Anti-biotech hidden agenda: Link GMO feed to conventional dairy products to scare adoption of organics

|

The organic industry sees dairy as a “gateway” product; something families will often begin with before making other organic products part of their regular grocery purchases. Their social media campaigns are often filled with images demonizing conventional dairy, and sometimes even breastfeeding.

But is organic dairy so important to the industry that it has become a leading motivation behind their attacks on biotechnology? Recently released emails, that were requested from Washington State University as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, seem to confirm some of the hidden agenda behind the anti-GMO movement.

In a discussion about nominations to the Non-GMO Project seed committee, organic researcher Charles Benbrook discussed the importance of animal feed. Benbrook spent many hours during his time at Washington State working on the promotion of organic milk. Earlier emails revealed how organic dairy companies Organic Valley and Stonyfield (whose CEO happens to run the Just Label It campaign) worked with him on media outreach. 

The Non-GMO project will hopefully move to a policy of verifying seed as GM-’free’ and that certification will suffice for animal feed, among other things, so lot’s at stake.

Untitled drawing (18)

With organic milk now representing 5 percent of the nation’s milk market, the organic industry seems to be having a bit of a supply problem. Organic dairy cows cannot consume feed containing ingredients derived from genetically engineered crops. With corn and soybeans in the United States being primarily grown from genetically modified seeds, there is no dependable supply. In the recent drought, organic dairy farmers were significantly impacted. Many have closed up shop and even converted to farming almonds instead. Organic dairy farmers in the west have no grass, organic feed is in short supply, and conventional feed is not an option because of the possibility that it contains GMOs. With the production costs of organic milk so high, there is now a severe shortage of it on the market. There is so little non-GMO corn and soy available now that most organic corn and soy are being imported from Canada, China, and India. The modern anti-GMO movement now centers around boosting organic dairy sales.

Plan has been in works for sometime

In 2010, some of the biggest names in the anti-GMO movement came together to develop the 10-year National Organic Action Plan (NOAP). The National Organic Coalition is made up of 15 organizations with a shared interest in spreading organic agriculture throughout the United States. Other stakeholders were brought in to discuss the future of organic agriculture with one goal in mind, “to establish organic as the foundation for food and agricultural production systems across the United States.” Representation from actual organic farmers appears to be missing or severely lacking.

Blogger Amanda, The Farmer’s Daughter, covered this issue a couple of years ago when several of us grew curious about the constant attacks on Starbucks:

Consider the campaign that tried to bully Starbucks into selling only organic milk. The campaign was started by the group GMOInside, but quickly spread to other blogs. Of course, the goal was to stop the sale of “Monsanto Milk” at the chain store. Starbucks is a huge purchaser of milk products, with 20,000 retails stores in 60 different countries. In 2008, the company stopped offering organic milk after switching to conventional milk produced without the use of growth hormones, admitting the requests for organic milk were extremely low.

Organic promoters are not exactly shy about their agenda. Todd Larson of Green America had this to say to the Wall Street Journal:

If Starbucks phases in organic milk over time, and creates a market for it over time, it can move to organic milk without creating price increases for consumers or creating shortages in the organic milk market. In fact, Starbucks’ growing demand would make it easier for more farmers to go organic and lower prices overall over the next few years.

The plan identified four “benchmarks for expanding organic production“:

  1. Doubling the amount of organic products and the number of farms, acreage, public lands, and animals under organic management every five years through 2020.
  2. Expanding local organic seed production capacities, with a benchmark of meeting 50 percent of all local organic seed needs by 2020.
  3. Increasing local organic production and processing by 50 percent by 2020, by increasing the infrastructure of organic regional food systems with government financial assistance.
  4. Increasing organic supplies to ensure the commercial availability of agriculture based organic ingredients contained in processed foods by 2014, including minor ingredients, seeds, and livestock feed.

Nowhere in the entire document is there any mention about dangers from GMOs to our health or to the environment. The entire focus is on the perceived threat GMOs pose to organic farmers through the fear of “contamination” and the lack of organic livestock feed. Taxes on synthetic fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, and GMOs, with the proceeds going towards organic incentive programs, are all brought up as a way to encourage farmers and consumers to switch to organic. Prior to the introduction of GMOs, it was easier for corn and soy producers to justify the decision to grow using organic methods. This document essentially admits that the entire anti-GMO movement is built around the lack of non-GMO feed for organic livestock.

Screenshot 2016-05-05 at 6.50.41 PM

“Contamination” fears are at the heart of the matter

Why would the organic industry even care so much when their animals can only eat organic feed to begin with? Dag Falck, organic program manager for Nature’s Path, was part of the development of the action plan. In a 2008 article for The Organic & Non-GMO Report, he explains:

GMO-contaminated seeds are not labeled and cannot be identified with the naked eye, nor can viable seed have the GMO contaminated portion recognized and separated