you say “end of story” that MUST be the end-all-be-all of the argument. No need for that pesky science and all of their stupid facts, right? smh…

        P.T Barnum was credited for the quote “There’s a sucker born every minute”. He must have seen these anti-GMO people coming, or maybe he just owned a Whole Foods franchise.

        • Humanswillbefree

          Absolutely it is “End of story”, when the scientists are provided by MonSATANo, the reports are rigged to their liking. So, I have to agree with you, there really is no use for that extreme fraudulent/quack science.

          Your right again facts produce by paid-off scientists are completely stupid.

          That’s great you brought up PT Barnum because he was a Huckster, just like the GMO’s you are promoting for the Huckster GMO industry!!

          Evil produces Evil.

          • Guest

            I assume that you have evidence that all of the scientific evidence is paid for by Monsanto. No? Of course not. Since fact based scientifically proven evidence is not in your wheelhouse, a conversation with you will only probe to be fruitless. Facts, after all, Are only useful to those who will truly seek to understand them.

            You see, I was once like you. I was all on board with the anti-GMO crowd. Then u actually did the research for myself. Confronted with facts, I’ve since changed my views. See, that’s what facts do. They change the argument of the person reading them and understanding them and are not subject to opinion. I’d be happy to supply you with the facts, but you’d need to be on to them. Until then, all I can do is hope you open your eyes one day. The only side effect proven to exist in GMO crops are full bellies. Full bellies in places that desperately need them. Places that without them would still be plagued with starving people.

            Be guided by facts, not fear.

            God bless.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Right back at ya! You are a paid clown stooge.

            See I did the research, your not talking to your everyday slacker.

            So change your tone my friend. You have no facts, just propaganda that you push and bully on to people who you think you can.

            See, facts are moveable, your friends(what you hold as the holy grail: scientists) once thought the world was flat, until a guy like me said no it’s not it is round, but people like you called me a conspiracy theorist. They said I didn’t know the facts because your friends said it was impossible for it to be round, but I went out and proved it, and in the process the crowd of naysayers their tone, as you will as soon as enough of your friends die of mysterious causes because of what they are putting in their mouths.

            So I don’t need a paid clown to push their propaganda script given to them by their puppet masters.

            I unlike you have independent thoughts and theories. You seem to think theories are facts. Your friends/scientists put out theories not facts, as does everyone.

            So when you have a original thought come back and talk to me about your theory not someone else’s, you are trying to push around like facts.

            Right now GMO’s are enemy number to humans due to the facts that GMO’s companies like Monsanto that label the exact same products overseas, won’t label them in the U.S. They won’t do any studies that have lasted over three months.

            This is a dangerous product to humans.

            Monsanto has full immunity if anything does happen because they know it eventually will.

            You and Monsanto are a pack maggot lying thieves promoting the destruction of the human gene pool.

            “The only side effect proven to exist in GMO crops are full bellies.”

            Full bellies of mutated genes causing leaky gut syndrome. Good luck Prick!!

          • Scott Foster

            I assume that you have evidence that all of the scientific evidence is paid for by Monsanto. No? Of course not. Since fact based scientifically proven evidence is not in your wheelhouse, a conversation with you will only probe to be fruitless. Facts, after all, Are only useful to those who will truly seek to understand them.

            You see, I was once like you. I was all on board with the anti-GMO crowd. Then I actually did the research for myself. Confronted with facts, I’ve since changed my views. See, that’s what facts do. They change the argument of the person reading them and understanding them and are not subject to opinion. I’d be happy to supply you with the facts, but you’d need to be on to them. Until then, all I can do is hope you open your eyes one day. The only side effect proven to exist in GMO crops are full bellies. Full bellies in places that desperately need them. Places that without them would still be plagued with starving people.

            Be guided by facts, not fear.

            God bless.

      • Josie

        totally agree with you,
        she must think that fluoride in our drinking water is healthy as well

      • Icy Frost

        I see for myself. But when I told someone about the toxicity of the elements and that cigarretes contain radioactive isotopes from fertilizers. He quilted smoking industrial cigarettes and used organic tobacco then he never felt addicted again and stopped smoking.

        I wonder if the GMO industry is going to have to make drastic decisions due to global climate warming. And foods are going to be as lively as a desert sand.

      • Kevin

        When you buy organic, you are still getting both pesticides and chemicals.

    • Humanswillbefree

      Well run and get your poisons Zombie…..Lol!!

    • lame

      Organic produce often does have more cancer-fighting antioxidants, such as farm fresh fruits. Vitamins are lost in the transportation process from environmental insults such as heat and other factors, and this doesnt happen with organic food delivered from local farms or delivered usually under more careful shipping conditions. Where is the deception? Im not seeing it. Nice try though. Get an education before you make stupid comments.

  • Jonathan M Zmuda

    Silly. I was intently reading this personal opinion rhetoric and it completely lost any and all credibility when she so boldly stated gmo’s are safe because some paid off scientist says so. She’s definitely got some self esteem issues, and seemingly wants her opinion to trump what is. Any “modified” or bastardized anything isn’t good. She probably still uses margerine because she believes the idiodic hype. ANYTHING anyone does to things we consume WILL end up in the final product. Can’t work any other way. Just as a human consumes alcohol on a daily basis, the need to consume more to get the desired results will continue to rise, and the lolng term effects have been proven time and time again. Common sense people. I realize that’s not the normal way anymore. Just think of what rbgh has done to the human femal anatomy over the last 30 or so years. We have 10yr old girls going through puberty, and getting pregnant. In the 70’s this would have been so rare it would’ve been a phenomenon. Again, common sense. I wonder…. if I touch this red hot stove top, will I get burned?

    • JPEnge

      Uh-uh. Because obviously any research that differs from your beliefs must come from someone that’s “paid off.”

      And the amazing thing is, this post got even more bizarre and gibberish-y.

    • Keef Hitchens

      How come Big oil couldn’t pay off the scientists on the whole global warming thing? hmmm

    • Ammyth

      “because some paid off scientist says so”

      You mean the vast majority of the world’s scientists? Monsanto doesn’t have that much money.

      Here’s a list of statements from the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations:

    • William

      This has got to be the dumbest post I’ve read so far in this blog. “Some scientist” = 99% of real agricultural and food scientists! (Not the computer scientists like Food Babe!)

      “Self-esteem issues” – huh? She’s got an opinion, period. Which a lot of us agree with.

      “Any “modified” or bastardized anything isn’t good.” – well then you need to leave your current live behind you, remove your clothes and head naked into the wilderness!

      I’m assuming “rbgh” = Recombinant Growth Hormone? This would be the RBGH that is not found in the milk, that would be digested like any protein in the stomach, that is not used in many countries where puberty is the same as in the US? Any biologist will tell you that earlier onset of puberty observed in the last 50 years is associated with better nutrition – also the reason why people are much taller.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      “Paid off scientists”. Hmmmmm. Now, realizing that the organic industry is a $70 Billion industry (or more), doesn’t that give you just a wee bit of pause when you read organic pseudo-science by the likes of Jeffrey Smith, Dr. Oz, Bonner’s Soap guy, Vandana Shiva, and the rest? If not, why not?

      • Verna Lang

        Judy, you are so naive. There is absolutely no connection between Big Organic and any lobbying efforts attacking food manufacturers not on the bandwagon. Just don’t look behind the curtain at campaigns started by organizations like GMOinside. No, don’t look at the photo page documenting where GMOinside sent their minions, I mean followers, to try to harass corporations on social media into adopting higher priced organically sourced ingredients. No, no, don’t look at the coincidence that the co-chair of GMOinside is also listed as the CEO of Nutiva Foods. There is no commercial agenda at all in organic.

        • a20havoc

          Why is organic granola more expensive than “conventional” granola? Why do you organic people hate poor people, who can’t afford $7.99 for a bag of organic ancient grains?

    • Marcus

      This clearly explains why the youngest mother on record, at age 5, got pregnant and gave birth decades before we even know what DNA was.

    • Loren Eaton

      “because some paid off scientist says so…” Maybe you would believe it if it came from a group of Belgian monks who have taken a vow of poverty?
      Making a living doesn’t anyone a liar.

  • Bob Akimbo

    The naturalistic fallacy is really getting tiresome. Anyone claiming that something is bad/poison/unhealthy simply because it’s artificial should be required to live in the wild with no clothes, shelter, tools, domesticated food sources, coffee, music, booze, or anything else man-made. Then we could place a bunch of hidden cameras, and have Seth Rogan make a reality show called “Naked and Natural: Not So Fun, Is It?”

    • Spencerich

      I’d watch that, can we make this an actual thing?

    • Lee Sledd

      Ya, all the anti-science fearmongers need to get off the internet and chuck their cellphones. And no more ER visits- back to the witch doctor for the lot of them.

      • lame

        Uh, Actually this is not anti-science, this is pro-science. The reality is that engineers dont know what they are doing and dont understand the science themselves, theres no conspiracy here at all. Its not a far stretch to say that between cigarettes and Monsanto’s toxic chemicals we have killed a few hundred million people prematurely. Scientists were so incorrect about the safety for many years and science has proven them all to be dangerous and now they are banned. So what dont part about real science you understand?

        • Ted Flethuseo

          Not to mention that GMO’s are banned in various countries. That means that the evidence they are providing for their safety is unconvincing.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. Not banned from importation. Europe imports tons of GE crops. They just forbid the growing of them. Political hypocrisy. Evidence for safety is there. Please read thousands of studies, at — this is a nonprofit private organization, not a seed company.

          • Jami

            ALL food is a GMO. The countries who banned them are just stupid.

          • Jef

            As soon as you use the word “stupid” you disqualify yourself as a person who uses good judgements.

        • agscienceliterate

          “….killed a few hundred million people….” Um, you got any evidence for that? Any citations? You just made that up? Lame, indeed.
          They are not banned in Europe for importation, just growing. (Hypocrisy at its finest). I hope you will throw away your cellphone, your car, your laptop, and hope you and your family and friends never need to get any of the the highest advances in health care procedures.
          Your conspiracy bias is as strong as your science is weak.

        • Ari Mouratides

          what do you mean “real science”…there is no “real” or “fake” science….science is just a method….and to add fuel to your irony, you just made a statistical claim, without stating ANY sources or data….some “scientist” you must be….

    • lame

      Last time I checked clothes were made from animal fur and cotton both of which are natural, and that seemed to work fine for a long time. Poisons are natural as well, but we are not talking about poison we are talking about creating toxic chemicals which are not natural poisons. Natural poisons do not work the same way toxic chemicals do. They may kill one species but not another, their route of poisoning is also altogether different. Toxic chemicals kills everything in the environment

      • Leneh Buckle

        I think you got that backwards and need to use a dictionary to look up ‘toxic’. Toxic and natural are not opposites!

  • Nicolas Baron

    It doesn’t matter who it is, what matters is whether they are right.

  • donatello ten

    I’m still not clear on this assumption that organic food is produced with “natural” pesticides. I was under the impression that they don’t use pesticides at all, hence the reason some organic crops are completely wiped out ever other season or so.

    Plus, what about those pictures of the special tractor attachments where hand-pickers can weed a field without the need for herbicides? I’d imagine manually weeding a field is probably healthier than any pesticide–synthetic or not.

    • Ammyth

      It’s not an assumption. The USDA maintains a list of pesticides that are allowed for use in organic farming. The kicker is that these pesticides tend to not be as effective as their synthetic/conventional counterparts, so they have to be used in much greater quantities.

      • donatello ten

        Yes, but do ALL organic farmers use them? I know many that tout using none at all (the weeding method I mentioned above). Granted, these are local producers who don’t sell nationally, but they insist they don’t use anything, not even organic and even have lost entire crops in the past due to blight.

        • Ammyth

          Large-scale, commercial organic farmers use them, I know that much. I am sure there are small-scale organic farmers who don’t, but that sort of farming, from what I understand, is very labor-intensive and not economical unless you are able to charge a premium, beyond even what organic costs normally.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Donatello, organic uses pesticides, just not “synthetic’ ones. Look up USDA organic pesticides and you’ll see a long list of organically-approved pesticides, some of which are pretty nasty.
      Manually weeding a field is pretty unhealthy for the worker, btw. Look up Cesar Chavez.

      • NoToGMOs

        Just because the USDA approves a particular pesticide’s use in Organics, does not mean organic farmers are using them indiscriminately in large amounts. Most organic farmers I have talked to only use these as a last resort after trying other methods of weed/bug control and even then, use mainly spot applications in areas that are highly infested. Unlike the blanket spraying of glyphosate for RR GMOs and the constant production of Bt toxin in every cell of Bt GMO plants.

        • Judy Nonarchi

          No, read up, wouldja? sheesh.
          “Blanket spraying” doesn’t happen. It’s very, very little. (uh, glyphosate is expensive, and farmers aren’t stupid. Or rich.) Ask a farmer, for pete’s sakes, before spreading this kind of garbage.
          Also,, re: bt toxin — if you would READ, you’d know that Bt operates completely differently in an insect’s gut than in a human’s gut. Totally different. Look it up.
          Read. Learn something.

          • NoToGMOs

            Sheesh, reading comprehension not your greatest skill, huh? ‘Blanket’ spraying doesn’t refer to the quantity sprayed. It means ALL the plants/the entire field is sprayed regardless of whether the pesticide is needed or not in any given area.

            “you’d know that Bt operates completely differently in an insect’s gut than in a human’s gut. Totally different. “

            The active Bt toxin operates the exact same way in ANY organism that has receptors for it.

            It is you who would benefit from some science education.

      • donatello ten

        Yes, I know Cesar Chavez. The local farms I mentioned to Ammyth hire locals who are specifically named on the food that they harvested. I’d imagine they are paid living wages if the farm goes out of its way to give them recognition for their work. Again, I’m probably not being fair here since this is a local place and their prices are a lot higher than food labeled “organic” and sold by mega corporations.

  • Ammyth

    Your website:

    “Navdanya started as a program of the Research Foundation for science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE), a participatory research initiative founded by world-renowned scientist and environmentalist Dr. Vandana Shiva, to provide direction and support to environmental activism.”

    Do you know how much Dr. Shiva charges for her speaking appearances? Quite a bit. $40,000 per event, last I read. Not too shabby. I doubt Jon Entine gets that much for his so-called shilling.

  • William

    Excellent article/blog. Agree 100%. I am also anti-organic on principle and will never buy it. Indeed, I make a point in restaurants of asking if something is organic – when the food-snob waiter fawns all over me and says “yes of course sir”, I get a great buzz from replying “well then, it’s not for me – I’m worried about the natural pests and toxins it contains”… And, as an agricultural scientist of 37 years, I truly believe that, in the West, conventionally-produced food is safer than organically-produced food. I act the very same way regarding anti-GMO food in stores and restaurants. I prefer GMO and conventional food and I can easily afford to eat whatever I want. And I worry about Western food snobs and those with vested interests in the organic marketing scam preventing us agriculturalists from feeding the less fortunate. And no, I don’t work for Monsanto or any other similar company.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Bwaa haa haa; I do the same thing in restaurants with the snobby presumptuous waiters! They get all huffy when I tell them organic is a sham, and that I would PREFER gmo (especially corn; wish there was more gmo sweet corn). Why gmo corn? Because organic corn improperly treated for corn borer (again, getting back to organic mom’s ignorant rant against IPM) can have significantly neurologically harmful funguses and mycotoxins from the corn borer.

      • NoToGMOs

        “Because organic corn improperly treated for corn borer can have significantly neurologically harmful funguses and mycotoxins from the corn borer.”

        Yes, I suppose people were all dropping like flies from ‘harmful funguses (sic) and mycotoxins from the corn borer’ before the advent of GMO corn in 1996.

        • William

          People were dropping like flies from these issues plus ergot poisoning (wheat) before pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, all products that we can now reduce thanks to GE technology.

          • NoToGMOs

            Oh no you don’t. You don’t get to give GE crops the credit for doing what other pesticides may have done. The only 2 pesticides associated with the majority of
            GE crops are glyphosate and Bt toxin and it is only Bt that may have a small effect on reducing mycotoxin contamination of corn:


            “It is concluded that under central European conditions, the use of Bt maize hybrids will only slightly reduce the contamination of maize kernels with mycotoxins produced by Fusarium spp.”

            Also, would you care to provide any citations of people ‘dropping like flies’ from these issues?

          • William

            My main point was that pesticides/herbicides/fungicides have done and continue to do lots of good, regardless of GMO or not.

            “Human poisoning due to the consumption of rye bread made from ergot-infected grain was common in Europe in the Middle Ages.”

            Mycotoxins in general

            Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide.

          • NoToGMOs

            Wow, a reference from the Middle Ages…..I’m soooo impressed!

            The term ‘pesticides’ is normally used to refer to the broad group of substances/agents that kill pests. Pests include insects (killed by insecticides), weeds (killed by herbicides), fungi (killed by fungicides) etc. So all of these fall under the umbrella of ‘pesticide’:


            “Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.”

          • Loren Eaton

            Search “The Italian Job” on this website. Those growers my take exception to that particular conclusion/prediction/guess.

        • Judy Nonarchi

          Nope. They don’t “drop like flies.” But there has been neurological damage reported from the fuminisins and mycotoxins. Look it up.

        • Loren Eaton

          Periodically, people in Africa have been stricken with liver failure and/or cancer due aflatoxins on stored maize.
          About 15 years ago there was a spike in neural tube defects (spina bifida, etc.) in Hispanic women in the Rio Grande valley who were eating natural (read untreated). Fumonisin and its disruption of folic acid metabolism in pregnant women was the culprit.

        • common sense

          Contaminated organic bean sprouts KILLED 53 people in Germany. Infinitely more people harmed than were ever harmed by GMOs.

  • Judy Nonarchi

    Oh, Vandana Shiva’s site. You’d put up that against GLP?? Wow, like putting up Fox News against NPR.
    “The real facts……” yeah, so not the case.

    • NoToGMOs

      Vandana Shiva’s scientific credentials verses Jon Entine’s degree in philosophy? I know what most sane people would choose!

    • William

      Food Babe’s computer science credentials vs. 99% of global food and agricultural scientists?

      • NoToGMOs

        Umm, care to stick to the topic? We were talking about Vandana Shiva verses Jon Entine.

      • William

        The URL I posted was on topic. And you started to compare someone’s science credentials vs. philosophy credentials – Food Babe is very anti-GMO and she has no real science credentials. Also, PhD (most scientists) = Doctor of Philosophy.

        • NoToGMOs

          “And you started to compare someone’s science credentials vs. philosophy credentials”

          Well, I can’t compare Shiva’s science credentials with Entine’s……when he doesn’t have any, can I??

          “The URL I posted was on topic.”

          If I searched hard enough, I’m pretty sure I can come up with a URL that shows the tooth fairy lacks any real science credentials compared to Bill Nye or James Watson. But that doesn’t make it relevant to what this thread started out as….a comparison of Shiva’s and Entine’s websites and credentials.

          “Also, PhD (most scientists) = Doctor of Philosophy.”

          ROFLMAO!! You get the award for the most far-fetched reasoning (or lack thereof) I’ve ever seen:
          Entine has a degree in Philosophy.
          A PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy.
          Therefore Entine is comparable to a PhD!!

          Thanks for the laugh!

        • Good4U

          No…. I don’t understand your term ‘ROFLMAO’. It appears to be some sort of gibberish.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            ROFLMAO means “rolling on floor laffing my ass off.” It’s teenager text language.

          • Good4U

            Ok, thanks for the translation. It appears that No…etc. should stay in school so that he (or she) might someday understand science and the technology that comes from it. For now, he is unintelligible.

          • NoToGMOs
  • just b

    You’re a moron. Keep drinking the water.

  • Judy Nonarchi

    “scientific credentials”??? You gotta be kidding! Nothing relevant, like molecular biology or crop sciences. Her credentials are irrelevant; she doesn’t know anything about crop science.

    • NoToGMOs

      And Jon Entine does? Hahaha!!!

  • Michael Jones

    Let’s not forget WHole Foods and its love affair with Homeopathy.

  • Verna Lang

    Although Vandana Shiva likes to present herself as a scientist, her doctorate was done in the Department of Philosophy. Last time I checked, Philosophy isn’t a science.

    • NoToGMOs

      She has a bachelor’s degree in Physics, which last I checked….is science.

      Her Ph.d thesis titled “Hidden variables and locality in quantum theory” is here:

      ^^^ If you actually bothered to read it and were not blinded by your desperate need to discredit her, you would see it is published as part of The International Nuclear Information System (INIS) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And that it deals with topics such as Bell theorem, Quantum mechanics, locality etc. ….all of which are part of THEORETICAL PHYSICS……..not classical Philosophy!!

      But of course, to understand that, you and your fellow GMO shills would have to get your heads out of that narrow tunnel that comprises the entire world of ‘science’ to you.

      • Verna Lang

        There are disciplines such as History of Science and Philosophy of Science, neither of which are considered a science. Although you could make a case that Vandana Shiva was able to discuss the ins and outs of established theories in theoretical physics at the time she wrote her thesis, she did not do any original scientific research in the Department of Physics which would be necessary for her to be considered as having a science degree. Someone could write their thesis on a novel view of the symbolism in Shakespeare’s plays. That may make them an expert on interpreting Shakespeare’s symbolism, but it doesn’t make them a playwright, let alone the bard.

        • Loren Eaton

          Well done, Verna. I have an MS degree in Cell Biology and Genetics…but I’m thinking of designing a nuclear submarine in my spare time. How hard could it be??

          • Verna Lang

            Just don’t look at the design plans for the first atomic bombs by mistake. That could be a very short maiden voyage for your sub! Vandana Shiva graduated from the same university that I did. When I think how hard science graduate students work doing hands on research in their labs, it really makes me irate thinking how she has helped herself to a science degree.

          • Loren Eaton

            Have you seen Kevin Folta’s Illumination today? Interesting article on Shiva….and her arrogance. Does anyone else from your University remember her as a student? Has she always been this way?

          • Verna Lang

            She graduated in 1978, which was before my time. Didn’t make any impact in the 1980s from her stay there that I was aware of.

          • a20havoc

            She’s not the only one. The anti-transgenic stormtroopers have a lot of phonies in their ranks. “PhD”‘s from defunct correspondence schools; questionable credentials based on “life experience;” or cryptic references to “certified crop adviser courses” but no listing in the CCA database. Most don’t have any formal training whatsoever, just calling themselves “internationally-recognized experts” and perpetuating the mythology through aggressive self-promotion.

          • a20havoc

            It would be about as hard for you to do that as it would be for me to design a spacecraft to carry people to Mars and back, all on merits of my PhD in the ag sciences!

      • a20havoc

        So what background does she have in biotech or agriculture?

  • Milda

    Organic food and organic agriculture has one good point. It’s not the quality of food, although many find it more appetizing, it’s about something called sustainable agriculture. Use of organic fertilizers instead of industrially created ones or use of little to no pesticide has greater meaning for our ancestors and generations to come.

  • nick

    The real purpose of organic food is to save biodiversity, and avoid slowly destroying life on the planet. If you don’t want to “throw” your money to big enterprise which understood they can earn lot of money with organic food, you can choose to go directly to a organic farm to buy your organic food.

  • Antumbra

    She has no scientific credentials beyond a BSc in physics.

    I have a BSc in physics. I do not consider that a credential that acts in support of anything, let alone authority in a completely different field. Similarly, a PhD does not make you an authority on anything but your thesis topic.

    Shiva has repeatedly claimed or strongly implied that she has various high-level degrees in Science that are somehow relevant – but she does not and “philosophy of quantum physics” is not relevant to biology.

    At any rate, it has clearly been a long time since she maintained any level of Physics-related skills. It takes years of focused work for a scientist to become as such, and retain those skills.

    It is perfectly possible for a nonscientist to gain extensive knowledge of the surface of a field and use that to make reports or predictions, but Shiva represents herself as an authority of a type that she is not.

    And if the sanctity of degrees and certifications matters – I present Dr Oz, a callous thief and conman who preys on hypochondriacs and the sick, who actually is a Doctor.

  • basics

    Its interesting that the photo used here talks so much about pesticides and insecticides considering that according to government regulations, organic foods can definitely use both! It’s literally on the first page of organic food regulations document – which is super easy to find as well. Doing basic research on your values is important, and I completely agree with this article.

  • justin caise

    Article sponsored by Monsanto.

    • jpenge

      I love when people just make stuff up.

  • Tim

    One point to consider: Buying organic does not need to be reasoned with a “better for me”, which is proven not to be correct in most cases. But it can very strongly justified with a “better for those involved in the production”. This counts for the farmers, eg. there is a proven rise in miscarriges by farmers exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup, or in an even stronger case for the treatment of animals in the production of meat and dairy.

    While I agree with the criticism of dubious marketing strategies, I think completely disqualifying and boycotting everything related to “organic”, esp. organic meat, is to strong and narrowly thought.

  • Bert

    Frankenfood is out there. It’s not nice to fool with mother Nature, and the more you mess with the original formula, the more likely you are to end up consuming some kind of chemical witches brew. If you really want to ‘go organic’, look for places that sell locally-grown produce that hasn’t been heavily and intensively processed. Go big or go home, and start learning how to grow your own fruits and vegetables.

    Of necessity, our now-globalized food chain uses preservatives, because otherwise the stuff wouldn’t survive the trip to market, and exposure to all the insects and microbes present in the human sphere that really aren’t that prevalent in the common consciousness. But, how much preservatrol is beneficial, and what concentrations can end up being toxic and blowing out one or both of your kidneys? For people with chemical sensitivities and food allergies, exposure to some things can be downright lethal. Folks that can pretty much eat anything on the shelf are blessed, but once you start talking about things like celiac disease or diabetes or something else along those lines, well, maybe mommy doesn’t quite know best, and you might be stuck shopping gluten-free and so forth. I say shut up, eat an apple, drink water from a known clean source, and be happy.

  • Jen Hobby

    Well. For what its worth, we produce what technically are “all natural”, “free range”, “organic”, “environmentally friendly” and “humanely raised” products. Mountain grown lamb and wool. And we always have. Yet for all the public flailing around nomenclature, Americans still eat lamb <1 year on average. One would think, if these terms were not just a ploy, Americans would be racing to the lamb counter.
    So why not plaster my sheepies with labels? Boost the market? The flock could roam the range with all the colorful endorsements of NASCAR stock cars. But, I don't need to prove myself to whole foods, chipotle, HSUS, PETA or any other of these mean-girl merchants and their scams. Nor would i throw other industries under the foodie bus for raising their animals the best, safest and most confortable means for their species.
    Our sheep, when viewed through informed eyes, speak for themselves. Beautiful, healthy, happy animals. Who through applied scientific research, selection and care will live longer, healthier lives than their mothers and grandmothers. And their daughters longer and healthier still. That is the moral high ground.

  • Nathanael

    Bullshit, utter bullshit. But that’s what I expect from an astroturf organization *like this one* dedicated to promoting what makes money for it.

    The benefits of organic farming are obvious to anyone who actually understands science (unlike the fool who wrote this article): organic farming is using techniques which have been tested for hundreds or thousands of years, and so the dangers are *known*. Farming done with techniques which were invented last week, or even 100 years ago, has *unknown* dangers; we have been discovering health problems caused by 100-year-old pesticides even quite recently.

    Which would you prefer, techniques with 1000 years of safety testing or techniques with a few weeks of safety testing?

    I’m all for GMOs in limited circumstances where they can be proved to be useful, such as for wiping out malaria-carrying mosquitoes. The wholesale injection of poorly-tested alterations into our food supply, by contrast, is simply *reckless*, and organic food is a reaction to this reckless behavior.

    • Randall

      Which would you prefer, techniques with 1000 years of safety testing or techniques with a few weeks of safety testing?

      I prefer results.

      When was the last drought?
      When was the last famine?
      How many people die from lack of nutrition?

      This chart speaks volumes about modern agriculture practices.

    • Jason

      Maybe you could provide the “science” that supports any of this nonsense?
      And can you show me ANY technique with 1000 years of safety testing?

  • Nathanael

    Yep, this entire site is an astroturf.

    Bet this gets deleted for calling it out.

  • Ellen Mast

    Wow, if she’s boycotting organics for making questionable claims, what is she buying? I find the most misleading marketing at chain supermarkets like Safeway, where customers are lured onto buying “natural” foods that are clearly making consumers obese and diabetic. If you shop carefully and read ingredient labels you will find a better selection of healthy food at stores like New Seasons here in Portland Oregon, where they offer organic and conventionally farmed locally grown produce and real food that has become almost impossible to find at Safeway, such as honey that isn’t basically corn syrup in disguise.

  • 12Foot

    What’s the half life and excretion rate of pesticides? The Farmer’s Daugher dirty dozen article states that if one ate 529 “servings” of apples a day the limits would still be safe. My son eats about 2-3 large apples a day (no joke, he once ate a 9lb box of oranges in one day) which is probably 3-4 servings a day. If the pesticides have slow excretion rate (less than 132 days in my son’s case), couldn’t the residue build up to toxic levels in the body? I imagine it depends on the pesticide. Do the synthetic pesticides of conventional farming have different excretion rates compared to the natural equivalent used by organic farmers? What about the organic pesticides that have no synthetic equivalent?

  • organic and gmo

    I buy both because all organic just doesn’t match my pocketbook and sometimes the organics don’t look good to me. I do, when I get a chance to buy them, like the way they taste they seem like they have more flavor. I have read a lot of the conversations below and the only one that appealed to me was the actual farmer’s comments. But here is my opinion and only an opinion. I too believe that the less chance of ingesting pesticides through organics would be better. I don’t ever knock anyone who doesn’t eat the same as me or my family. If we are out somewhere and have a chance to eat something which I think looks good then I’ll buy it. If I think the organics look to small for the price then I will buy GMO. We as a farming country have to have GMO’s to sustain the growing populations. That is always going to be an underlying issue. Diversity and choice in the diet is always a good thing. So I don’t think one side or the other is really going to win this argument. Don’t be so angry out there, stress is bad for the body and mind. Maybe both sides can come up with satisfying conclusion to the food growing industry.

  • Nicole

    Wow…a little less ranting and a little more proof please? If you whined less and gave some evidence MAYBE I’d consider your point. Otherwise this just sounds like a lame conspiracy theory that was very hard to read with the annoying tone. I have MS and the second I switched to natural and organic I was able to go off medication and my health improved drastically. I KNOW it works. If you think it’s just psychological then I can’t wait to get cancer and beat it with my mind!

  • Lori

    I have to say that being someone with many food allergies, organic fruits and vegetables, what ever that actually is, effects my allergies less or not at all. So is it the pesticides that I am allergic to or the fruit itself? If organic does not cause the same allergic reaction as the same fruit that is not organic shouldn’t we be concerned by what it is we are adding to our food? There is a difference between organic and non-organic fruits and vegetables and saying otherwise is a fallacy! As I feel that I am living proof to that. Is organic over sold and pushed on us, of course it is, we live in America duh! Everything is over sold and pushed on us, it is the American way! But to say that there is no difference and we should not worry about what we are eating is strange to me. I was not allergic to anything as a kid in the 1970’s but now my allergy list is ridiculous and I have to carry around an Epi-pen for emergencies. SO what has changed since then? Big corporations that are also pushing their GMO’s on the consumer that is what has changed! I can not always afford organic so I don’t buy it, but I don’t buy the other kind either knowing that I can’t eat it because I am allergic.

    So please let us discuss this further! What about the topic of the over use of pesticides on all of our food. Which in fact is killing off bees at an astounding rate and causing more and more people to develop allergies. What happens when the bees die off and we can’t grow enough food? Then what? Thoughts? I we going to have digital bees? That would be weird! Here is a new study from Harvard! Not everything should be man made! So forget the organic dilemma let us worry about saving the bees!

  • Impartial

    The points are interesting, but I do not find this article helpful.
    First, you have not provided reliable sources (and it would take me
    too many hours to fact check your arguments). The sources you cite are
    not primary scientific sources, but rather secondary interpretations of
    primary sources. Second, at least one of your sources contradicts your argument. For example, the Harvard health blog article you cite recommends following the very EWG “Dirty Dozen” that you
    criticize. Finally, you don’t address a major reason for buying
    organic – the environmental impact of conventional agriculture.

    • Jen Phillips

      I think this criticism is unfair. First, the author’s choice to link to other blog posts and articles rather than primary scientific literature is a judgement call. Most people reading are unlikely to get much out of a full text journal article. Original sources are easily available elsewhere on GLP, or via PubMed, for anyone who is interested. Having read many of the papers previously, I can see that the author’s claims here are consistent with the literature.
      Second, the Harvard health blog source you quibble with was cited specifically to refute the claim of superior nutrition. That the cited blog goes on to endorse the EWG ‘dirty dozen’ is a coincidental irrelevance as the validity of that (completely separate) claim is dealt with later in the same paragraph that links to the Harvard health blog.
      Finally, this article content is restricted to common arguments from health and safety used to sell organic (as recapped in the GMOFree USA graphic). The fact that it does not also cover environmental impact of farming is not a flaw, just evidence of the article’s focus.
      That said, any argument for organic farming as a superior environmental form of agriculture must include consideration of
      *the impact of organic pesticides
      *the fossil fuels used to till areas where conventional farmers would use weed killers
      *the additional acreage required to grow comparable amounts of food versus conventional yields

      just to name a few.

      • Impartial

        It has nothing to do with fairness. This is not personal, it is about the usefulness of the article (which is little to none). First, the author claims throughout that her opinions are science-based. The unscientific characterizations aside, she does not cite scientific support. Any argument can find blog or special interest article support on the internet. It means nothing to cite such sources. Second, a direct contradiction in one of her sources is simply not irrelevant. She does not address the contradiction. Your belief otherwise does not change that fact. Finally, she argues in favor of boycotting organic food, but she fails to address a major reason why consumers purchase such food.

        • Jen Phillips

          Unfair–>unreasonable. You are putting unreasonable expectations on a short webzine article. If you have similar expectations for every article you read, i.e. full, comprehensive coverage of every nuance you might have a question about, the vast majority of news articles must be intolerable to you. If that is not your normal mode of short article consumption, but rather something you have reserved for this particular article, that seems pretty unfair as well.

          The ‘major reasons’ focused on here deal exclusively with health and safety, not environment. Many promotional materials for organic food are similarly focused.

          Sustainable farming is an important topic, to be sure, but to mandate that any mention of organic food should always include alleged benefits to the environment is incredibly cumbersome, as it is a vast and multifaceted topic in its own right.

          • Impartial

            Just saw your last response, and it does not make sense. Please see my earlier comments.

          • Jen Phillips

            Yeah, you basically said exactly the same thing twice. I disagree with you, x2. Cheers.

  • Humanswillbefree

    This is a very nice propaganda piece for GMO’s. Foods have always been organic, only up until the last hundred and 25 years have they been spraying them with chemicals. So if this mom cares about her children and their health she would definitely provide them with organic whole foods. I’m sure after reading this article, this so-called mom(seriously doubt this is a real mom), would rather feed her kids pesticides and chemicals, and foods with genetically engineered insecticide built into the food. I can almost say that I am 1050% sure that mother nature never intended it to be this way. The only marketing ploy going on here, is this pure propaganda article for these GMO producing corporations, so they can push their poisons like a crack cocaine dealer. The argument that organic food is too expensive is laughable at best. I’m sure this fake mom hasn’t priced out cancer, tumor treatment, or almost any major surgery, that currently runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars that she thinks not buying organic foods will save her. It’s the old Penny Smart and pound foolish thinking in this article that will get you fat, sick, and may be dead due to overexposure of these extreme toxins flowing from the Satanic corporations pushing their extremely deadly poisonous toxic foods. These article seem to be working because most people could care less about what they put in their mouth, due to becoming so disconnected from mother nature. They think what they put in their mouth does not affect their overall health. You can see this by the explosion in cancer rates, people dropping dead of diseases that are unknown, and/or the massive obesity rate and chronic inflammation that is visible on 75% of the public. So this lady can go ahead and eat all the pesticides per heart desires.

    • common sense

      Wow, this is a completely useless post. If you did some research, you’d actually find out that cancer incidence is trending lower, but your cult doesn’t do research, huh? Go push your science illiteracy somewhere else.

      • Humanswillbefree

        Prove that it has gone down since 1920??? Where did you pull that comment out of? Your Arse? Let’s go Einstein show us all some of your brilliance and proof? because, I don’t see any proof in your comment.

        • Randall

          Lets look at the data.

          From your baseline (1920) until just before Ag chemicals started to be used, cancer rates went up 230%. (50yrs, 64 to 140)

          After Ag Chemicals were used, the growth rate of cancer was cut in half. (40yrs, 140 to 200)

          Even better, after GMO’s were introduced, the growth rate reversed, and the rate went negative. (20 yrs, 200 down to 184)

          If you debate in a contest, you’ll hide this data. If you’re someone seeking real answers, you’ll reevaluate your position.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Prior to pesticides Arsenic was being widely used , which could be the cause of the cancer spike. There is no need to hide anything Mr Debator….Here is some more data you can attemp to twist and spin so you can create the illusion in your mind that you are winning………Lol…….February 9, 2007 — Cancer will affect 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women in the United States, and the number of new cases of cancer is set to nearly double by the year 2050. Both predictions are based on statistics collected by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). There is no winning when you swallow GMO’s and chemicals. Your debate is wrapped around a Lose Lose situation. You lose humans lose.


          • Randall

            I’ll give you some background, and we can have a reasonable discussion if you wish–I’m not interested in a debate where data is hidden, and winning an argument is the objective.

            If there is any damage being done, I want to change and fix it. When better methods are available, I want to use them.


            I farm 70% non-GMO. Some crops are raised organically-meaning compost is the only input. Some crops are raised with zero pesticides–meaning synthetic fertilizer is applied.

            I raise grazing beef, confinement fed dairy, potatoes, alfalfa, corn, oats, triticale, rye, and pasture.

            I see someone removed your data chart. I’ll attach it to this post–it is important to analyze all data–and I especially would like to view data that disagrees with my
            conclusion–then I can change if needed.

            I’m willing to have a respectful and transparent discussion about any aspect of modern farming.

          • Humanswillbefree

            So you are a Farmer and you have a big responsibility to humanity for taking on such a noble profesion of feeding human beings.

            Here is my thing with modern conventional farming practices. I know as a human being, I am what I eat and anything that I put on me, or falls on my skin affects my well being. This fact may not be aparent to most, but it is truth. So if Ingest chemicals, pesticides, GMO’s(which are another form of pesticides), I know over time things will happen to my body because I let some Corporations poisons into my body, with my consent trusting that they are going to do right by me. History has proven this to the death of many many souls from cigarretes, to foods, to big pharma. We have become so disconnected from the natural world most of us have allowed in these Corporations to invade our bodies get us in this cycle of sickness which starts with the food and and farmers like you. So farmers owe it to humanity to be the most ethically responsible for their practices. Would you agree with any of this?

            I would like to ask why did you ever start farming with pesticides in the first place? Why not be all Organic?

            I see you raise grazing beef. Why not raise them 100% grass fed instead of feeding them things that are not native to their diets? I assume you feed them GMO corn? Is the Alfalfa GMO? Since most corn is GMO and Alfalfa has been recently been granted the okay to grow GMO Alfalfa.

            Please explain confinement fed dairy? Is that where cows never see the light of day? I don’t know the farming terms, is why I ask.

            Here is an article which says 1 out 2 men and 1 out of 3 women will die of cancer by 2050. Now that appears to be an increase in cancer being predicted.

            I see and understand your line of thought about the chart I put up. So if this article which makes these claims is headed in that direction that chart is irrelevant.

            Let me know what you think?

          • Randall

            Fair questions.

            Certified Organic Production is a list of rules that prohibit some more environmentally friendly, safer, and better practices in favor of a natural practice.

            Organic Production is not as efficient or as effective as conventional production. It is a marketing program that receives its reward from those willing to pay extra for those less effective practices.

            See comments by “organic mom” for confirmation of this:


            I do raise my beef on grass. They are then sent to be “finished,” which means they are fed a balanced, very high calorie diet that “marbles” the meat. (marbling is small amounts of fat spread evenly through the meat)

            Some people like the lean, less tender grass fed beef, but most like their steaks well-marbled.

            “Confinement fed” is where cattle are in a corral, and we can control all aspects of their feed. We weigh each ingredient, and we also “push out” the leftover from each meal and weigh that. Every aspect is sent to a lab for tests–even the manure.

            Here is a video that shows some of the technology used:

            Here is some information on pesticides:

      • Humanswillbefree

        Her is the proof you 3 times more likely to die of cancer…..By the year 2025 1 out of 2 people will die by Cancer.

        • First Officer

          Sure, when you significantly reduce other causes of death, what’s left will always increase. You will always have a 100% chance of dying. All causes will always add up to 100%.

          The difference is we die much later now than 125 years ago.

          • Michael Newman

            One of my favorite quotes is “no matter how new age you get, old age gonna kick your ass.”

        • hyperzombie

          Wow, i dint know that Ag chemicals prevented TB, cardiovascular diseases, and influenza. Hey and even the modern ones prevent Motor vehicle accidents. Modern Ag rocks!

        • Verna Lang

          There are several big problems with comparing cancer rates from 1900 and more recently. A cancer diagnosis in 1900 was likely the result of palpating a massive tumor, and many types of cancers would likely not be recognized for what they were and not recorded at all. Today we can detect more cancers and at earlier stages. Also, cancer is mainly a disease of old age. Many people in 1900 did not live to even see 65. They died from other causes, like stroke or heart attack or pneumonia before they were old enough to develop neoplasms. Also, if you look at the numbers carefully, the cancer incidence as well as death rates are actually dropping from 1990, and if they are age adjusted to take into account that people are living longer and more prone to develop cancer, the drop is even more pronounced.

          • Humanswillbefree

            US has the highest cancer rates in the world!…. check this lady….Clearly you don’t understand cancer. It is not an old age, disease my friend got prostate cancer in 40 and he was a fitness trainer…. You Get Cancer from what you put in your mouth and /or stress……

          • hyperzombie

            Denmark followed by France has the highest cancer rate in the world.
            Clearly you are just a lair.

          • Humanswillbefree

            The US is in the top six only 20 basis points away from being number one. I said one of the highest cancer rates. number six out of 190 countries in the world wake the f up!!

          • hyperzombie

            So if Denmark and France have higher cancer rates than the US, what is causing this? Obviously not GMOs.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Food intake(is number one), which I mean diets, how you think in general or attitude, and stress are common factors worldwide. As a human being you just can’t eat whatever you want and get away with it for long. excessive meat eating, dairy eating, can cause a lot of disease. GMO’s is just one factor of many. With food, you are either consciously creating your body and building health or you are unconsciously creating your body which usually results in disease.

          • hyperzombie

            Food intake(is number one), which I mean diets,

            So a diet free of GMOs causes more cancer like in Denmark, and a diet with GMOs reduces that risk (USA) by 20 points?
            Welcome to the pro GMO side. :)

          • Humanswillbefree

            You’re obviously a paid GMO poster. I listed other factors that can also cause cancers and disease. I don’t live in Denmark, I live in America and I know what is happening here on the ground by simple observation and personal testing myself. I do not eat GMO’s and there is clearly a physical difference, a mental clarity, compared to the people who do.

          • hyperzombie

            I live in America and I know what is happening here on the ground by simple observation and personal testing myself.

            Like the cancer rate in the US going down by 15% since the introduction of GMOs?


            I do not eat GMO’s and there is clearly a physical difference, a mental clarity, compared to the people who do.

            There is no difference, except the cost.

          • Humanswillbefree

            You are definitely a paid poster for the GMO industry. There is no difference… if there is no difference then why did they make GM0 in the first place? I guess the GMO Salmon they are trying to push through, in your mind there is no difference between that and natural salmon right? Cancer is clearly not going away, according to this article 1 out 2 men will get cancer by 2050 and 1 out of 3 women. does that sound like cancer is going away??? cancer is 100’s billion industry, do you think they want that money going away?

          • hyperzombie

            You are definitely a paid poster for the GMO industry.

            Are you a paid poster for the Organic industry? Why do you spend so much time posting if you are not getting paid? The reason I have time is because it is -40 outside and I really don’t feel like freezing my ass off.

            if there is no difference then why did they make GM0 in the first place?

            There is no difference to the end consumer, but there is a difference for the farmer. Just like other traits in farmed crops. For example the Blackleg protection trait in Canola, no one wants that labeled, and rust protection in Wheat. GMOs are just traits, nothing to be scared of.

            between that and natural salmon right?

            There is a huge difference between them for the farmer but none for the consumer. It will still be 100% salmon, it will just grow faster.

            Cancer is clearly not going away, according to this article 1 out 2 men will get cancer by 2050 and 1 out of 3 women. does that sound like cancer is going away?

            Well this is actually good news, it means more people will live longer and not die from other preventable causes. Cancer will never go away as long as we have life.

          • Humanswillbefree

            I think I hear Monsanto calling….… Run boy and get your paycheck from your master…yes’a master give me my money:)

          • Michael Newman

            This guy is definitely a paid poster for Monsanto trying to make the anti-GMO side look bad.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Go suck up your poisons and neuro-toxins….I can see they have made you mind ultra weak and inferior. Go collect you coins from your Mas’a. Real whole food for life. Home grown…it is time to trade locally with your neighboors, instead of ingesting the poisons this Michael guy is pushing.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Yes, I checked him out with my good buddies at Monsanto. They DO pay him a lot, to look dumb and inarticulate and drooling, and, by inference, to make all anti-gmo ramblers look even more rambling. Darn. I wanted to get money from Monsanto also, but they won’t give me any. Shucks. I had my “shill” card all designed, too.

          • Michael Newman

            Awkward. Lol

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Ha! It’s always awkward when preconceived notions and erroneous correlations go askew.
            Woooooooops! ha ha!

          • Verna Lang

            Exclamation points are not the equal of a citation and the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. If you want to look at some information that displays global cancer rate data in an easy to use format, look at this map produced by the UK cancer research people:

          • Humanswillbefree

            Again, look at the video above. There is some truth to that cancer research map that you put up. There is more truth, you can’t eat chemicals, processed foods, and not eventually have some problems. It is visually apparent what we are doing is taking us in the wrong direction mentally and physically. all you have to do is look around at your fellow human beings in America 70% are overweight to obese, and I suspect that number is on the low range. They have massive inflammation, which will create Dis-Ease. Get it? if you don’t then any discussion with you is pointless.

    • Sioux

      Hah. “Satanic Corporations”…..You say that like it’s a bad thing even if it were true. The modern day Church of Satan is actually a group of Secular Humanists.

      That aside…why don’t you go ahead and offer even one credible peer reviewed paper that validates your claims.

      Don’t worry I’ll wait. In the mean-time, why don’t you take a looksee here and get an idea of what a research paper actually looks like ;

      • Sioux

        You’ll notice that real scientists, with real Phd’s stake the credibility of their names by putting them in a prominent place. When a person is said to have said something, they cite a source. When they refer to other studies, they cite the study they are referring to. There is never any question of “where did they get this information?” because they bloody well tell you and you can trace it for yourself. Can you offer something similar to support your views?

      • Humanswillbefree

        Of course, because everyone is so healthy in America right? 2/3 of the population isn’t obese right? 58 Countries around the world ban GMO’s outright….You can see the Serilini study for starters. All the other scientists are bought and paid for by the GMO industry to put out false science. Any who actually tries is crucified by the GMO industry and their careers are ruined. So you can eat all the GMO as you want. Lol…You can’t help stupid. My comment may not even get posted on this false site.

        • Sioux

          Cite your sources. Just because you declare a thing to be true does not make it so. If you’re going to make this argument come prepared to back it up with legitimate science…

          • Sioux

            Seriously, stop being lazy and go some some links.

          • Robin

            This is hilarious. It’s like talking to a religious fundie.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Seriously look around. The evidence is everywhere. People are Fat, Sick and Tired. Just look to your right and left and stop being lazy and instead become aware of what these foods are doing to you. What you are personally creating.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Sioux, you are absolutely correct. And science, and the scientific method, and statistics, and probability are learnable even by us laypersons. I’ve taken it upon myself to learn those fields, and to get better educated about specious, fearmongering, and disingenuous claims. But a person has to be willing to learn these fields, in order to have an intelligent conversation.

        • Sioux

          I suspect that you have very poor comprehension of what a “scientist” is or how science is conducted or your statement would seem ludicrous even to yourself.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Here is what a scientist is, someone who does research and gives their best guess(They call it a Theory) that’s it. They try and discover things that have already been around for hundreds of milliions years, that already exist in nature. Mother nature is far and away above science. Man is corrupt, due to his own greed for-profit. Science as it is in our system is also corrupt, due to the scientists not being able to present any claims that are too wildly outside of the current thinking for fear of being branded a quack. So science is far from being the truth. I love to hear your explanation of a scientist, Einstein. Not long ago the same scientists claimed the world was flat. Lol!!!

        • Michael Newman

          It’s 1/3 of the US population that is obese. That’s still a very high number. Why bother exaggerating it? Technically, it’s a little more at 34.9% according to the CDC.

          • Humanswillbefree

            As I stated 2/3 fat to obese and that is increasing yearly. So will the cancer rates and every other disease as this continues to go up.

      • Humanswillbefree

        If you are so pro-GMO, why won’t they label them if they are so great for you? Why are they spending 100’s of millions of dollars to block labeling? The exact same companies label the exact same foods over seas. You can’t be that niave.

        • JP

          It’s called “economics.” Wouldn’t expect you to understand, since you’re just rehashing nonsense anyway.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Exactly what I have been trying to get these people and you to admit. It is only rehashing nonse if you have an IQ of 70. This about getting more paper money and phucking your fellow human beings for profit, no matter how immoral it is. This is the insanity and unconsciouness that human beings have allowed themselves to slide down too. That is why the elites are having there way with stupid phcuks whose only concern is who is winning American Idol. While they concoct the more and more chemically/deadly processed foods that you or your doctor can’t trace the cuse, that eventually put you in their medical system, taken all their pills, that charges insane amounts of money until your insurance drops and your broke, and spits you out fat, sick, and begging for your life. Run back to your brainwash tube and everything will be alright. R$ight?? Lol!!!

          • Robin

            Wow, Humanswilbe”free”.

            Pretty much all you do is insult people and make vague “It’s not moral” appeals that would probably work on the weakminded.

          • Humanswillbefree

            This what I do know Robin, that people like you who are so entrenched in their toxic thinking, need quick shock. You can Whatever you want, you can eat whatever you want, but just know you will pay a steep price for your thinking, and your family members will pay a price to. It’s happening all around us as I write. People are fatter sicker and unhealthier than ever. Of course you probably think that’s an illusion to write?

        • k8blujay

          Maybe because outside of the economics point as JP stated… the fear mongers would use such a thing to ban all GMO’s… and then that would tie back into economics… both on a personal level (who in their right mind would pay $7 for a pound of organic strawberries in season when you can get it for $2.50 for conventional? Not I said the one that wants to be able to feed her family a wide range of foods) and a global scale… Organics are WIDELY expensive and it’s elitest and without compassion that people like yourself in your ivory towers even SUGGEST that a family not be able to afford to feed themselves.

          • Humanswillbefree

            You were given a beautiful body (I can see from what you wrote you don’t feel that way), that is the most amazing gift you have ever been given (the ultimate Ferrari), but yet you are concerned if the fuel is cheap, rather than asking is it quality? Will it improve my energy and long term health? You have a scarcity mentality. Even a Heroin addict with a $500 dollar a day habit has more drive than you and the whiners that put fake green paper above their health. Have you priced out cancer treatments? Or any hospital stay? It can run into the millions of dollars extremely quick. With your mentality, you may not pay now, but you will pay later. You need to figure out how to cultivate an abundance mentality. Sorry for how you think, because it will eventually lead to your demise sooner than later.

  • Bill

    “Non-GMO, organic, and gluten free” these are all just terms slapped onto food to tax the dumb. These current food fads have less scientific credibility than horoscopes or voo-doo.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Yup. Just plain ole marketing. Hype. And it works, because people get all glazed-eyed and fork out 150% to 200% more for the same food.

      • a20havoc

        And the organic industry is worth $63 billion. Try getting some organic producers to lower their margins. HA-HA. Good luck.

  • Jon Hunter

    I also dislike the anti-GMO lobby. We’ve been genetically altering foods for thousands of years by selection. Want a banana in its original form? Inedible. Strawberry? More bitter than a lemon. Potato? Be prepared for a case of food poisoning.

  • JP

    Maybe we should focus on what is truly wrecking the environment; factory farming. Eating meat is far more destructive then anything else we could consume.

  • ****MAVERICK****

    The organic marketing scheme is essentially the same as the chocolate diamond rebrand. Market something well enough and lay people will pay more for it. Wash your produce, it’s not rocket science.

  • InCindyiary.

    You are

  • InCindyiary.
    • Sterling Ericsson

      If you actually read the study, you’d see that they purposefully exclude organic pesticides from their measurements, which is hilarious, since those are the pesticides used in organic farming.

  • IFeelSorryForYou

    This “scientist” is ignorant.
    1. There is not enough scientific data in this article to substantiate her opinions. It is just reverse fear mongering.
    2. Scientists are unable to methylate synthetics in the body. Without proper methylation, metabolic processes in the liver are hindered.
    3. Metabolic processes hindered by synthetic material in three body causes mast cell activation.
    4. Such foreign material can not be metabolized for use. This, the body isolates such toxins in fat, starting with the liver. Thus, non alcoholic fatty disease is rampant.
    5. Mast cell activation thus leads to all sorts of autoimmune issues ranging from asthma to Lupus.
    6. Many people with genetic mutations in CYP enzymatic genes or in genes with huge responsibilities methylation and metabolic cycle in the liver are at higher, almost guaranteed risk for mast cell activation caused by the body’s inability to process these synthetic molecules. A “geneticist” should understand this.
    7. You can take the same carbon and oxygen molecules and arrange them in a lab to create a synthetic and the body will not methylate it. Thus why organic “toxins” are safer than synthetic “toxins”. In science, everything should revolve around the “risk” versus the “benefit” as everything on this planet affects us all.

    As a parent with chemically injured children, as a parent that watched as her daughter suffered from dysphagia, wasting, and “allergies” due to non organic produce, as a parent that watched as this child could eat organic produce without an allergic reaction, I am disgusted with this article and the responses that followed in agreement. I have watched this time and time again in families over the years. I have watched this in my large family. GERD, dysphagia, and wasting are gone due to switching to organic. No more mouth and eye swelling occurs. No more throat swelling occurs.

    I feel sorry for this “scientist” that is putting her family, the families of those that trust her, and the environment at risk by promoting the use of synthetics in the environment. This will rest on her conscience the rest of her life.

    Do not reply to me expecting me to answer, as I will never look at this again. Do not as for science to back up my claims, as these claims are the results of thousands of hours of research. These claims are the results from climbing out of the damaged life from a nonorganic life. Do your own research and listen to your body.

    • hyperzombie

      Wow, after reading this insanity my brain hurts…..

    • Robin

      “Do not reply to me expecting me to answer, as I will never look at this again.”

      At least you are honest about nto wanting a debate.

  • OrganicMom

    Wow! You are so very uneducated or must work for Monsanto. Keep your pesticide and chemical laden products for yourself and I will continue to buy organic and toxic free products!

    • hyperzombie

      toxic free products!

      Where do you find these toxic free products? All plants contain toxins, animals as well. Do you buy your food from a magic bean salesman?

      • OrganicMom

        I read my labels and avoid toxic chemicals in personal care and home care products as well as processed foods. This website is very helpful to the uneducated

        • Actually, the Environmental Working Group is known as a leading anti-science organization. Their views are very far from mainstream science, particularly on chemicals and GMOs. If you can site something from the EPA, USDA, American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences–that’s serious science. Not an activist/anti-science organization with no science cred.

        • hyperzombie

          the labels don’t tell you what Ag chemicals were used.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      You mean the organic products made with more pesticides than any other kind of farming? Enjoy your copper sulfate.

    • Robin

      If only Monsanto would pay me, I’d troll all on the internet.

    • Michael Newman

      Ask your grocer if you need to wash that “toxic free” food. Then ask why. Wash your food.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Mommy, google how much uncomposted manure (and e.coli infections) result from improperly fertilized organic food. And also google how much of “certified organic” food contains unapproved pesticides.
      (you really didn’t think that organic food has NO pesticides, did you?)

      • OrganicMom

        USDA Certified organic foods contain no pesticides, otherwise they are not allowed to be labeled that way

        • ForGMOEducation

          Certified organic foods do contain pesticides. The only difference between the pesticides used in conventional agriculture and organic is that organic uses only natural pesticides. Just because these pesticides are natural in no way means they are any safer either.

  • Critical Eye

    Soooooo where’s the science in this article?

    • pyogenes

      Are you joking? There are plenty of sources provided in the article. Most of the links are to scientific studies.

  • Robert Saik

    You guys might like this, my visit to Whole Foods NYC

    • First Officer

      That Whole Foods could’ve built a 10 story apartment building above the store instead of that rooftop farm that can only wholly feed 2 or 3 people a year. That would’ve made for a few hundred homes only an elevator ride away from a food market and help the home shortage in NYC. So, don’t let anybody tell you that Whole Foods is about saving the planet.

  • Kevyn

    Another good reason to support your local family farmer. I work on a small organic farm and I can say with 100% certainty that we do NOT use any sort of pesticide or fungicide – natural or otherwise. Just fresh flavorful veggies grown from nutrient rich soil and sold to markets not more than 10 miles away from the place they are grown. Buying from your local small farmers can be a great way to eat better quality produce AND save money, while keeping it in the local economy. Try it!

    • pyogenes

      Those flavorful veggies produce their own natural pesticides… 99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally produced chemicals from the plants immune system. People are so against pesticides but the fact of the matter is that “pesticide” is not a term with any relevance to human health. Dose makes a poison, and the levels of pesticides found on commercial produce are nothing to worry about. GMO crops encourage no-till farming, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and also decrease pesticide use (for example, Bt cotton produces its own insecticide so we don’t have to spray it).

    • a20havoc

      Hey Kevyn–what are you doing to get some of that fresh, healthy food to people below the poverty line? You know, the ones who can’t just hop in the Lexus, leave their $750,000 house in the HOA, and drop excessive coin for your overpriced veggies–which are no more nutritious than what’s in the grocery store?

  • Humanswillbefree

    Attention Pro –GMO community you can have debates back and forth about the efficacy of this technology, you can debate the science back and forth for those of you who rely on science for everything, but you will not overcome the massive resistance to this technology.

    Do you think people battled farmers when they hybridized their crops?

    No, because that was a natural way of doing things.

    GMO’s are not natural, it is a destructive technology to humans, and that is why there is massive resistance to it.

    GMO’s were brought into existence to increase profit and true farmers know this. This was never about feeding the world, this is about controlling the food system with patents. Controlling the seed with patents. This is the only technology that has been able to patent life.

    These dark forces have attempted to force these foods on the masses.

    This is why they do not want to label it, and spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to block labeling. Because, they know once people know where it is, they will not buy it.

    The GMO producers know their product is a dark spot on humanity and that’s why they are trying to hide it from the public.

    The backlash has been huge and will continue to get bigger no matter what pro-GMO activists think they are going to accomplish.

    We are the masses and we will not tolerate the poisoning of our food system any longer. We are coming… And you will feel our full force, when we crush this technology once and for all. Labeling is not enough.

    The outright ban of these technologies is the only way forward.

    • Michael Newman

      Wait. You really thing farming in any way is “natural?” Where does this farm exist in nature? You think the way we produce hybrids is natural? Man, go visit an agriculture research university. Are you against grafted fruit trees? They are actual Frankenstein’s monster of the tree world? Natural? That word doesn’t fit with the word farming.

      I’ll make this prediction. Unfounded fear of technology will fail long term regardless of the uneducated, fearful masses. You still haven’t pulled off this scam in twenty years. Shouldn’t we all be dropping dead already? Why am I not fat or sick?

      • Humanswillbefree

        I guess we can say the same thing about DDT, Agent Orange, Arsenic, and Doctor promoted cirgarettes. If your technology is so brilliant, then why don’t they label it and tell everyone where your company(s) is hiding it? What is the fear of telling people? 90% want to know. As they label these products overseas already Lol.

        I predict this for your the technology you love so much, since you love eating poison chemicals, is that it plays out the same was DDT did in the 50’s.

        Once this gets labeled on trolls will be buying your products.

        Oh, people are dropping daed everywhere the doctors just don’t have the technology to track it back just yet, but it is coming. Serillini has arleady linked to cancer, lukemia, birth steralization, and a host of othe issues.

        As history has proved will will eventually root out your maggot ways and abuse of humanity.

        • Michael Newman

          Man, I hope you get help with whatever issues you’ve got going on. I’m not a freaking shill. Your weak ass fear mongering just can’t hold up to any rational questions, can it? If any issue has 90% support, it absolutely should be a landslide victory for that side. That figure is a lie.

          The notion that “people are dropping dead everywhere” demonstrates your penchant for dramatic exaggeration.

          Pretending that everyone calling out your bullshit is employed by your boogeyman corporations is delusional or just plain old crazy. I’m betting you lean on that crutch frequently.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Once again, when you can’t answer my questions about labeling and that countries overseas, already label the same exact food products.You run like a coward and attempt character asasination/personal attacks to avoid having to answer the obvious question of WHY? If it such a brilliant technology do your ilk avoid like the plague answering this question??

            Because you are a schill and your taking big MonSATANo cock daily as you bend over and yes Master, give me my coins.

            You are betraying humanity and ther is no lower form of life.

            I’m sorry I was wrong it wasn’t 90%, it was actually 93% in one poll 2013NYT….

            and it was actuall 96% back in 2011


            So now what???? I was low and it was actually higher!!!!!

            You are a maggot trying
            suck the life out of humanity.

          • Michael Newman

            don’t slap GMO labels on food? I already answered that. You just don’t like actual, rational answers. You seem obsessed with off topic gay sex fantasies. You aren’t even using a real name. Who’s a coward now?

          • Humanswillbefree

            Again a non-answer….They label the same exact products in Europe, Asia, Japan etc..Why not in America? Where is your answer??? Again avoiding it?

          • Michael Newman

            I told you. I’ll repeat just so you will stop with that mantra. There is no need nor benefit either safety wise nor nutrition for GMO labeling. They aren’t needed nor wanted. You elitist organics folks have your little labels for what you can eat. I’m not paying for your ignorance. It is on you to prove your own unsupported assertion to the contrary. What do laws in other countries have to do with laws here? They are even less skilled in critical thinking than we are. Good for them.

          • Humanswillbefree

            “They aren’t needed nor wanted.”

            That’s funny, how you claim elitist on one hand, then slammed the rest of the world with your elitist thinking that they are less skilled at critical thinking then we are. that sounds pretty elitist to me.

            “They aren’t needed nor wanted.”

            93% to 96% of people in America want to know!! I guess there are quite a few organic elitists in your mind.

            Cigarettes label, organic foods labeled, medical products label, why doesn’t your elitist corporations label the food they are creating?

            “What do laws in other countries have to do with the laws here?”

            You know what that says it says that they are willing to protect their people and give them the basic information of what their food is made of. They believe in freedom of information something you seem to be completely against. You believe in fascism and not being upfront and honest in your dealings.

            Your company creates food which affects 100% of our population. But yet you are okay with having 0% knowing where it is.

            A technology that affects 100% of the people, you should be liable for 100% of the damages if something goes wrong just like other industries in America.

            See, it’s not Amerika, It is America, home of the free! What part of that don’t you understand?

            Why are you so deceptive?

            Your answer is a non-answer once again, not to mention it’s backed up by zero proof.

            Or should we just to take your word for it? After your extensive lies, you posted up here, in your last post. Lol!!!

            You are the typical pro-GMo/Paid Poster who talks out of two sides of his mouth. You should run for office.

            That last comment pretty much outed you and your paid agenda/propaganda.

            Sorry for your GMO industry, it’s going to go away soon!!!

          • Michael Newman

            I work as an analyst in emergency management, you creep. Nobody gets paid to argue with paranoid consumers on a Saturday. You just can’t stand being trapped in your delusional grand conspiracy. Pro tip. It ain’t really a thing.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Ah…Okay shill…Whatever you say…You know what a creep is? Someone promotes GMO Food that cripples humanity with disease and death. You are a creep of the highest order. It justs pisses you off that someone is standing up to your unproven bull crap.

          • Michael Newman

            That’s some weak sauce theater right there. Best you can do is try to discount someone as a shill when you’ve got nothing but fear dogma to stand on. Let’s talk about gay man-sex again. That part was really great. That and the maggot part. I could talk all day about opossums. You know, they have the most teeth of any mammal?

            How do we know you aren’t part of the reptilians anyway? Are you even organic?

          • Humanswillbefree

            I bet you about as interesting as watching paint dry, Michael. See, you are a shill for Big Poison Corporations, with every single stink’n word you right, you go against humanity, so you and your parasitic class can profit at the expense of good hard working folks.

            I don’t want to talk gay talk with you, I’m straight and I have zero interest, so stop trying to pick up on me.

            Go back and jump on you pig tail butt plug and enjoy the rest of the day like only a Gay man could.

          • Michael Newman

            Getting even more creepy.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Are you a gay stalker?

          • Michael Newman

            What? You got something against gay people? Is this rolled up in your conspiracy as well? Tell me more.

          • Humanswillbefree

            I’m all for gay people and I would even vote for for gay marrige rights. Just because I’m calling you out for what you are, there is no need to take offense, like you have taken offense when asked questions about pushing your GMO poisons. You are a paid shill. Go grab you coins and nickels and chase someone else around the comment board. Have a good day:)

          • Michael Newman

            I’ll counter your bullshit every single time. Letting you release the crazy conspiracies negates any chance you have of influencing others. You’ve been unmasked.

          • Humanswillbefree

            I’m sorry Shil…Go get your script from your Masters at MonSATANo, so you can robotically vomit them out to the unsuspecting masses, that is your job to deceive and take advantage of.

          • Michael Newman

            Would my script include recommending the movie ” Bubba Hotep?” Seems unlikely, doesn’t it, weak sauce?

          • Good4U

            You said you would leave this website. Haven’t you read enough of your own blabbering drivel? The rest of us have.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Sorry shill, your just another paid posting cunt.

          • a20havoc


          • Judy Nonarchi

            Good4U, I’ve appreciated all your comments, and your logic and reason. This guy is getting more nutso with each posting.
            I think we should leave him be, and continue to add clarification and support to other posters on this topic.

          • a20havoc

            He hates gay people, the way the organic producers hate poor people who can’t afford “nutritious” food.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Michael, there is something seriously wrong with this guy; I regret even posting any responses to him. He is not …. right. He is off.
            I appreciate your logic and common sense and science, and the rest of us who read and think most likely do as well

          • Michael Newman

            Yea, I just decided to let his mask of credibility wither away in his own words. People like this briefly appear rational. At some point, it became clear he was a paranoid conspiracy “consumer.” I guess I could have stopped there, but then the lame shill bs came out. This was oddly sprinkled with the weird slavery dialect sneering like “boy” and “massa” along with accusations of being gay. It was a spectacular train-wreck. It sure made a mess on the forum, though.

          • Michael Newman

            This guy lost any scraps of credibility with all the crazy talk of conspiracies, poisoning, shills everywhere, etc. I especially loved him calling people a coward while hiding behind that fake name. Really made a mess of the forum, though.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Yeah? Then why have the measures been failing, if 95% or whatever of people oppose labeling?
            Oh, I’m gonna bet you’ve said all these voters were duped, drugged, and paid off by Monsanto, right?
            By the way, I’d love to be a paid shill! How do I get that job?

          • Humanswillbefree

            3 States have already passed and more on the way. The numbers prove it already shill.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Nope. They don’t. In Europe, 1) they actually list the genetically modified product being used; the crappy writing in US attempts have not.
            2) In Europe, they have a tolerance standard for inclusion of gmos, from 0.5% (that’s half of one percent) to 5 percent in Japan.

            Big difference.

          • Judy Nonarchi


          • a20havoc

            Maybe he’ll want to explain why Barack Obama’s EPA just released Enlist Duo from its withholding process. Wait. I know why. Because Dow AgroSciences paid them off. That’s some real “change,” all right.

        • Michael Newman

          “Maggot ways?” What does that mean?

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Hey, you promised to leave.
      Take your blather elsewhere.
      “dark forces” —- ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  • Steven Fiorito

    There is evidence that natural foods have medicinal properties and that GMOs have adverse health effects not only on people but on the environment. Not to mention the corporate bullying that big Ag has perpetrated on small farmers. The problem is that the “evidence” on the side of GMO’s is often conducted by bias agencies and is nothing more than bought and paid for science. This leads me to my point… Because so much conflicting evidence exists I’ll have to rely on my own common sense/judgement. So let’s see do I trust greedy corporations or nature…….I’ll take nature. And by the way I’ll also take the choice and the right make an informed choice. If GMOs are so good why are they spending so much $ for the “right” to conceal them?…… Hmmmmmm.

    • pyogenes

      There is no such evidence. No reputable scientific journal has ever published an article stating adverse health effects from GMOs. Every single global scientific body (WHO, AMA, AAAS, USFDA, etc) agrees that GMOs are safe for human consumption.

      • Stevefio

        Pyogenes…. You can trust those agencies if you wish but I think most of their track records support my point about “bought and paid for science”. I think the FDA is included in your “etc.”. How can you trust these agencies that have engaged in such blatant conflicts of interest. Going from positions of government to working for Monsanto. I think you need to look up the term conflict of interest. I believe it’s when one interest you have conflicts with another interest that you have. You can trust those agencies if you like but I don’t. And people like you continue to side step the issue that if GMOS are so good why are they spending so much $ to keep us in the dark about products they’re used in. Either way I want the right to make the choice. That’s what it really comes down to. Also there hasn’t been long enough studies done to say that GMOs are safe. I don’t want to be the corporate food industry’s guenea pig.

        • Good4U

          Steve: There is no conflict of interest among the scientists at the regulatory agencies. They are not paid to support any regulated party. Their regulatory decisions are published, i.e. freely available for all the world to see. Have you read any of them, or are you simply entranced by the blabberings of Dr. Oz and his ilk? My advice to you is to look a lot deeper than that before you make any decisions on the “right choice” for human safety and integrity of the environment. I know you will find yourself in good agreement with the regulatory decisions on GMOs. I choose biotechnology as the best opportunity for the future supply of food crops and animals, not only in North America but worldwide. Transgenic crops are less energy consumptive and more healthy for humans than the “organic” junk that the health food peddlers are foisting off on an uneducated, yet over-affluent subset of dupes.

        • Judy Nonarchi

          conspiracy theorist ramble again.

        • a20havoc

          You won’t trust them until they start making decisions you support. Obama must have been a huge disappointment to you.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      “corporate bullying that big Ag has perpetrated on small farmers…” What, are you nuts??? Do you think farmers are stupid? Go talk to a farmer who uses biotechnology, often in rotation with conventional and — yes — organic crops. Educate yourself.
      You have no idea what “nature” is.
      And please answer; I keep begging for an answer from you guys — do you think chemical and /or radioactive mutagenesis of organic crops is “natural”? You still eat ’em? No prob with them?
      This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. (look it up; I know you don’t know what it means)

  • Alice Roberts

    Wrong. I am a scientist and a medical doctor. You are welcome to your opinion but it is garbage. The ecological effects of GMO agriculture and associated pesticides are real and scientifically obvious. Do yourself a favor, get some education.

    • Robin

      Can you argue what negative effects there are, since they’re so obvious?

      • pyogenes

        There is no quality of genetic modification which makes GMO crops less safe than natural crops. This sentiment is echoed by the WHO, AMA, AAAS, and USFDA.

      • a20havoc

        Are you kidding? Just read Seneff’s latest paper correlating about 15 or 20 serious medical conditions to glyphosate usage. CORRELATION IS CAUSATION! You know, people have also been increasingly buying laptops for the last ten years…I’ll bet that’s CORRELATED with pancreatic cancer, too. Hmmm…

        By the way, Dr. Robert–when was the last time you diagnosed someone with a medical condition DIRECTLY attributable to consumption or use of transgenic products? That’s right…USE. Lauric acid is pretty much made from transgenic canola and there’s a LOT of soap with that in it. Been writing scripts for skin cream much, “Doc”?

  • Humanswillbefree

    I’m done here. I want to say thank you to the Pro-GMO community, which has been infiltrated by paid shills masquerading as people, to back up the typical GMO propaganda.

    So again, thank you to the shills/paid posters and if you’re not a shill/paid poster and you’re just a person backing up this technology, I don’t understand how you could back these GMO corporations, without any science, without any proof that this technology doesn’t harm humans.

    Yet you are okay with these corporations hiring their own scientists and giving you heavily biased so-called scientific reports and not wanting to label where these foods are located in your supermarkets.

    They spend hundreds of millions of dollars, so you won’t know where these foods are located in your markets, yet they already label these foods, the same exact products overseas, in Europe, Japan, and all over Asia.

    It’s sad that normal people would not want clean food that doesn’t have genetically modified genes with pesticide built into them, or at the very least just want to know where they are so they can make an informed decision.

    When you bring this question up on this comment section for this article the paid posters/shells avoid this question like the plague.

    All these paid shills/paid posters are paid to do is to distract you from the real questions about this technology. There common retort is to ask you to show scientific proof, when they have no scientific proof of what this technology does to you.

    Here’s the truth, they don’t know what it does to you, this is one giant experiment on humanity by these dark forces called GMO corporations. You are the guinea pigs and they don’t care how many people die in their experiment.

    They are no different than the tobacco companies in the 50s saying smoking was healthy for you, and that included the doctors actually promoting it in commercials. We all know how that turned out, and all I’m saying here is that we all want to know where this stuff is so we can protect our families if we choose to.

    It’s called freedom! But a lot of people on this comments section apparently don’t respect freedom, they respect deceit, deception, and hidden secrets about this poison technology.

    The only thing is that humanity has a ready sniffed out this bull crap and anywhere from 93% to 96% depending on the poll, of the people want to know where this technology is. These are polls taken in 2011 and 2013. The public wants to know.

    Stop all the bull crap propaganda and give us all what we want….

    We are not going away, I hope that is obvious, we will destroy this industry eventually, and get clean food eventually, as people are waking up daily to the toxic poisons, cancer, leukemia, autism, allergies, and tumors that are cutting people’s lives short.

    The medical industry is in on this scam/Ponzi scheme where they are bilking billions of dollars out of diagnosing people with various diseases, and in some cases even when you don’t have a disease they are diagnosing you with cancer and cashing in on billions all off the back of the harding working masses.

    Please wake up faster before these criminals destroy our food system. Every time you put a piece of food in your mouth you are creating your body of tomorrow.

    You are powerful creators, and food has a direct impact on your mood, your health, and the creation of your body.

    Do not let these corporate criminals into your temple without knowing what they are suggesting that you eat.

    Doctor gives false cancer diagnosis and gets caught extorting payments out of medicare/insurance companies……

    Here are the links….ABC News…..

    New York Times…..

    • Michael Newman

      And there you have it. The vast conspiracy involving the agriculture and medical community to keep people sick. What a waste of time.

      • Humanswillbefree

        Sorry maggot, the truth hurts doesn’t it?

        • Michael Newman

          Maggots are natural and organic. But calling me names makes you a real winner. I’m overwhelmed with admiration of maggots. You know, opossums get a bum wrap, too. All that carrion clean up they do…and they do it with such personality.

          • Humanswillbefree

            That’s right and you are an Organic human maggot, attempting to push poison on your fellow ususpecting humans.

          • Michael Newman

            Pretty sure you’re trying to push gmo labeling (and the cost of it) on me. Not the other way around. Go check your list and get back to me.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Nope, I’m for the outright ban of this technology, by the creepy GMO companies who were previously in the business of making chemicals to destroy human life, like the creator of Agent Orange MonSATANo( Creators of DDTand many others). Sorry I made a mistake they are still in the business of destroying human life for profit as there GMO experiment continues, to the detrment of humanity. Some things never change. Hopefully one day Michael you will be on Team humanity/Organic. May we get a chemicals in our food system completely banned forever!!!!

          • Good4U

            You started off your post by saying you were done with this website, which would be a good thing. When were you planning on leaving? Once you are gone, the rest of us can have an enlightening & productive conversation. As it is, you are just cluttering up space.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Sure shill, you mean you can get back to spreading your proganda for your Masters? Here’s what you should do….Stop worrying about me and my actions, and start thinking independently for yourself, instead of reading off your Masters script, and being a shit stain on humanity. Elightening? Couldn’t be farther from it…Productive? Like a Bolshvik Communist pushing their poisonous toxic agenda. Really the best thing that could possibley happen to this board is you retire from your paid poasting position with MonSATANo Black ops operation, and let a little more humanity and caring into your soul.

          • Good4U

            You misunderstand (as always)– I am not worried about you. You are just illiterate, bloated, sanctimonious, and vapid in your thinking (if you can call it that). I’m worried about 6 1/2 billion other people on this planet who are not as privileged as you. I lament the nefarious influence of your type who would denigrate and disparage GMO deployment to the detriment of people who truly need it; people who are starving, malnourished, diseased, and dying for lack of adequate food. You talk about humanity, yet you don’t really know anything about being human. All you want to do is sit in your easy chair, with a belly full of food and a head full of air (or drugs) and whine about the people who do care about others, and who dedicate their lives to fixing the real problems that their fellow humans face every day just to stay alive. You don’t know squat about what misery really is. You haven’t been anywhere, or done anything to resolve the problems that a very large majority of the earth’s human beings experience every day of their lives. I have.

            Frankly, I don’t care what happens to you. You’re already lost. You’re a waste of skin, and a drain on the earth’s resources that it costs to keep you alive. You will get what you deserve. My interest is in educating others who are not lost. My challenge to people who stand in the way of GMO deployment is to get out of your comfort zone and go see for yourself what damage your merciless attacks have done upon the impoverished, hungry people of this world. You will come out of it ashamed, and if you have any sense of humanity left in you, you will be motivated to do something about it. Anyone who authentically cares about human suffering, or about unnecessary environmental destruction, would: a) work as hard as they can to limit population growth; b) get behind GMO technology and promote it for all of its proven and potential benefits.

            Just a final note: you are 180 degrees wrong (as usual) about what motivates me to join this discussion. No one pays me anything, zilch, nada, for any posts that I have ever contributed. Unlike you, I just have a brain that permits me to parse truth from BS.

          • Humanswillbefree

            Another paid shill, trying to bully people who threaten your false narative of your chemical poison foods. You and your kind are running scared trying to control the conversation is tough huh? Well no tells me what to do…so F off.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      “infiltrated….” “paid shills….”
      So predictable. So paranoid. So conspiracy-theorist.

      • Humanswillbefree

        No talking to a paid poster

        • Robin

          Good riddance, self-absorbed tool.

  • Brit

    I think you need to do a little more research before you bash organic or “non gmo” products. There have been studies that organic fruits and veggies have more than triple nutrients etc. than the conventional items. There no sure way to know if you’re being lied to or I am, or whose lying, you get the point. But I think the best way to know what’s better for you is how your body responses and feels. And I can say since trying to avoid non gmo products and eating organic ones, have so much more energy, happiness, less stress, better skin, and it goes on.

    • pyogenes

      That’s not true – there have been several studies by large universities, and every single one has shown that there is no nutritional difference between an organic crop and crops developed using biotechnology. There is a sure way to know who’s lying: go to reliable sources. Unreliable sources have eco- or natural or earth, etc, in their name. Reliable sources are called the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION and the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE and the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, all of which employ world-leading experts in the field to come to conclusions which support sustainable agriculture. All of these institutions are in support of GMO crops.

    • a20havoc

      Oh please. If you happened to eat transgenic corn by accident you wouldn’t even know it. And as for organic food’s being more “nutritious”–I think these organic growers ought to shave off a dollar or two per pound on their stuff so lower-income people can afford them. After all–it’s about “health” and “nutrition”, isn’t it? Why do you organic advocates hate poor people so much, pricing nutritious food out of their reach? That’s criminal. That’s like, Monsanto criminal.

  • EarthSpeaks

    You all seem to forget the most important reason to support organics…the earth. The earth should come first, not you. Organics is good for the earth.

    • Good4U

      Think again, earthspeak. Apparently you are 180 degrees wrong. The so-called “organic” craze is more detrimental to the environment than the GMO technology that has led to less usage of pesticides. Study up, if you are truly interested in “saving the planet”, as some say.

    • pyogenes

      Organics encourage pesticide use and contribute to climate change (look up no-till farming). Organic bananas are heavily contributing to jungle deforestation.

      • al

        Maybe you should consider Propaganda . Money controls knowledge or does that make sense.
        Who are you kidding. Jungle deforestation is caused by nothing more than greed. As far as bananas, Organic banana farming is being destroyed by none other than the Biotech Industries, they started by convincing farmers that they would get higher yields using Round up around there crops. lo and behold Soil fungus showed up around three years later. It was called a blight . The Banana plants were dying, naturally occurring of course. Someone needed to help save the bananas. Well what do you know coincidentally, someone had already engineered a GMO banana resistant to the fungus and roundup. HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY or Intentional plant Genocide to Control one of the largest food commodities in the world. If you have the patent and can convince or buy out the greedy corporate farmers you control the commodity for 150 years. So Buy GMO’s and support a Corporate Feudal system hidden in a fraudulent Democracy that’s subsidized by your tax dollars.

        • pyogenes

          Be against corporations all you want, but don’t pretend that the genetic modifications are the problem. I’m a biochemist, you are attacking my trade because you dislike capitalism. Find another scapegoat, go occupy another park in NYC, continue your ineffectual campaign without trying to actually gain any power to make any changes.

          • al

            Take off your blinders man. The company you work for owns everything you create, to do with as they wish, with no compete clauses and binding contracts. Not attacking what you do just saying it needs to go a lot slower, man makes mistakes , and you can’t positively tell me that GM can’t cause a future problems either. Some things aren’t apparent for three generations . We’ve lost control. Move like evolution so we have time to adapt. Teach people how to be self sustaining. It may not be the fastest way to go but it’s tried and true. If we could define what an honest profit was capitalism wouldn’t be in question either. I’m attacking the thing that abuses all our noble efforts. I’m sure you believe your doing the right thing. Any organization even churches are subject to individuals that want control . My primary focus is on a technology that happens to be one of the main things that will TAKE TOTAL CONTROL of AND LEGALLY OWN LIFE as we know it . There are irresponsible people that make the ultimate decisions to implement ideas may be good or Bad, based solely on perceived Profit. . I’m sure you’ve heard the Love of money is the GM root of all evil . The ridiculously wealthy Sociopaths the people that control these corporate entities should be put on notice. Got to admit buying up every seed company on the planet to Genetically alter and ultimately own every living thing is Suspicious. Whether it’s good to eat or not maybe a mute point ,besides that I don’t know what your doing to my food or my medicine that I make from plants. Are you going to Genetically alter my Garlic this year to remove it’s medicinal properties so I can’t cure myself. Not knowing ,not labeling, not trusting.

          • pyogenes

            Companies have patented seeds long before the age of GMOs. Most “natural” crops we eat are the result of chemical mutagenesis: since the 1920s, experimenting farmers have dumped radioactive compounds on their farms to develop new strains of crops. I’m not joking, go on wiki or whatever – cabbage/kale/kohlrabi/brocolli are all the same plant, bananas used to be inedible, corn used to be the size of your thumb. Almost every single kind of produce you ingest is a brand new species.

            Mutagenesis breeding is a blind shot in the dark: farmers had no idea what genes were being mutated. Pouring a mutagenic chemical over a crop causes a massive number of untold mutations, some of which might contribute to a bigger yield – if you mutagenize a field of a million crop, maybe a handful actually have positive gains. Take those better plants and cross them with the natural strain and you get a stable cultivar.

            Why are you willing to eat foods every day that have been heavily mutagenized by random methods, but not GMOs? GMO crops are heavily tested before release, and only contain a very small number of well characterized genetic mutations. If you think that “foreign” genes are bad, consider this: our genome is littered with foreign DNA. Viruses pick up genes and integrate them into the DNA of a host, so in bioinformatics you often will see a gene (for instance) in a rodent which very recently was transferred from an insect. DNA is only as harmful as the nucleic acid or protein product which it encodes for, and GMO scientists study the genes they put into new crops very intensely.

            tl;dr: “Natural” crops are filled with random mutations, GMO crops have a couple of well characterized mutations

            PS: Your argument appears to be mostly anti-capitalist. I encourage you to live in a country with non-capitalist ideals if you want to stop supporting PROGRESS.

          • al

            Since the 1920’s I agree things began to change, but it wasn’t Mister Green Jeans with a biotech lab in his basement and the chemicals he put on his plants were suggested by the scientist. Mr. Green Jeans had no Idea about Mutagenesis. If Radioactive compounds were used and I’m sure they were, guess who suggested that as well the scientist . Who was backing them. “Natural Mutagenesis is a blind shot in the dark” and so is Genetic engineering because you can’t tell me what the real effects, positive or negative, will be after three generation of humans. I prefer the random mutagenesis of mother nature.. “Natural crops are filled with random mutations, GMO crops have a couple of well characterized mutations” you mean like the one that takes over a Non GMO corn field so Monsanto can bankrupt the farm next door and take it over. That is not capitalism either, it’s much more like corporate Feudalism. I’m against control of the earth via bad intentioned Genetic Engineering.

        • You believe that? I have a bridge in Phoenix to sell to you.

        • Judy Nonarchi

          Oh, gads; this guy is not worth responding to; paranoia and conspiracy abound in his brain. Genocide, world control.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Uh, not quite, espeaks. Do some soil tests, do footprint tests for resources, and for tilled farming. It’s not all that “good” for the earth, especially when it takes a lot more land to grow the same amount of stuff. Not so great.

  • sethusathya

    Why do you have two FB pages Kavin Senapathy (split personality – do you eat organics but propogate GMO just because organics are costly?) and by the way your profession of Business Development Executive in Genome International Corporation proves your personal monetary business interest in promoting GMO.

    • Kavin Senapathy

      sethusathya – One is my personal Facebook page for my friends and family, the other is for my readers and followers. And as I’ve explained previously in my writing and on social media, my company is a *small* family business. We develop software and offer data analysis services, with applications in human health (like cancer) research and ag research. We don’t develop GMOs. I find it sad that when people see the word “genome,” they automatically assume GMOs. Demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the vast applications of genomics and genetics, development of GM crops being a minute fraction of a massive arena. I’m open about my employment, so it’s not as if you’ve done some brilliant sleuthing work.

      • sethusathya

        @kavin – I know the difference between Gnome and GMO. It’s your choice of profession you can pursue, practice, advocate and publicize while choice of food is personal. No need to spew venom on Organic and Natural way of agriculture and distribution. If you want to use science to help science illiterate people like me you may choose an individual benefit analysis rather than bashing. Again history has always proven, though taking it’s own time, who is relevant and who is not.

  • Not Duped Either

    It is impossible for mankind to balance all the literally infinite intricate forces at work in our bodies and in ecosystems when creating or forcing genetic modifications on any living being – whether it be a food source or not. To think otherwise is folly and hubris. There are reasons why the GMO community spends countless dollars on effectively hiding their tracks, and why big AG execs basically rotate in and out of legislative positions in our government to deceitfully tip laws that allow that track – hiding in their favor. The presence of a thing is often apparent by no more than its shadow.

    • pyogenes

      Why are you okay with “traditional” means of agriculture – mutagenesis breeding, hybridization, grafting – but against biotechnology? GMO crops are produced with expert knowledge of the genetic processes being manipulated, while “natural” crops have millions of untold genetic mutations.

      Brocolli, kale, kohlrabi, and cabbage are all the same plant (or at least they were, hundreds of years ago, before we started modifying them). Farmers have been “genetically engineering” foods by selective breeding methods for 3000 years, and farmers have been using highly mutagenic chemicals for 100 years. GMO plants are the next step in our progress towards sustainable agriculture.

      • al

        Eat what you wish, read what you wish , just know , Corporations aren’t entities for The Sociopaths of the world . The Media would never use half truths to influence or brain wash the masses.The US government (FDA)want’s to protect us, Money never influences Government or the Law. Bioengineering is a humanitarian effort developed to feed us all. Monsanto doesn’t want to modify or own every living thing on the planet. Intellectual property rights were designed to protect your ideas not profits for 150 years. Testing is never done by the companies themselves and never fast tracked by government regulatory agencies. Evolutionary changes that took more than1000’s of years aren’t being forced on us daily by GMOs. The opinions of individual honest writers never get away from the Media. Science isn’t corrupt. The discoveries scientist make don’t belong to the corporations, they wouldn’t bury an important discovery’s. It has been touted the love of Money is the root of all evil. We shouldn’t be concerned about a GMO ROOT. Most of all if more than three A** Holes freely offer an opinion that may benefit your health and well being ,with out profit ,never listen to the gas that’s passing. and last Know your being played . Choose carefully. Stupid is as stupid thinks.

        • Good4U

          al, I see you have captured the salient issues & talking points. The unfortunate thing is that you haven’t educated yourself, other than having viewed some TV shows put forth by entertainers like Dr. Oz, Food Babe, and the like, who take great pride in selling air time for their shows’ sponsors. Try getting an education first, then really learning something about agriculture and food production. Once you have accomplished that, take a trip outside your own comfortable surroundings and see what the world is really like in impoverished areas of the world where people are chronically starving. Check back with us in about 10 years, after having done some of those things, and let us know how ruefully stupid your above post really was.

        • Judy Nonarchi

          Al, there are meds for paranoia and conspiracy theorists.

      • Michael Newman

        Exactly! Where is the frankenfood outrage over grafted fruit trees?

      • Judy Nonarchi

        pyogenes, I’ve asked that same question here dozens of times. None of the organic guys will answer why they think the process of chemical and/or radiation mutagenesis is ok, what studies have been done to “prove them safe” (altho we know that in science and statistics, one cannot “prove” X is Y). They just won’t address it.

  • RollingMan

    You go right on ahead and confidently feed your dear ones processed food with whatever in it. We’ll feed ours fresh food from local organic farmers and gardens. Cheers!

    • pyogenes

      That’s great that you have the option to do so, but an important point to realize is that a lot of struggling families cannot afford organic. We need to embrace GM crops because they are a very valuable tool in the fight against malnutrition.

      GMO crops are nutritionally equivalent to, pose no greater risk than, and often have less applied pesticides than organic crops.

      • Mlema

        99% of the GMOs we’re growing are either pesticide-tolerant or pesticide-producing commodity crops that are used to feed animals, make biofuel, and manufacture food ingredients like corn syrup, starch, and various oils. If feeding a struggling family sugary drinks and cereals, or mayonaise and corn chips is part of the “fight against malnutrition” I fail to see how.

        What we need is cheaper access to nutritious foods.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Oh, right. Look up the rates of e.coli in organic. But go ahead and munch away, and leave the rest of us in peace to eat what we want.

  • RJM

    US has lost almost 93% of biodiversity on corn seeds already due to GMO’s.

    There is an unseen future threat the lack of biodiversity creates. That is a situation in which highly specialized varieties are in an increased threat of extinction due to lack of enough biodiversity to fight a catastrophic events.

    Pests and weeds has adapted to and changed genetically to counter the gmo crop created initially to resist them. Pests and Weeds have been evolved to be ever more immune and aggressive by nature to counter the pest resistant and weed resistant GMO crops. So GMOs are indeed responsible for creating ever dangerous species never seen before in nature. Where will this end?

    Now 95% of the corn seeds in us are owned by monsanto.

    People who cultivate the native variety are in constant threat here in u.s of being sued by monsanto because pollen from patented gmo seeds contaminate native crops grown.

    Plus it has now been proven that in the long term the organic farming can catch up with productivity of GMOs.

    I hope that more independent research not influenced by vested corporate greed happen in this area to know more about GMO’s and their effect not only health wise but also to the sustainability.

    The harmful effects of GMOs are being slowly understood now through scientifc researches. Thre are researches which shows tumors in lab animals fed with GMO food.

    Organic cultivation is not just not using inorganic pesticide or fertilizers. It is also about ethical and sustainable agriculture. Agriculture is done in such a way which causes minimum damage to the environment.

    • pyogenes

      Actually, biodiversity of most cultivars has increased with the age of biotechnology. There are many different strains of most GE crops (soy being the glaring exception here). With GE technology, we have the capacity to grow crops in polyculture and with mixed genetics. When monocropping becomes a problem for yield, techniques will adapt to suit our needs.

      There are no negative health impacts exclusive to crops developed by biotechnological methods. Let me rephrase that. GMOs are undeniably safe for human consumption. Once more. GMOs are UNDENIABLY safe health-wise and no self-respecting educated anti-GM advocate would ever claim they are harmful. I say this because every single reputable scientific body around the world agrees with that sentiment: WHO (largest medical body), AMA (doctors of the US), FDA (the guys in charge of food safety), AAAS (the guys who publish the journal Science), RSM (an independent british group for human health), ASM (microbiologists of the US)… I can’t stress enough that anyone who says “GMOs cause cancer” will immediately lose all respect from any reader who doesn’t faithfully believe We have 30 years of studies, multigenerational and involving billions of patients, which have conclusively shown that GMOs are safe in the same way that the climate is changing.

  • Cassandra

    ALL that aside, America’s food industry (non “organic”) is DISGUSTING and the “I refuse to buy organic” attitude is very annoying. You are probably ok with buying low cost chicken, beef, and pork, where the tortured animals are miserably enslaved in feed lots never to see the light of day, but endure unfathomable amounts of pain. When you refuse to support food with values you are supporting this torture treatment of animals. Yes Whole Foods is overpriced, but at least it’s the one consistent chain where you can purchase meat that has been humanely raised. Your attitude sickens me, as you play a part in supporting the selfish, inhumane, agonizing treatment of animals because you think the word “organic” is a scam. How about wanting more for your kids and teaching them compassion. Teaching them to have a conscience. Teaching them to abandon the selfish, greedy mentality and to think about what they purchase at the store. Why don’t you teach them that YOUR additude, which forbids them to enter any natural Heath foods store, is WRONG and supports, as well as condones the unimaginable, unethical torture of animals, ALL because you’re too worried about about your wallet. You are the greedy one.

    • pyogenes

      Greed is good, and the only means by which we will progress as a society. Your feel-good compassion attitude works great on a hippie commune but it doesn’t build skyscrapers. Some of us like living a comfortable life without backbreaking labour. Give our farmers a break, they feed 7 billion people.

      • sethusathya

        @pyogenes – US Population is 330 MN. 7 BN is World Population. So you are one such retards in US who think that ONLY United States of America feeds the entire world and every one else is with begging bowls waiting for you to throw the food and show mercy. You also seems to be the one who sees the Hollywood movies and dreams that only US can save the world from Aliens attack. Wakeup before someone from so called poor 3rd world country takes away your job. They are doing to you what you did for the Native Indians and the earthworms.

        • pyogenes

          Why are you so angry? I’m not even from the USA. Anyway, GMOs are being developed which will significantly help third world farmers. There are even some GM crops (golden rice) which are provided to poor farmers for free by charitable biotech companies.

          • sethusathya

            Why I am angry? I am angry because many Indian farmer commit suicide due to the politics in agriculture that favors only the companies that make profit from chemical fertilizers and pesticides that help their shareholders to live in skyscraper. The GMO technology improvements have been restrained to support the weed killer, pesticides and fertilizer sales rather than increasing productivity by reducing the input while improving the soil quality. Politicization of creating power centers in Gnomic science has pushed Indian farmers to bankruptcy and suicide. But your comment tied both together as if giving a picture farmers live a happy live and allow them to live in skyscrapers, painting a wrong picture of real scenario on the ground. The farmers look upon scientists like you to guide them for a sustainable life over long time because for them agriculture is not a stock market business, its a way of living; definitely not to portray them equal to greedy Wall Street that hinges on day today trading profits.

          • Kavin Senapathy
          • sethusathya

            Here is the link for other side of it: Why should Monsanto denounce it’s own BT Cotton?
            Again my question is very simple – Do you support Science or support business based of science or support companies that just extract profit out of science regardless of how society benefits?

          • pyogenes

            You’re just buying into the anti-GM propaganda. Suicides among farmers of India are actually on the decline…

            Farmers choose to buy GM seeds because they work.

            Golden rice and other amazing new crops are provided to poor farmers for FREE by large biotech companies.

          • sethusathya

            I am not buying the anti-GMO rhetoric and not buying into corporate controlled ‘GMO feeds the world’ PR either. Golden Rice is good GMO. Please read my reply to Kavin. I don’t want advancement of science to be in control of few people sitting at Wall Street (or whatever street that has greedy stock players look for daily trading profits) and trading on the livelihood of people. I want the science to be in control of responsible and ethical scientists, farmers and business people with utmost transparency to sustainability so that I can leave a better world to my kids and grand kids.

          • If you’re concerned about large corporations I assume you boycott Whole Foods–public company with revenues about the same as Monsanto–and almost all organic food as 70% or more owned by Wall Street mega-businesses. Also about 45% of all studies on GMOs–more than a thousand studies–have been conducted by responsible ethical independent scientists. Facts matter.

          • sethusathya

            Jon – I did mention in my comment above that I am not buying into anti-GMO rhetoric. I hope it clarifies my position with respect to Wholefood as well. Opposing to greediness of Wall Street in controlling human living does not mean that I cannot buy anything from a company listed in Wall Street. Even some one who don’t like liberals or Mr. Obama is going to still stay in the country but to critically evaluate his performance than going out of the country. First one is called patriotism while the second one is treachery.
            I buy round-up from Monsanto but I don’t want to end-up only with round-up if I can use vinegar to control some of the weeds and I oppose if someone is going to patent vinegar or usage of Neem powder to kill some of the weeds. If any point about corporate ethics on GMO and sustainable business on agricultural science discussed / posted in this forum is going to taken offensive, then I am sorry, as an ardent supporter of good bio science I will persist and continue to post my thoughts.

          • Jon Entine

            There is no offense. I just don’t believe there is strong evidence of nefarious “corporate control” over agriculture, a familiar anti-GMO meme. There is less concentration in the ag business then the telephone industry, TV industry, computer industry and many others, and no one howls. Plus the Big Business organic industry far eclipses the size of the relatively tiny seed industry. So I don’t get this “greediness” meme. What’s greedy about making quality seeds that farmer’s voluntarily buy? FYI, glyphosate has been off patent for years, to need to buy from many perceived as the evil empire.

          • a20havoc

            The real greed is found in organic producers who routinely charge $1-2 more per unit on their products.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            And if you’re concerned about large corporations, I presume you will throw away your computer, because Apple and Microsoft are just a wee bit big.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            Nope. Not true about the alleged suicides, but they do make for a juicy story. Good for television, maybe.
            But true?

          • sethusathya

            Please read my comment fully. You must be on the ground to see the plight of small and marginal farmers there, who make more than 92% of total farming population. I have clear information and many individual stories with identified individuals on both failed and prospered farmers along with the method they region, produce they farm, average income etc. Do you have data to support your claim that the suicides are only alleged and never happened and it’s only juicy story by television?

        • Kavin Senapathy

          @sethusathya:disqus I’m Indian-American but travel to India frequently because much of my extended family lives there. I’ll assume you’re talking about India based on your name. Indian scientists have developed genetically modified crops that would thrive there. Unfortunately, opposition has prevented these from reaching Indian mouths. I believe that the Indian government and Indian scientists have a responsibility to their people to use these technologies.

          • sethusathya

            @Kavin – I respect the scientists who work on the building blocks of life (includes Gnome, Quantum Physics etc.) as the discoveries in these domain can make paradigm shift upwards for millions of lives. Only condition is it must be inclusive, sustainable, ethical and must be available to the needy without any qualification. The politics, corrupted by power, wants to have control over these life technologies so that their power can become absolute (and corruption will also become absolute). India is just one example of how political power want to play with livelihood of people by obstructing technology. By the way, do you know that subsidy given to high profit low per capita employment manufacturing sector is 30 times more than subsidy given to agriculture? Some scientists look only based on microscopic knowledge they have on the subject and refute any other outlook outside their ambit as nonsense driven intellectual arrogance. People are carried away by these few distorts and turn against the mainstream predominantly service oriented scientists. Only people with wisdom (not just the knowledge) of justice, value and ethics in the scientific community can take the cause forward. I am continuously looking, supporting and advocating for such good souls in the science and technology world, the least I could do to make the world better place when I depart. It is what I will be leaving to my next generation.

        • gmoeater

          Um, please do not use the word “retards” in that context. You insult parents of children with disabilities.

      • Farmer Sue

        Thank you.

  • Cassandra0113

    America’s food industry (non “organic”) is DISGUSTING and the “I refuse to buy organic” attitude is very annoying. You are probably ok with buying low cost chicken, beef, and pork, where the tortured animals are miserably enslaved in feed lots never to see the light of day, forced to endure unfathomable amounts of pain. When you refuse to support food with values you are supporting this torturous treatment of animals. Yes, Whole Foods is overpriced, but at least it’s the one consistent chain where you can purchase meat that has been humanely raised. Your attitude sickens me, as you play a part in supporting the selfish, inhumane, agonizing treatment of animals because you think the word “organic” is a scam. How about wanting more for your kids and teaching them compassion. Teaching them to have a conscience. Teaching them to abandon the selfish, greedy mentality and to ACTUALLY think about what they purchase at the store. Why don’t you teach them that YOUR additude, which forbids them to enter any natural Heath foods store, is WRONG and supports, as well as condones the unimaginable, unethical torture of animals, ALL because you’re too worried about about your wallet. You, in fact, are the greedy one.

    And if the big corporations had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they be more transparent?? Why does Whole Foods have no issue with total transparency? A slew of Heath problems HAVE been documented and will CONTINUE to arise. It’s comical that you think the evidence isn’t there. It’s like saying there is no truth to natural medicine (Or whole body health) as opposed to traditional MD’s who fill you up with prescriptions just to mask the real issue. We WILL see what GMO’s, pesticides, harsh chemicals, and toxic dyes (all of which are ABSENT or TRANSPARENT at Whole you see the pattern yet?) do to our bodies and it’s only a matter of time.

    Oh and for the record, several chemicals and additives in non-organic food are banned in Europe. Even Kraft Mac and cheese has a concise, understandable ingredients list…but they know they can get away with sh** thanks to the lazy, ignorant American consumer….take a look at the US version and tell me what ingredient you can actually pronounce? And this is not an anomaly.

    Go buy a box of organic blueberries (or raspberries) and a box of un-organic raspberries, and tell me what tastes better. POINTS MADE.

    • a20havoc

      Why are organic products more expensive than conventional products? Why don’t you want lower-income people to be able to afford your elitist fare? Why do you condemn poor people to consuming Popeye’s chicken, Doritos, Diet Dr. Pepper and other crap? You are enslaving them, inhumanely, in a prison of disease, obesity and early demise. Why are you so hateful toward them, and so supportive of the greedy, industrial organic production-mill?

      • Mlema

        If the bad, unhealthy food production wasn’t subsidized by our tax dollars because it all comes from big corporations with lots of lobby power, then the healthy organic stuff wouldn’t be so expensive. It’s not expensive because it’s organic, it’s expensive because that’s how the food corporations want it.

        • JoeFarmer


          Show me where “unhealthy food production” is subsidized in the 2014 Farm Bill, Mlema.

          You can’t.

          I’ve seen enough of your posts here and at biofortified to know that you’re either a complete idiot or an attention-seeker. Grow up.

          • Mlema

            Not sure why I take the time to reply to such a rude person, but: it’s actually more about crop insurance now:

            All the fast food joints and all the packaged foods in the grocery store are composed of or bulked up by commodities. This is where we subsidize. Sugar for soda pop, cereals, baked goods (in fact, everything in the US has sugar in it pretty much) and a lot of the sugar is from corn syrup. And soybeans for mayo, margarines, and more packaged goods. The typical US diet is unhealthy, and consists of products that incorporate our commodities: corn, soy, sugar beets, and alfalfa. If it doesn’t end up as food ingredients, it ends up as meat. So yeah, when we subsidize these commodities, we’re subsidizing the unhealthy diet they comprise. This isn’t to say we ought to be subsidizing vegetables. We need to revamp the whole system so that healthy food is as affordable and convenient as cheeseburgers at McDonald’s. But perhaps you prefer your happy meal. :)

          • JoeFarmer

            “Not sure why I take the time to reply to such a rude person, but: it’s actually more about crop insurance now…”

            Because having a backstop against farm failures is a bad thing?

            We wouldn’t grow so much corn and soybeans if people didn’t want meat. But they do.

            ” We need to revamp the whole system so that healthy food is as affordable”

            Who the Hell do you think you are to think that you can dictate dietary choices? The only reason you’re able to barf your ignorance all over the internet is because there is a support system of farmers and food processors that allows you to do that. Grow up.

          • Mlema

            It’s cheaper to buy a cheeseburger at McDonald’s than fresh broccoli which must then be prepared. This is artificial pricing that doesn’t reflect the real cost of production. I may not have a right to tell people what to eat – but epidemic obesity, heart disease and diabetes costs me too. Why should I pay to support commodity production, and then pay again because people couldn’t afford healthy food for their families? It’s the unhealthy food that’s cheap and widely available. I pay more for my healthy food because you want to eat cheap happy meals. How is that fair?

          • JoeFarmer

            And you still can’t point to these imaginary “subsidies” in the Farm Bill.

          • Mlema
          • JoeFarmer

            Can you read? I said, “2014 Farm Bill”.

          • Mlema

            Do you think there weren’t any last year? LOL

            Yes. I can read. But when it comes to comments like yours, I almost wish I couldn’t.

          • JoeFarmer

            Be a big girl, read the 2014 Farm Bill and tell me where the subsidies are.


          • Mlema

            wow. you really are a cornhole.

          • JoeFarmer

            So, can you read? Tell me where the subsidies are. I gave you a link.

          • Mlema

            I don’t know whether you understand this and are just trying to be tricky, or whether you’re just a cornhole as I suspect. But “direct payment” subsidies were curtailed last year, and now: subsidies are given in the form of supported crop insurance. So taxpayers take the hit and the farmers still have a guaranteed income. DON’T GET ME WRONG – farmers need support. But the way our farm bill works, it’s just bypassing the farmers and bolstering biotech/”big ag” – input costs keep going up and market prices go down. The farmers get squeezed and consumers pay more. Investors win.

            OK, now say something rude again, and be sure you don’t include anything of substance. Ready set go:

            (sorry JoeFarmer, you bring out the worst in me!)

          • JoeFarmer

            ” But the way our farm bill works, it’s just bypassing the farmers and bolstering biotech/”big ag”…”

            Nonsense. The largest cost in any midwest row crop operation is land rental/equivalent rental value, followed by plant nutrition. Seed cost is 3rd.

            Your statement makes about as much sense as saying homeowners insurance policy payments bypass the homeowner and go to the lumber industry.

          • Mlema


          • Mlema

            The original point was, and still is: the unhealthy American diet is the one that’s cheapest due to political/economic support.

          • JoeFarmer

            And your original point was incorrect. It still is.

          • Mlema

            Fine, you say it’s incorrect, but you offer no evidence against it. The typical American diet contains way more sugar and meat than doctors say is healthy. These are the commodities we subsidize in many ways. The cost of meat is artificially low in the US. And fresh organic produce is artificially high. That still is the case.

          • JoeFarmer

            If you want to make a claim, back it up with facts.

            There’s a reason you’re persona non grata at biofortified. And they’re really nice, patient people.

            I’m going to take the opportunity now to say that you’re an idiot. And you’re really fortunate to have something to eat every day due to the largess of American farmers. Every one of us feeds 155 idiots like you.

            You’re welcome.

          • Mlema

            Maybe you should get out of farming. It doesn’t sound like it’s very enjoyable for you.

            I have no hard feelings. I wish you well.

          • Farmer Sue

            Joe, maybe they should just stop eating, if they don’t appreciate the fact that we put food on their table …. wouldn’t break my heart.

          • hyperzombie

            And fresh organic produce is artificially high.

            It is not artificially high, it takes more land, more time and far more fuel to make Organic crops,, So pay up!

          • Mlema

            You ought to be paying $7 for your McDonald’s big mac, but because the government subsidizes your appetite for such disgusting fare, you will only pay – what – a few dollars?
            And the poor health of the US costs all taxpayers. YOU are the one that ought to “pay up”

          • Mlema

            The Farm Bill Still Gives Wads of Cash to Agribusiness. It’s Just Sneakier About It.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re an idiot.

          • Mlema

            You lack creativity. You ought to mix it up a little – add some new insults (you need lots of them in order to have a way to respond to all the comments to which you’re either unwilling or unable to form any cogent response).

          • JoeFarmer

            No lack of creativity on my part.

            I know not to waste time on idiots. And you’re an idiot.

          • Mlema

            OK. Thanks for your comment.

          • John Zohn

            FYI this is a link to the Farm Subsidy database that is tracked by the Environmental Working Group:

          • GonFishin

            Your whole line of thinking (Mlema) about food costs is ass backwards. I live on a set budget for food. It is not cheaper to buy a Mcburger over littletrees, and that’s a fact. Another fact, on my budget I sure as shyt could not afford twice to up to 10 tymes the cost for ‘organic’ and with everything I have studied it seems ‘organic’ has or will soon top out, so it won’t be getting any cheaper. While there is a few studies that show Lobbying power is prominent in getting laws passed there are also a few that show just the opposite like the one done following one of the biggest lobbyists out there, the Chamber of Commerce, which shows lobbyists have little to nothing to do with whether a not there is even a bill let alone a law. And as far as subsidising goes you really need to forget all you think you know about it and hit the books again.

          • Mlema

            Thanks for your suggestion. I’ll take it under advisement.

          • John Zohn

            You’ll have to excuse Farmer Joe’s rudeness it’s part of his OCD pathology. he also has the delusion that he is a busy farmer as spends countless hours every day bashing anyone that doesn’t worship the biotech industry like he does. Don’t take it personal, he can’t help himself!

          • Mlema

            I don’t know why I react the way I do to what’s nothing more than a passing, ethereal conversation. I think that I’m a bit OCD myself. Thanks for your comment.

            And sorry Farmer Joe! I should be able to take your meaningless insults like a grown up, as you’ve suggested. :)

          • Mlema

            I get a little OCD myself, so I can relate.

        • gmoeater

          Oh, good grief. Get a grip. Learn some economics and put down the woo-woo fairy duster.

          You really believe organic is healthier, despite all you’ve read. Well, go ahead and eat it then. It’s your money.

          And back off the anti-corporate paranoia.

          • Mlema

            I believe that most organic is healthier than most conventional. But there are exceptions. I’m not naive about corporate motivation – I put people first.

  • Cassandra0113

    America’s food industry (non “organic”) is DISGUSTING and the “I refuse to buy organic” attitude is very annoying. You are probably ok with buying low cost chicken, beef, and pork, where the tortured animals are miserably enslaved in feed lots never to see the light of day, forced to endure unfathomable amounts of pain. When you refuse to support food with values you are supporting this torturous treatment of animals. Yes, Whole Foods is overpriced, but at least it’s the one consistent chain where you can purchase meat that has been humanely raised. Your attitude sickens me, as you play a part in supporting the selfish, inhumane, agonizing treatment of animals because you think the word “organic” is a scam. How about wanting more for your kids and teaching them compassion. Teaching them to have a conscience. Teaching them to abandon the selfish, greedy mentality and to ACTUALLY think about what they purchase at the store. Why don’t you teach them that YOUR additude–which forbids them to enter any natural health foods store–is WRONG and supports, as well as condones the unimaginable, unethical torture of animals, ALL because you’re too worried about about your wallet. You, in fact, are the greedy one.

    And touching on another one of the heinous claims you made–if the big corporations had nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they be more transparent?? Why does Whole Foods have no issue with total transparency? A slew of health problems HAVE been documented and WILL continue to arise. It’s comical that you think the evidence isn’t there. It’s like saying there is no truth to natural medicine (Or whole body health) as opposed to traditional MD’s who fill you up with prescriptions just to mask the real issue. We WILL see what GMO’s, pesticides, harsh chemicals, and toxic dyes (all of which are ABSENT or TRANSPARENT at Whole you see the pattern yet?) do to our bodies and it’s only a matter of time.

    Oh and for the record, several chemicals and additives in “non-organic” foods are banned in Europe. Even Kraft Mac and cheese has a concise, understandable ingredients list…but they know they can get away with sh** fillers and additives thanks to the lazy, ignorant American consumer….take a look at the US version and tell me what ingredient you can actually pronounce? This is not an anomaly. You can feed your family whatever you want but why on earth would you put fake food in their mouths when you could be nourishing them with the REAL, whole version? Why fill them with ingredients you’ve never heard of or cannot cook with yourself? There is NO reason or excuse for this and it is ALL connected. It is ALL either natural or fake, organic or un-organic, healthy or detrimental. It cannot be both.

    And if you still don’t get it, just go buy a box of organic berries (blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, whatever) and a box of un-organic berries, and tell me what tastes better. I think that says enough on it’s own.

  • truth

    This article is beyond retarded.

    • pyogenes

      Why on Earth would a cogent, well-presented and heavily sourced article be “beyond retarded”? Please, enlighten me on which points in particular you take issue with.

  • Good4U

    I refuse to buy anything labeled “organic”. It is a marketeering scam, regardless of whether you just don’t know it or don’t want to believe it. Do you have any experience with farming or food production in any way? If not, let me know so that I can help you to understand these issues in a non-confrontational manner.

    • Judy Nonarchi

      Me too. I don’t want to pay MORE for the hype of “organic pesticides” when no one checks for what pesticides are used. And I certainly don’t want the risk of e.coli contamination, much much higher in organic foods when improperly composted manure is used.

  • Good4U

    Not only are you wrong about me on everything (no one pays me anything for anything I write on these topics), you are nothing more than a foul tempered, scum mouthed type of miscreant who deserves no response from me.

    • Humanswillbefree

      Good job you GMO TOOL:) Go lick your MASTERS BOOTS. Keep F’n your fellow humans and see where that gets you. What goes around comes around.

      • Robin

        I feel for you Michael. He evidently cares more about how good he feels than about the Earth since proof that organics doesn’t work is just met with “muh shills” rather than change or even reflection on it.

    • Michael Newman

      This guy has already blown any credibility with the public at large with this forum train-wreck. I wonder how many “shills” he runs into in real life? Looks like everyone except him is a shill in the forums.

  • Joy


    • BioSciNerd

      Ask yourself, what does a person with a background in computer science and artificial intelligence know about GMOs? Or to put it another what, what do I, a plant scientist, know about artificial intelligence?

  • Joy


  • Joy

    I am from South Africa and I cannot believe that ANY sound thinking parent would reason like the person who wrote this article.
    I am also a qualified Kindergarten and Primary School teacher and I see how children behave that miss out on basic bad chemical free food that was grown ORGANICALLY and by design in nature.
    It is really shocking to hear people who are parents can be so ignorant about basics.

    • hyperzombie

      No crops were designed by Nature, they were designed by Man for man…. I can believe that you are a teacher and don’t know this…

    • Mary M.

      I am from Kansas, USA – and have raised a happy, healthy family while growing GMO crops. My children grew up playing next to…walking through…working in fields of biotech grain their whole lives. They are college educated today and doing their best to make the world a better place. How dare you call me ignorant for knowing the benefits of biotechnology.

      • Mlema

        But did they actually eat them? Not trying to be rude (I know it sounds that way) but most GMOs are grown for animal feed, or extracts like corn starch, oils, etc.

        • Mary M.

          Well, we raise purebred Simmental cattle. They spend much of their lives eating the GMO grain we grow in addition to pastureland. Look in your kitchen cupboard and discover how many items include corn syrup, corn starch, corn powder, corn sugar, soy oil, canola oil, etc.

          • Mlema

            So, your children eat corn syrup, corn starch, corn powder, etc – so they’re probably eating GMO extracts. But they’re not actually eating the GMO grain you’re growing.

            Please don’t misunderstand. I’ve eaten my share of all these ingredients as well. And it sounds like your kids are healthy and very intelligent. But that doesn’t reflect on the issues of pesticides that Joy may be talking about. Pediatricians recommend reducing pesticide exposure – especially for small children. One way to do that is to avoid non-organic produce. Organic produce has fewer pesticide residues, and those it has are typically less toxic.

            I don’t think this reflects negatively on your farm. It’s just about the food supply. Many of the ingredients that come from GMOs aren’t that healthy anyway. Doctors have recommended that we reduce our sugar intake, for example.

            Your farm sounds awesome. I bet it’s a beautiful place.

          • Mary M.

            The GMO grain we produce feeds our livestock. I do roast our soybeans in olive oil and season them with garlic powder for a delicious snack! Those in agriculture have to follow strict guidelines when it comes to spraying chemicals on crops. No one wants to get sick….that includes those of us raising families and growing crops. Farmers calculate the best time to apply necessary hebicides. Weather, wind and soil conditions are all taken into account. The end result…the actual ear of corn…pod of soybeans are as safe and as nutritional as those plants organically grown.

          • Mlema

            “The end result…the actual ear of corn…pod of soybeans are as safe and as nutritional as those plants organically grown.”

            That would have to be determined in a lab. If they’re GE soybeans, they’re probably not as nutritious. And if you used pesticides to grow them, the safety is measured in relative terms. This is no reflection on you or your farm. And certainly not the health of your children, which is apparently very good (for which I am grateful, as yourself).

            Best wishes.

          • What’s the empirical basis for your claim that GE soybeans are not as nutritious? What is the empirical basis of your claim that any GE crop poses relatively higher safety concerns? What about Bt crops which receive almost no insecticides–they are clearer safer than non-GMO? And of course your must know GE corn has a much lower incidence of mycotoxins than non-GMO and organic versions, so the GE versions in that case are demonstrably safer. I’ve not seen one study even suggesting that GE crops pose any safety issues; there are many that indicate a higher degree of evidence. Please respond with evidence… Not just opinion about chemicals below effect tolerances or cherry picked pay for play single studies.

          • Mlema

            Jon, have you deleted some of my comments in the past? They seem to not post from time to time. For instance, I had posted a reply comment to Mary M. in that same spot a month ago. What happened to it?

          • Mlema

            Jon, even though you haven’t answered, and have let stand a comment from FarmerJoe that consists of nothing more than “Mlema’s an idiot” (his only comment in the conversation wherein he made that comment) – I’ll try to answer your demands anyway.

            (Seriously – what gives? Oh well, it helps to reveal the level of discourse on this site)

            First of all, pesticides are toxic. So without some lab analysis, and some measurements of a comparable organic – it’s a simple assertion of belief for ANYONE to say any given ear of corn or pod of soybeans is as “safe” as one grown organically.

            So, I’m sure you’ll provide me with reputable side by side comparison as I’ve just described to show exactly the level and nature of pesticide residue on those individual crops. (right?)
            (See also Alexis Spina’s recent post and my replies to her.)

            As far as comparable nutrition:
            Monsanto says:
            “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans.”

            But independent researchers examining the very same soybeans found:
            “Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans”
            “We analyzed the phytoestrogen concentrations in two varieties of genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans and their isogenic conventional counterparts grown under similar conditions. An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14% was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains…”

            So, I have to wait for further examination from independent scientists on each component that Monsanto CLAIMED was equivalent. Or, perhaps here again you will provide me with the actual side-by-side comparison of nutrients.

            Here’s another study, which you were probably thinking of when you demanded various strictures on which studies I could show you regarding nutrition difference:
            Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans
            Industry proponents cried and complained about that one, but there’s no real justification for discarding it.

            Anyway, I’ll await your own references to nonpartisan studies which show that GMO corn or soy is “safer” and “nutritionally equivalent” to non-GMO. (No industry studies please – as I’ve illustrated above, they are a little loose with “substantial equivalence”)

          • Mlema

            Oh, and your question: “What is the empirical basis of your claim that any GE crop poses relatively higher safety concerns?”

            – Misquotes me. It depends on a number of factors. What I said was: “That would have to be determined in a lab … if you used pesticides to grow them, the safety is measured in relative terms”

          • Mary M.

            This HAS been determined in a lab… Many labs! See for a listing of independent studies on GMOs.

          • Mlema

            Mary, I’ve spent plenty of time reading studies in GENERA (biofortied’s “list” of studies)-they’re not all independent. Most of them aren’t about safety or pesticides. Most feeding trials simply determine if the animals who will be eating the crops remain healthy (don’t lose weight, bear normal offspring) If you’d like to link me to the studies you believe have been done to show that GE and non-GE soy are the same, I will read them.

            Monsanto says:
            “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans.”

            But independent researchers examining the very same soybeans found:
            “Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans”
            “We analyzed the phytoestrogen concentrations in two varieties of genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans and their isogenic conventional counterparts grown under similar conditions. An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14% was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains…”

            Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans

    • BioSciNerd

      “I see how children behave that miss out on basic bad chemical free food that was grown ORGANICALLY and by design in nature.”

      There are so many problems with that statement I hardly know where to begin. You, as a single observer, cannot hope to make a causal connection between the behaviour of children and whether they’re eating an organic diet or not. What you’re describing is anecdotal, not empirical evidence. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that diet can greatly impact a child’s behaviour. But I’m talking about having a nutritious meal versus candy bars and energy drinks. Also, essentially NONE of the food is “designed in nature”. Pretty much everything you consume has been developed by humans. They are no wild corn plants. No wild kale. No wild cows.

  • FairlandGoddess

    wow! You have obviously never step foot on a real organic farm, where they use ZERO pesticides. Or been to central America where cancer rates increased dramatically because they are consuming mostly GMO corns, 3 meals a day, I might add. And farmers are forced to grow GMO. You are most welcome to do whatever you want, but please DO NOT insult organic farmers around the world. I know plenty of organic famers personally, they would be heart broken seeing your insult on their practices.

    • either have you as no organic farmer other than the backyard variety uses zero pesticides. Not one. Nor have you been to Argentina or read a genuine study in a first rate journal on this… because it’s a fiction.

    • Larkin Curtis Hannah

      Please appreciate that greater than 99% of the pesticides in a plant are produced by the plant. Some of these, like cyanide, are extremely toxic. Give me BT over cyanide any day. And by the way, organic farmers DO spray on BT as well as use other pesticides.

    • hyperzombie

      Only one country in Central america grows GMOs and their cancer rate is going down ( Honduras)

      A list of approved Organic pesticides and their effect on bees

    • Farmer Sue

      You’re talking about gardening, not farming.
      And “farmers are forced to grow GMO” — ??? really??? We CHOOSE to buy GE seeds, dearie.
      You may be a goddess in your own mind, but you don’t know nothin’ about farming.

  • Deviljho

    You are one of my favorite columnists. Thank you for this article.

  • Brooke

    I beg to differ with your argument. Although I do not eat organically all of the time, I do believe it is the better choice for my body, the environment, and the animals on the farms. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but I think your argument is pathetic and weak. First, I’d like to point out that you try to use facts about how “organic is a lie” but then fail to complete your argument with actual statistics. You wrote, “organic food is no more nutritious than its conventional counterparts.” I have evidence that it actually is more nutritious. A study was done on wheat grown in manure versus wheat grown in fertilized soil. The results stated that the wheat grown in manure had higher levels of vitamin A than the wheat that was grown in fertilized soil (from page 7 of the book “Food Science and Nutrition” by Diane Bourn and John Prescott). You also say, “organic produce shows pesticide residue in laboratory tests.” Well, where are these laboratory tests that you are getting this info from? I’d love to ponder them. And, “scientific consensus agrees that GMOs are safe.” Where is this “scientific consensus?” I’d also like to point out that you say you’d buy organic bananas if the conventional fruit was too green or you’d buy the organic cookies if they were on sale but then you go on to say, “supporting this industry with my family’s money is like personally hindering scientific progress.” So technically, you are supporting organically grown food. I’d like to give a big KUDOS to you for never stepping foot in a Whole Foods, that’s great but you really don’t know what you’re missing. It’s like food heaven. In your Whole Foods rant, you try to make it sound like Whole Foods is FORCING people to shop at their stores when really it is just a personal choice. Shopping at Whole Foods or any other organic food mart is like shopping at any other food store. It’s just a personal preference. No one is forcing you to shop anywhere.
    It also comes to my understanding that you use a lot of big words in this article to disguise the fact that your opinion on organic food is not entirely credible and the irrelevance of your opinion on organic food actually makes me laugh.

    • Good4U

      Brooke, about your manure thing…..where do you propose to obtain all the manure that it would take to grow enough “organic” food to feed 7 billion people? Are you proposing that we grow a lot of bulls for the purpose of securing their manure so that we can use it for organic agriculture? Your post constitutes evidence that bulls are an excellent source of manure. I look forward to hearing more manure ideas from you.

  • SkulloManiac

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! This is a magnificent article!

  • tofucatnip

    God help us….

  • theking

    “the overwhelming scientific consensus agrees that GMOs are safe” Yes because the overwhelming scientific consensus is so reputable. Lets get one thing straight, 99.99% of the world’s scientists are complete idiots and get it wrong all the time. The number of quality engineers and scientists who actually know what theyre talking about is close to 0.001% of the entire world’s population of scientists. So this isnt saying much. It was also said that Tylenol was safe until the hard evidence poured in over 50 years that even small amounts have been responsible for irreversible liver damage. The problem with geneticists and most scientists, is that they are largely completely clueless about science. How anyone can tout genetic and food engineering when the scientific community has zero understanding about nature and still very little understanding about the full workings of the vastly complex and unseen, currently unknown processes of the human body is both academically dishonest and foolish at best (we have barely a clue even how the human brain works). Geneticists today still dont even have a clue how genetics works, and will be the laughing stock 50 years from now when people look back and realized how pathetically dim our current understanding of science is. The common sense thing for now is don’t screw with nature if you can avoid it, because it knows better than you, and give people the freedom to be informed and make their own choices. But common sense is a tough nugget of gold to find when it comes to engineers. Lastly I wanted to point out that you are missing the main issue which is not the debate about whether or not genetic engineering is scientifically safe. The main issue is that humans especially corporations are UNTRUSTWORTHY to make anything safe for the public, even if it could be. Therefore we should not be permitting it at all, if there is no NEED to do it and genetically modifying food and crops are not necessary.

    • gmoeater

      Ah, the anti-corporate conspiracy rant. Compelling.

  • You_Can_Block_Me_But_I’ll_Get

    I love how liberals pick and choose which science they want to believe. Global warming they are in 100%, (except for giving up their cars, or hearing about the scientific method of dissent) GMO’s? Nope they are the incarnation of evil (except they want to send a whole bunch of food aid to Africa) But if we send condentional does that mean we are killing them?

  • No consensus yet

    Some good points here, but overly simplified and fanatical. This debate reminds me of atheists and religious people. They often end up launching their own crusades and fail to see the larger picture. GMO, as most issues, would benefit from people who are not always so sure of themselves. Be an skeptic, yes. But be humble and recognise your ignorance. There is no scientific consensus on GMO safety yet and you probably don’t know enough to speak about it. Ultimately, keep real science alive; don’t turn it into an end.

  • julio

    Those against organics can suffer through their beliefs.
    Best of luck, helping Mosanto, who probably wrote or supported the poor woman making her kids eat non-organic. The poor children may pay later for perscription .drugs because they believed their parents. Eat what you want, believe what you want, and live in peace. But help others to let your kids make the choice by supporting and educating them.

  • Yves Champollion

    I agree there’s abuse in the use of “organic”, “grass-fed”, etc. words. Now for the maths. If a child needs 500 servings of food X to get sick, the question turns into: is that harmful substance accumulated in the body, or it is flushed away? If it’s accumulated, then there IS a problem. See the point? So much for the maths. My final take is statistics. Going organic is no guarantee that you’ll never eat something harmful. But is has statistical reality: you will – on the average over a long period – eat healthier (and pricier!). Now I agree on one point: there are profiteers of the “healthy/organic/bio” craze, and exposing them to keep the whole thing reasonably honest is a must. Keep fighting.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Where exactly is the evidence that organic produce is healthier than conventional produce? Or GM produce, for that matter?

      When I look at organic, all I see is the routine bacterial disease outbreaks from crops that were grown improperly that happen every month, sickening people.

      One of the most recent being listeria contamination with organic spinach.

      • gmoeater

        Sterling, that’s exactly the reason I avoid organic food whenever I can. Also, Organic groupies can look up the mycotoxins from the corn borer, if they want a fun read about how inadequate corn borer pest control can lead to human health risks.

  • Humanswillbefree

    For ALL the GMO lovers on this thread, if GMO are so great as many here claim, why don’t they label where they are? Why do they spend a 100 million blocking labeling if this technology is as great as you say it is? Organic foods have to be labeled. Thee exact same foods containing GMO’s are labeled overseas. Let us all know why not here in AMERICA?

  • Tiffanie Wilson

    I agree with Kavin 100% but I take a sort of evil pleasure in purchasing clearance organic food. In my head, evil voice is saying hahahaha, take that you organic shits, 50cents for your $4.00 soup!!

    • Mlema

      yeah baby! I got a bunch of cans of delicious organic beans – all kinds and mixtures – for 1$ each. (that’s still expensive I guess when you can buy bulk organic beans for next to nothing full price – but the cans are so much easier) :)

  • maerlyn138 .

    The problem isn’t that GMO’s are safe or not. It’s that monsanto engineers these seeds so the farmer HAS to buy thier specially made pesticides so the crop will grow. If fact I think the farmer is obligated whether he wants to or not. This amounts to some shitty buisiness practices and feels like extortion to me. Monsanto is a bad bad company

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Except for the fact that glyphosate went off patent back in 2002, meaning you can buy off-brand glyphosate from various places.

    • Good4U

      You don’t know very much about agriculture, and you certainly know nothing about growing herbicide resistant crops. Growers who use Monsanto “engineered seeds” do not have to buy “specially made pesticides [you mean glyphosate] so the crop will grow”. Crops grown from the seeds would grow just fine without any glyphosate. It’s just that the weeds would have to be controlled somehow. Before the Roundup Ready + glyphosate system became available, growers used other herbicides and tillage systems to control the weeds. Tillage systems for weed control involved tractor mounted cultivators plus a lot of physical labor. Typically you would see crews of low income people, mostly women and/or children, out in the field laboring under a hot sun for many hours every day. Given your present lifestyle, where you have a lot of free time to bang away at your computer and spout off against some “bad bad company”, it’s not something you would want to do, but if you’re going to eat, somebody has to grow your food. Just in case you really want to understand what I mean, you should try growing all of your own food for a year or two. I don’t mean just a backyard hobby garden. I mean you have to produce all of your food, for you and for your whole family, or else you starve to death. You would learn a lot, and you would come away from it with a whole different attitude.

    • Farmer Sue

      maerlyn, you’re nuts. Farmers make purchasing decisions in tha fall. They consider many, many factors. Your assertion that “the farmer is obligated whether he wants to or not” is absurd. We CHOOSE GE seeds because of increased yields, less weeds and bugs, less pesticides, and less fossil fuel used by our tractors.

      Talk to a farmer.
      Talk to a farmer.

      Talk to a farmer.

  • Bob

    Genetic Literacy Project? So the author works for a GMO company. Sorry you “opinion” is bought and paid for, and thus worthless!

  • Amy

    What about the fact that organic food does taste better? I have no scientific evidence on this but I have gone back and forth between the two and over and over, organic produce (and beef, for the meat eater in my fam still) tastes amazingly better. I have tried this out on many items. I can’t help but wonder why…

  • Juraj

    “judgmental false dichotomy that non-GMO and organic foods are somehow healthy and wholesome, while regular old food is junk.”
    What do you mean by “regular old food”? Food that our parents or grandparents were eating or new genetically modified food? There is a big difference between those and “regular old food” is what you want to eat to stay healthy and have healthy children. If you don’t care about your and your children’s health, go for it and eat GMOs. More power to you!

  • I live in Austin, and shop at the flagship Whole Foods regularly. Considering all of the non-organic, unhealthy, clearly GMO options it offers, I have disagree with the characterization that Whole Foods is perpetuating some food-based class system. Is it elitist? Maybe. I think that label would be more appropriately attributed to the people who shop there and make it into something it isn’t. I like going there for the things I can’t find anywhere else and really enjoy. If you want to take Whole Foods, Trader Joes, et. al to task for something, let’s talk about the fact that they won’t build in neighborhoods that aren’t rolling in money. The Trader Joes locations that have come to Austin aren’t easily accessible by bus; in fact, the first one they built is in a wealthy neighborhood that doesn’t have sidewalks or bus stops anywhere near the store. I think that speaks more about each company’s view of consumers than what they offer in their stores.

    • Elizabeth, you seem to assume that foods that are “non organic” are less healthy than conventional foods, particularly those grown from genetically modified seeds. No major science organization in the world believes that is true. There is no evidence that organically grown food is either healthier for humans or for the environment. What is the source of your beliefs?

      • Considering that I didn’t say anything remotely like that, I have to wonder if you are smoking something. Also, I have to wonder if you’ll share, because that shit must be good. :/

        I used the “non-organic”, unhealthy, clearly GMO-options” line to make a point about what Whole Foods offers to refute the the article writer’s claim about what they sell, and perhaps to provide some context. Talk about making an argument where there isn’t one. I mean, what’s healthy about greasy pizza? Is it delicious? Quite. Healthy? Not at all, and yet, Whole Foods sells it. They also sell non-organic food and foods that aren’t marked as non-GMO. So again, your response makes absolutely no sense.

        • Good4U

          I can’t stand the smarmy, touchy-feely “experience” at Hole Foods. Nothing but a bunch of marketeers selling “organic” bullcrap to rich and self-absorbed airheads that think they’re “green”. They (hopefully not you, but you appear to be one of them) don’t have a clue as to what “going green” really means.

          • Mlema

            This conversation with Elizabeth shows that many of the commentators here don’t really read what they’re replying to very carefully. Instead, they attempt to pigeonhole the comment as either being “pro” or “anti” whatever the argument du jour may be, and then they go ahead and insult the person based on how they’ve pigeonholed the comment.

            I think this illustrates a cognitive “shortcut” in these conversations. If the issues are too complex to be addressed in a black and white manner, the commentators brain simply blinds itself to the real content of the comment its replying to and replies to one it constructs that easy to categorize as either “I am with you” or “I am against you”.

          • Then don’t go to Whole Foods. Easy peasy. Why do dumbasses always whine about things they don’t like, as though someone is forcing it on them? I’m asking because you have made it clear that you are a dumbass, and an asshole, to boot.

      • Mlema

        there is evidence that organic foods are healthier – if you consider less pesticide residue, and less toxic pesticide residue as healthier. I do. As to the environment, I think there’s a broad range of “bad for” – that includes just about all agriculture. But, over time, properly done organic increases the health of the soil. Conventional ag rarely does that.

        • Farmer Sue

          Ya got it exactly 180 degrees backward. Organic has a bigger footprint for same yield. GE crops have much higher yields, less weeds and bugs (that can harm neighboring farms, including organic), less tractor passes equalling less fossil fuels, less tilling of the soil, less toxic pesticides.

          Talk to a real farmer if you want to learn something about the land and its stewardship.

          Or, if you think ag is “bad for” the planet, please stop eating.

          • Mlema

            People don’t generally eat the GE crops you’re talking about. They’re fed to meat animals, are used for biofuel or for ingredients in foods I don’t personally eat. So you can stop growing them and I’ll be just fine – in fact better – since there won’t be as many pesticides in my water.

          • Good4U

            Bzzzt! Wrong. People surely do eat biotechnically modified (GE in your terminology) crops. They eat them all the time. I eat them, and my family eats them. We like them. We want more.

          • Mlema

            which GE foods are you eating “all the time”? GE squash? papaya? bt sweet corn or eggplant (I doubt it)

            What do you and your family like about them? Please be specific.

    • JoeFarmer

      Whole Foods is the grocery store for the self-absorbed. That’s it.

      • Judging by this comment, you shop there all the time. Cheers.

        • JoeFarmer

          I’ve never set foot in one and don’t intend to. Don’t like the concept, don’t like the corporate leadership.

          I’ll bet you’re not an Austin native. You just moved there because you thought it would be cool.

    • science teacher

      Yup, Elizabeth. Ya got it.
      And based on hype.

  • Also, I’ll never give up organic bananas. They taste better than conventional bananas. No idea of why that is, but it’s true. Outside of the better taste, there is no benefit to eating them.

    • hyperzombie

      What? Organic bananas are the very worst thing out there for deforestation. Bananas suffer for a fungal infection that kills the plant, so the only way to grow Organic bananas is to find some virgin rain forest, chop it down so you can grow Organic bananas for a couple of years till the fungus shows up. Then it is off to a new piece of virgin rain forest…

      Now that you know this are they just as delish?

      • Yes. You mad? Self-righteousness is never a good look, especially considering that everyone does something that harms something/someone everywhere all the time. Also, producers of conventional bananas are guilty of contributing to deforestation, as are a whole host of other “nefarious” fruits and products. The solution? Give it all up, of course. Never mind that the problem will continue, or be replaced by something else.

        I will never understand the utter stupidity of random people on the internet.

        • hyperzombie

          Personally I don’t care. If you want to eat organic bananas go ahead, I just wanted you to be aware that they lead to deforestation, unlike conventional bananas that can be grown on the same land year after year.
          Oh, and I am not mad or angry, just want to inform you of the facts.

          • There is no difference between the demands of growing conventional bananas and organic. You made that up. And you cared enough to come at me with a flawed argument, so, what now ?

          • hyperzombie

            Yes there is.

          • Farmer Sue

            ???? weird thinking, Elizabeth. Puh-leeze talk to a farmer.

            A farmer knows darn well that conventional (which for a number of crops now includes genetically engineered crops like canola and sugar beets) uses MUCH less tractor fuel, less compacting of the soil, less tilling of the soil.
            Please don’t get your information from Dr. Oz, who knows squat about farming and could care less about those of us who feed you.

          • Good4U

            Elizabeth, he didn’t make it up. You don’t know much about bananas. I do. Organic bananas can’t be grown in areas where conventionally grown bananas are grown because of black Sigatoka, moko, nematodes, and other diseases that aggressively attack conventionally grown bananas, and which must be controlled with pesticides. Otherwise there would be no bananas. “Organic” bananas are en environmentally destructive food, which are offered to rich, airy-fairy consumers with too much money and too few brains. Study up, you might learn something.

          • A proud graduate of Google University, everybody.

  • David Jones

    huhn? wow. crazy.. I lost so much weight eating whole organic foods

  • georgie

    You speak like a fool….with merely an opinion devoid of fact..u Must be associated on some level w.the Monsterantos… gmos have NOT been proven safe….it’s too soon 2tell. Boy, any fool can pass off opinion disguised as fact….reckless

    • Farmer Sue

      Too soon. O – kaaaaaaay ….. how long? 100 years?

      How about mutageneciallly-produced organic food? You okay with that? Safe enuf fer ya? “Proven safe” ? (there is nothing in the world that can be “proven safe,” or “proven anything,” as you would know if your head wasn’t down on your desk snoring after lunch in your high school science class)

      Because you loathe Monsanto, you loathe the technology. Wow.Deep thinking.

      • Farmer Sue

        Come on, georgie — answer my question about mutagenesis.

        By the way, have you EVER talked to a farmer?

        Of course not.

    • agscienceliterate

      Uh, duh…. NOTHING can be “proven” to be safe.

      Basic fact of science and statistics; you cannot prove that X is Y. You can only show with reasonablle likelihood that is highly unlikely that X is not Y.

      It’s how science works.

  • georgie

    One question remains unanswered…IIF GMOS ARE SAFE, WHY IS MONS(TER) ANTO against labeling/removing our freedom 2no, choose? Sad no comments on being repulsed by the lies we’re fed by medical-pharmaceutical-governmnt (one in same)? Allowing pesticides thus the need for organic? Their marketing scare-tactics convincing people 2get children vaccinated..pushing drugs? That’s normal…but organic? Chemical synthetic free ? That’s crazy???

    • gmoeater

      Georgie, you have freedom. Buy organic. Buy certified non-gmo. (I just saw non-gmo popcorn the other day — hahaha — there IS no gmo popcorn variety, so it’s just labeling hype, but who cares if it sells, right?)

      You have quite a bit of conspiracy thinking going on, so your perspective is very understandible. But your conspiracy theories run smack into the brick wall of science, so unless you love cognitive dissonance, one of the two will have to go. Sigh; it will probably the science that will go …..

    • Farmer Sue

      Georgie, labels are for nutritional and allergenic reasons. How a genetically engineered food is produced doesn’t belong on a label if the end product is nutritionally the same as non-gmo.

      Anymore than you would insist on a number of organic and conventional foods being labeled for their production method, using chemicals and / or irradiation (mutagenesis; look it up).

      Vaccinations aren’t about “pushing drugs.” They’re about keeping my kid (who gets vaccinated) from being exposed to your unvaccinated kid, all because of your irrational fears and conspiracy theories.

  • Warren Lauzon

    I have been inside a Whole Foods once, a couple of years ago. I instantly recognized that I was in the wrong place when I walked by the book and publications racks, and even more so when I saw the large amount of “woo medicines” (mostly homeopathic crap) on the shelves. A very large percentage of their books, DVD’s, and the like are devoted to some of the weirdest new age junk science ever published.

  • gmoeater

    I go into my local “health” foodie store when I want to buy ghee (a yummy clarified butter), but have to do eye-rolls at the fake advertising about organic figuting cancer, being more “natural” (WTF does that mean?), being better for the environment (so not the case!!!), and after I grab my jars of ghee, I have to look at Dr. Oz and the Food Boob mags at the checkout counter.

    Nothing about mutagenesis of organic food. Nothing about organic e.coli contamination from improperly composted manure. Just pure expensive shiny hype.

    This is a whole culture of woo-woo. I guess I could order ghee on Amazon ….

  • Circaman

    But then….you are a shill.

    • gmoeater

      who, me?
      Actually, I pay for gmo foods when I can get them.

      But if you want to believe I get paid for my amazingly erudite words of wisdom, go right ahead and think that.

      What you think is none of my business.

      • Circaman

        GMO pays you and you pay them back……yet you have responsibility for what you create. Let’s see when the final report card comes in. In the meantime I am putting my money and my health on the other horse. I don’t care what you think about what I think. What will happen won’t be changed by any of that. I believe the future you have bet upon is not going to be the future……but I am not buttering your bread so you are not my shill.

        • gmoeater

          “GMO pays me “…….what do you mean? I pay for GE foods when I can get them. The dollar goes the other way.

          You can ride that other horse all you want.

          And it is obvious you don’t care what I think. That doesn’t increase credibility in your position.

          Yup, you got that right; I am not your shill.

          • Circaman

            You are in the biotech industry. Don’t you think that might color your view? When you talk of the credibility of my position, I don’t expect you to suddenly become a convert over the internet. Nor is this a debate. I am just not letting your ideas go without a peep. Do you think that you will suddenly say something that makes me abandon my policy of never buying anything if the words NON GMO aren’t on it. I also do not feel like posting a zillion articles from google that disagree with you. You are a biotechie. Good luck to you. I am not taking an inch of that road.

          • gmoeater

            I am in the biotech industry? Because I eat gmo foods? Does that mean if you eat organic foods you are part of the “organic industry” ?

            Of COURSE you will always avoid biotech. I wouldn’t try to change your, uh, mind.

            Your shill accusations are so tiring; ain’t ya got anything more creative to say?

          • Circaman

            My first remark was directed to the author of the piece. I took you for her. You answered as if I was talking to you and I can’t tell who you are by your gmoeater moniker. In which case I have no idea of your work but I would warn you against investing yourself in GMO products based on evereything I have read and digested in the literary sense. Your aspersions at my “mind” are however, rude and boorish. If you don’t mind I will leave you to your food and wish you best of luck in all that you do. (A moderate bow and an exit).

          • gmoeater

            You mistook me for Kavin? I am honored! Thank you!

            Your warnings are sweet, though. Bye.

  • Sarah

    The author’s job in biotech and a good portion of their GMO industry is likely negatively impacted by everyone switching to organic. She’s writing from her pocketbook, but not in the way you think. Organic goes beyond just being good for the consumer. Search organic regenerative agriculture and climate change to see how this type of soil, if used world wide could sequester almost all of our carbon emissions to stabilize if not reverse the impact of climate change, unless you are convinced that’s not real either.

    • JohnDoe

      That’s a convenient argument. Anyone that posts stuff opposing your views is a shill, so you can immediately discount whatever it is they are saying.

  • Mlema

    Equating whole foods (a retailer) with USDA organic (farming within specified rules which differentiate it from conventional ag) is apples to oranges.
    I do think the “natural” marketing scheme is a scam, but teaching your children that organic farming isn’t science-based is inaccurate. You’re not doing your children any great favor doing that.

    • Gritty

      It has NOTHING to do with her doing her children a favor, this article was written by a GMO shill who “advises” the frankenstein “scientists” at Genome International Corporation. It was written as a public relations propaganda piece thinly disguised as commentary.

  • Hector Di Luca

    I would like to say to the pro-organic community that more than 70% of those organic products, are not. They are conventional. They are a fraud.

    • SageThinker

      I highly doubt this statement. Do you have any source or any further development? It sounds like a drive-by slander.

  • Jeannette Baker-Shaw

    i note that this article only discusses pesticides… the greatest concern – for people who choose organics – is limiting the amount of ingested glyphosate. glyphosate is herbicidal and also kills the natural micro-biome in the human gut which over time leads to many human disease processes. a healthy human body can eliminate pesticide residues and natural pesticides; but with continued glyphosate ingestion damaging the body’s natural gut protection, we put our body into a situation where it cannot effectively rid itself of even the poisons we are exposed to on a daily basis.

    • JohnDoe

      Organics use pesticides too. It’s utterly irrational to think that modern farming could work without chemical intervention, whether those chemicals are “naturally” derived or synthetically derived. For instance, copper sulfate is used on organic fruits as a fungus control. Yum yum, heavy metals.

      Lots of natural things are dangerous and lots of synthetic things are safe, and vice versa. The origin of the product has little bearing on telling you whether something is safe. Remember, natural is not synonymous with safe and synthetic is not synonymous with dangerous.

      And the crucial thing to look at is relative risks. Is glyphosate better or worse than the chemicals and methods used prior to its introduction?

      As for glyphosate, the toxicity to humans is lower than table salt. The amount you might feasibly ingest in a normal diet is basically nill.

      To the harm to the gut microbiome argument, I’m skeptical. Glyphosate inhibits the shikimate pathway, which means aromatic amino acid synthesis is inhibited. Humans don’t have this pathway, so we don’t have to worry about affects to ourselves. Bacteria do have this pathway, however, if this pathway is inhibited, they can still survive easily, as there is still ambient aromatic amino acids from your diet. In addition, you’d have to consume enough glyphosate for any real inhibition to occur (it’s not just molecules of glyphosate consumed, but concentrations – it’s all about thermodynamic equilibrium). Anyway, I know they can survive because I’ve seen researchers do cell growths that specifically add glyphosate so they can label aromatic amino acids in cells.

    • Good4U

      Jeannette, your half-baked ideas about your gut are making me bust a gut…laughing! There must be something about glyphosate that gives the anti-biotech trolls diarrhea. It comes out of them and spews all over their keyboards, as they bang away through all the mess. As for me, for the past 18 years I’ve eaten biotech corn, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, and more recently sugarbeet sugar, and my gut functions just fine. So too did the animals that I’ve eaten throughout this period, which have likewise fed on these same items. Frankly, I can’t wait to eat Innate(R) potatoes and Arctic(R) apples, and as many more GMOs as I can possibly find. My family loves them too. So, if you continue to have digestive issues, I would recommend that you switch away from all that half rotten “organic” junk and start eating some good food for a change. Start soon, else you might get sick from all that poop you are sitting in.

  • Gritty

    ….. So saith the “Advisor” to the plant “scientists” at Genome International Corporation! Anyone reading this biased BS and thinking there is a grain of truth behind it is, well, let me ask you this; Care to buy a bridge in NYC?

    • JoeFarmer

      But you can’t refute anything she wrote, can you?

      • Gritty

        Personally I dont care what she or any other Monsanto / Genomics shill shoves down the throats of their kids. I am sure it is part of nature “thinnin’ out the herd” so to speak. My only hope is that once their health issues kick in they dont become a financial burden to the rest of society… So hey.. have another glass of Glyphosate with that pesticide laced RedGrannyGalaHoneycrisp apple. Drink up, please.

        • JoeFarmer

          Real smart post, genius.

          How about changing the first two letters of your name from “Gr” to “Sh”? It would fit.

          • Gritty

            Tell ya what Mr Monsanto, you keep your genetics, Glyphosate, and frankenstein “food” out of local growers markets, stick to selling it to the koolaid drinkers that buy into the GMO is safe scam and we will all be happy

          • JoeFarmer
          • Gritty

            dont you have a field to saturate with poison? Or do you pawn that off to low wage migrant slaves, ah, “workers” (wink wink)?

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re just perfect for that shirt I showed you. No one saturates a field with poison. Why don’t you read FIFRA instead of continuing to make yourself look stupid?

            I don’t have migrant workers, either. Just me and one full time employee.

          • Gritty

            so tell me, Mr Monsanto, how much to they pay you to troll comment sections and argue for GMO? Must be lucrative, you seem to spend more time on the keyboard than in the cab of your John Deere

          • John Zohn

            He’s not Mr Monsanto, he’s BitterJoe. He’s attempting to be more creative at insulting people so now he is using multimedia to do it. It’s a nice try but he’s still using the same old lame insults and name calling we’ve heard a million times. I doubt he gets paid very much because sometimes he works like 24 hour spans so he must be paid very poorly to need to work that kind of overtime.

          • Gritty

            I know he (or she) isn’t a farmer, rather a Monsanto or biotech firm PR troll. These big AG corporations, biotech companies, and Monsanto are in major damage control mode. The public has finally caught on to what is going on and their bottom line is threatened. despite the fact that they have the FDA in their back pocket. …… GOOD!

          • JoeFarmer


            A shill claim and a conspiracy all in one post!

            Proof positive that you have no idea what you’re babbling about. So now you and John Zohn, who follows me around like a lost puppy, can stroke each other.

          • Gritty

            Follow you around? Na. I stumbled upon this piece of drivel while doing some research and in the process outed you, a Monsanto PR troll. I am done with you.

          • JoeFarmer

            LMAO! The only thing you “outed” is your own stupidity.

          • gmoeater

            “Research??! ”
            Seriously, I’m wettin’ my pants laffin at your “research.” Wanna be specific? I think most of us can predict what you read by what you write.
            Research, yeah right. Confirmation bias. (look it up)

          • hyperzombie

            It is so funny, the less that they know about agriculture the more militant they are,,,,,freakin’ crazy.

          • gmoeater

            Hard to believe, in a tiny brain that only processes oatmeal, that a farmer isn’t a “troll.” Yup. Farmers actually BUY GE seeds out of choice. Better yields. Less pesticides (and expense). Smaller enviro footprint. Costs more, but worth it.

            Gub’mint and corp’rate conspiracy fears make you quake in your boots, right? That plus new science and technolog? I’m sure there’s a cave somewhere that you can get away from all this scary stuff, and eat rocks or something.

          • JoeFarmer

            OK, Mr. ag expert, what do you think I should be doing in my “John Deere” right now? Be specific, Deere makes a lot of equipment.

          • gmoeater

            I know; science is scarrrrry. And you are afraid. You hide your fear with bluster. Big man.

            The rest of us are interested and excited about new advances in modern farming, biotech crops, and science. Stay here and read, learn, and get educted, or choose to continue to slobber and drool in fear and downright silliness.

            And don’t turn the lights out if you’re scared.

    • Kavin Senapathy

      Aww how sweet, yet another shill accusation from someone who doesn’t understand how vast the realm of genomics is. Genome International is a small family business that doesn’t develop genetically modified crops. It does genomic and omic data analysis, and develops related software. Applications are in human health and disease research, and plant an ag research.

      • Gritty

        Right. So, tell me again; How is it that an “advisor” of GIC garners ANY credibility while opining against organic food?

        • Kavin Senapathy

          I’ve encountered this far too many times to not have addressed it. Here you go

          • JoeFarmer
          • JoeFarmer

            At least you’re not denying that you’re a turd. Thanks for playing!

          • Kavin Senapathy

            “Honey” – Moms don’t have to be “soccer moms” reaching out to the local wives club with “opinions.” That is sexist and demeaning. Good luck with your future endeavors, anonymous person. Peace.

          • JoeFarmer

            Do you really think you’re the first douchebag that’s showed up here with no brain and a keyboard?

            You’re about to join the dozens of idiots that got their posts zapped. Congrats, you’re in an elite group of morons.

          • gmoeater

            Gritty, your putdowns of Kavin are pretty funny — a combo of shill-accusation, ignorance, rant / arrogance, and — the funniest! — messin’ with Kavin. She knows her stuff. You’re mince meat, bub.

            Oh, and soccer moms reaching out to the local wives club — that’s Food Boob.

            If you have scientific or ag questions, ask. If you have no curiosity, an anti-tech bias, have corporate shill paranoia, and just want to rave and rant, go somewhere else. Or stick around here and get shredded intellectually.

        • JoeFarmer

          You know what’s going to be hilarious?

          When Kavin takes you to school, that’s what!

          • Gritty

            I anxiously await….

          • gmoeater

            Joe, some people just ain’t up fer larnin’ nuttin’ — their minds have slammed shut and all they have, at the bottom of the barrel, is shill shrieking.

            But Kavin will run circles around him intellectually. He’ll be wearing the dunce cap, and — haha — won’t even know it!

  • pieapp676

    hate whole foods. they have ruined the health food industry. they lowered organic standards. saw this lie today at their store. makes me so mad.

    • Mlema

      I don’t think they lowered organic standards – however I agree with the problem you’re describing. Whole foods has distorted what the various standards are by trying to use them to market various products. USDA organic is unique and isn’t equivalent to “natural” “GMO free”, etc. (although it is basically GMO free). Truly, it’s not natural – but it was never intended to be – no agriculture is.

  • Alexis Spina

    So is this than a fabricated story as a tactic to get people on the organic bandwagon?

    • Mlema

      No, it’s not fabricated. Ms. Senapathy’s post above misrepresents organic food as a “scam of the decade”, and draws an equivalence between USDA organic and Whole Foods (a retailer). Of course, right off the bat, you can see the basis of her thinking is faulty. She goes on to write a number of falsities regarding organic food.
      You can learn more about USDA organic from the USDA site:

      I don’t believe in trying to make parents feel guilty for whatever food choice they make, either by preference or by necessity. But I do believe in giving parents the facts so that they can make informed decisions.

      “For most Americans, diet is the primary source of OP pesticide exposure,” said Curl “The study suggests that by eating organically grown versions of those foods highest in pesticide residues, we can make a measurable difference in the levels of pesticides in our bodies.”
      Estimating Pesticide Exposure from Dietary Intake and Organic Food Choices: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)
      The above study analyzed the dietary exposure of 4500 people, and “The researchers were able to predict each participant’s exposure to OP pesticides based on the amount and type of produce each participant typically ate and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s measurements of pesticide residue levels on those foods. The researchers then compared these predictions to pesticide metabolite levels measured in urine samples from a subset of 720 of these people.”

      So, it’s now possible to predict your pesticide exposure based on what you eat.

      Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides
      Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children
      Now at Harvard: “…Lu cites his 2008 study that monitored pesticide levels in children who normally ate non-organic fruits and vegetables but who were given only organic over a five-day period. “During that five-day period, most of the pesticides [in the children’s urine] disappeared,” Lu said. “We believe the most vulnerable population would be small infants and children, because of their small body weight.” Possible negative health effects from pesticides include impaired mental development or problems with motor skills.”

      • Mlema

        Organic farming (in general) uses less pesticides. Organic produce has fewer instances of pesticide residue, and fewer types of pesticides as residue, and less toxic residue when present. (I’m basing that statement on the Stanford study which was discussed in many blogs a year or so ago)

        • Kurt Kemmerer

          Prove it with a true consensus of peer reviewed science, please.

          • Mlema

            Oh brother. Look it up. It’s now possible to closely estimate a person’s pesticide exposure based on their diet. This has been proven. People who eat organic diets have a lower exposure. I can’t put my hands on it immediately. Why don’t you do some reading? It was a female PhD student I believe who worked out the metrics on this.

          • Kurt Kemmerer

            So you can’t support your nonsense. No one is surprised.

          • Mlema

            You don’t prove pesticide levels with peer-reviewed science. You just measure them. Check the Stanford or Newcastle reviews. If you are asserting something contrary to what I’m saying and you want to provide a reference, then we can do that. What are you looking at that says that conventional foods have less pesticide residue than organic food? And less toxic residue when there is residue at all?

          • Kurt Kemmerer

            You just showed that you don’t understand how science works, and you don’t even know why you showed that. WOW!

          • Mlema

            Here’s the Stanford study:

            If you know how to parse their data, you’ll find that organics have about 81% lower chance of having any pesticides at all. Also, when they do have pesticides on them, the pesticides are less numerous in kind, and are less toxic.

            These critical reviews will help you to understand what the study shows and what it doesn’t:


            Now please, if you’re going to keep buzzing me like a mosquito, please say something with substance instead of just telling me I haven’t provided any evidence, and that I don’t know how science works, etc. If you think what you’re saying has any merit, then provide your contrary evidence to what I’ve said, and explain to me how you think “science works” that is contrary to my comments.

          • Kurt Kemmerer

            Newsflash: They didn’t test for organic pesticides. Sheesh.

          • gmoeater

            “Critical reviews…..” Um, opinion pieces. And her sources are opinionator.blogs and mother jones! Ah, well.
            Opinions abound, facts not so much. Amazing yet again what Internet woo sources people will post to justify their misguided opinions. She would definitely flunk any science class or critical thinking class with those sites as her only citations. I know I would give her an F straight out the door, as my students know better than to quote junk articles as science.
            It would be so helpful if people knew the difference between editorials, opinions, blogs, and peer-reviewed scientific studies. Miema has a long, long way to go.

          • Mlema

            I gave you the study. It’s flawed, and has been parsed by pro-industry sites like this one. I gave you articles to help you understand the study, because it seems like you need some help. Seems like you’d rather attempt to insult me than talk about what the research says. Whatever.

          • Mlema

            Well, this is what happens when months lapse between comments. I did provide the peer-reviewed science above. So go read it instead of making dumb comments that reveal you haven’t read the comments you’re replying to.

          • Kurt Kemmerer

            No, you didn’t, and you still haven’t. It doesn’t exist.

          • Kurt Kemmerer

            So you can’t prove it. Got it.

          • agscienceliterate

            Absolutely false.

          • Mlema

            It’s absolutely true. I’ve already provided the link, but here it is again:


            I also provided the link to the STanford study above. Will you please read all my other comments on this page before making comments like “absolutely false”? There are so many of you rabid GMO fans here, it’s hard to reply to all of you, and you all say the same thing.

      • You can post any out of context studies but the fact is the residue levels cited are well below “no effect” levels which themselves are 100s of times lower than matter at realistic food consumption levels. There is just no evidence considered mainstream that suggests that pesticide residues at the minuscule level have any effect–at all–on human health. In contrast , thousands of people are injured and many die every year from eating bacteria contaminated organic goods. Although organic foods are a tiny fraction of the food market, bacteria contamination is 10 times more prevalent–see NY Times op Ed piece on Tuesdsay highlighting this.

        • Mlema

          Please explain why you have categorized the studies I linked to as “out of context”? It’s established: pesticides are detrimental to the normal development of children. Granted, there are “levels” to be considered – but there is painfully little research on the effects of simultaneous exposure to multiple pesticides.

          Pediatricians recommend limiting children’s exposure to pesticides.

          What about kids born with physical problems? Insufficient kidney or liver function? Or anyone with those problems for that matter. We have a growing diabetic population – less able to safely metabolize pesticides. Why on earth would you promote ingesting pesticides? Look, I understand that pesticides aren’t going away anytime soon – and probably never. We will ALWAYS need them in certain circumstances. But much of their use now is not warranted by need (note EPA statement on neonicotinoids and USDA on adoption of bt corn in areas where susceptible pests were not a problem [net loss to farmers who paid high prices for unnecessary technology)

          Why is there a battle between GMO proponents and organic? There’s not that much overlap. Unless a person simply wants to hype the food industry, which is the biggest purchaser of commodity crops. Organics aren’t trying to compete to grow food for meat or biofuel, or even for all the ingredients in fast food and packaged processed foods. There’s absolutely no need to distort USDA organic as the OP does – calling it a “scam”. How is it a scam? That’s never really been explained.

          Please provide evidence, especially comparison on those who die from eating organic food compared to those who die from eating conventional food. The Stanford study found a lower incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in organic food (although that may be just organic meat compared to conventional).

          I’ll look at the OP-ED if you link me to it. Although I’d prefer some scholarly papers like the ones I linked to to support my statements on organic food reducing pesticide exposure.

          • Mlema

            Are you trying to create a fear that fewer pesticides would increase bacteria? Bacteria are most strongly associated with poor handling, and with industrial dairy/meat production.

          • agscienceliterate

            You haven’t eaten at Chipotle’s recently, have you? Again, if you want safety studies, go to . Your presumptions about conventional and organic farming are fantasy.

          • Mlema

            Because you say so? Non-organic meats have a higher incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Look it up on your own link. look for the Stanford study. Also will reveal the difference in pesticide residue levels and types. And no, I don’t eat at Chipotle’s. Although I fail to see what that has to do with anything. I just read up on it, and no source was ever traced back – in spite of identifying that all the strains at Chipotle’s all over the country were closely genetically related. None of the suppliers were found to be contaminated. And no outbreak happened anyplace other than Chipotle’s. Also – since they don’t serve exclusively organic – what does your snipe about chipotle’s have to do with organics?

            It wouldn’t surprise me if someone like you purposefully contaminated Chipotle’s food because they came out with their non-GMO stance (which was utterly ridiculous as they continue to serve drinks made with GMOs). And you are obviously a rabid GMO fan.

            Also – pesticides have nothing to do with bacterial contamination. this is another myth that people like yourself are trying to perpetuate.

          • agscienceliterate

            Absolutely false, based on your cherry picking pseudoscience. I am a rabid fan of reliable peer reviewed scientific citations regarding biotech food. I have less chance of persuading you of anything then teaching a pig to sing. I leave you to your unscientific and conspiracy motivated fantasies.

          • Mlema

            LOL Apparently you’re NOT a fan of reliable peer-reviewed scientific citations. But that sounds good when you say it, so, carry on…..

          • Mlema

            Also, it’s “THAN teaching a pig to sing” FYI

          • They are out of context because no study–not one–has linked the minuscule pesticide levels in food, conventional or otherwise, to as much as a sniffle. Therefore citing studies finding meaningless level of one chemical or another in good amounts to nothing more than fear mongering over risk. Please read the work of Bruce Ames, who invented the tests on hazard and risk. There is far more danger in food from natural pesticides than the minuscule levels of synthetic ones that you cite. And please, if you would like to maintain any credinility, don’t cute Chensheng Lu on anything. Despite his link to Harvard Public Heath, his work is considered quack level by mainstream scientists. There are legitimate scientists in this areabut hes not one of them.

          • Mlema

            You have yet to substantiate anything you’re saying. I don’t think you’re using “out of context” properly either.

            “There is far more danger in food from natural pesticides than the minuscule levels of synthetic ones that you cite.”

            Do you have anything to support that claim?

            Saying that Lu’s work “is considered quack level by mainstream scientists.” is nonsense. Please provide one thing from a “mainstream scientist” that says Lu is a quack. For pete’s sake, even Harvard is not above your slander.

            I answered your demands. But you have yet to explain why several of my comments made over the last few months, and over the last couple of days, have disappeared.

          • Mlema

            and you haven’t shown that your original claims are based in fact. Where’s the non-industry study that provides a nutritional comparison to an organic counterpart? If you want to link me to the sources you keep telling me to read, I’ll read them.

    • Michael McCarthy

      Yes, because it doesn’t say what pesticides they are testing for. We have to assume they are testing for synthetic pesticide residues, so where are the results for organic pesticides? Oh, they didn’t do them? Well, that seems awfully convenient.

  • guest 456

    buy local farmers market or enjoy traditional production food that keep doctors and pharmacy billionares too!


    The multibillion-dollar organic food industry is the biggest scam in the history of food production, preying on the ignorant and stupid who can’t understand basic scientific concepts.

  • marcus

    You guys arent serious right? I understand that some big companies may be using “organic and natural” labels to make more money but so what, Just grow your own organic food. Most people wont thorugh because they are consumed by the system or they’re simply lazy. Organic food has more nutrition and less pesticidesPERIOD! Watch OMG GMO on netflix. Your children deserve the best(healthiest) food on the planet. Selfishness will only take us so far. Much Love.

    • agscienceliterate

      OMG GMO is a pro-organic, anti-GE propaganda piece full of errors. You are mistaken about nutrition and pesticides and safety in organic food. If you want healthy, I suggest you stay away from organic Chipotle.

  • Jami

    All foods are GMOs anyway.

    As for Whole Foods, I went in exactly one time because it was the only place I could find refrigerated acidophilus pills – the shelf stable kind and the probiotic yogurts were not working for me. (Had a medical procedure that required 24 hour fasting which really messed up my digestion.) I will never go into one again. It wasn’t the store, it was the clientele. Stuck up snobs. I tried several times to get into the dairy case and for at least an hour a woman was blocking them, lecturing a guy on baskets and why he was wrong. Frankly, I’d rather shop at WalMart at 1 am then Whole Foods.

  • Ptolemy

    You’re forgetting something.

    It’s important if you’re focusing on particular spiritual practices, and I don’t necessarily mean “cruelty-free, attracting good karma” hippie philosophies. Average food on the market is loaded with influences that get in the way of advanced meditation and other related pursuits. Such a lifestyle usually demands an impeccable diet. Eating things grown as naturally as possible, labeled “organic”, and directly from honest producers (small, local farmers , et al.) is paramount. Granted, there are many producers who take things too far and charge too much.

    But, of course, there are the sorts who must attack everyone who doesn’t abide by their ideals. Especially when it comes to spirituality, and particularly when it comes to spiritual things one has no experience in.

  • nataliyarose

    if you can argue that chemically treated GMO crops are somehow equal to
    organic fresh foods in nutritional content which makes no logical sense
    in my mind personally… the reality is GMO farming is rapidly
    destroying the topsoil, which is a huge issue for human survival in any
    long term scenario… Also there are many scientific studies showing
    that glyphosate is extremely harmful to our health, linked to cancer and
    all sorts of issues. You have to be careful what studies you read about
    that are pro GMO because monsanto is a huge corporation and can easily
    buy a positive health image in the media… I think its just common
    sense that fresh organic local foods are much better for our health…

  • Wayne

    Okay so there’s nothing wrong with GMO. So what is causing the major increase in autism in children, the allergies to food? We never had this degree of issues 30-40 years ago. Why are cancer rates higher in the USA than Europe?

    • agscienceliterate

      The rise in organic food, obviously. The proliferation of whole foods. Obvious. Simple.

  • Moe

    if you dont see why fruits and veggies packed with growth hormons ( that beeing yrasfered to us when we eat it) are not goid for you or your kids just look at the numbers :

    fact: girls get their cycle much earlier and their body develop earlier ( cause of the growth hormons in the GMOs )

    fact : number of cancers have incread by 500% since the 50s , ( since they started food manipulation) though our medicine got much better…

    fact : our body is not a dumpster that you can put everytjing in it without consequences to your helth

    fact:most pro GMOs look and taste nothing like the origina fruit or veggie ( i prefer the non GMO flavour…organic milk taste much better to me then regular milk)

    fact : a chick getting stuffed with so much growth hormons that when he gets to be 3 weeks old he is an adult compare to the 3 months its supose to you tjink thats healthy or human to have adult chickens ready to eat when they cant even stand?

    fact: they took all the gmo corn syrup and put it in everthing you eat cause its a cheap substitute…

    if you cant see all that , then all i can tell you , go over the facts again…

    of ourse they gonna manipulate research to say that gmos ate safe…cause they are cheap and profitable, ofcourse they gonna tell you, well you have to eat a lot of those pesticides to get sick, they make money out of it…ofcourse they gonna tell you sure you can drink soda , there is a lot of water in it ( and 64 grams of sugar in one .5 bottle that is 16 tea spoons of sugar , will you let your kid eat 16 spoons of sugar???? so why do you let them drink it????)

  • Jane Baker

    I’ve just watched a TV show in which the presenter went around Romania and showed us the beautiful countryside,flower filled meadows,not much grass lots of flowers,everyone rides around in horse and carts,it looks idyllic. Prince Charles has got an estate there,he wants to make tourism there pay so the folk won’t want to update their agriculture but keep it that way. But the people there,there so poor they all want to come here(UK)to live in squalor in inner city houses in multiple occupation and eat squalid street food burgers. So maybe being green isn’t all its cracked up to be!

    • Farmer with a Dell

      That’s my assessment too, Jane. Whenever I’ve been able to find unbiased reporting about backward cultures, especially peasant farmers it becomes clear their day to day existence is anything but idyllic or quaint, and most of them wish they could be anything but impoverished peasant farmers.

      Affluent Prince Charles style elitists treat these backward people like zoo animals. Insisting the indigenous people should not advance their standard of living, demanding that they must continue with stoop labor in the fields and riding to town in horse drawn carts (even the shaggy little ponies look oppressed), selling travel packages for affluent 1st world gawkers to fly in, strut around, act the ass and enrich the rulers of these impoverished locals with a lucrative “tourism industry” (how sustainable is any of that?).

      There is a term for how snobby Prince Charles sycophants treat the less entitled, less privileged mass of humanity — xenophobia.

  • E;f

    I have always felt skeptical at the idea of, “organic” foods. How in any way can you tell how the food is really any different or better than regular food. I pretty much figured that from the first day this trend started, it was all about fooling people and making money. I’ll buy organic if that particular produce item looks better than its non organic counterpart. But I have no intention into buying into the lie that packaged items are organic. I never bought into the whole bottled water idea either but someone has made a ton of money convincing people to pay for something that is free.

  • Rusti1

    Actually, I saw for myself, after going organic, the change in health in a good way. My son saw a difference as well. Rare headaches, ear or sinus infections, and allergies, when they used to be most common. My own battle with constant hunger stopped. What’s most important to me is my own experience. I wouldn’t say anything otherwise, and I’d consider everyone should do that. To actually think synthetic anything works without side effects in the body at all is amazing to me (where most cancers comes from?). There’s no such thing as “perfect health”. It’s a battle everyday, but, you give your body the advantage when you give it less toxic unnatural substances. We’re so ingrained and conditioned in a drug/synthetic culture now. Anyway, everyone has the right to know what’s in and on their foods, and I’m no organic “marketeer” profitting from selling any kind of food here. You can go to to see as well.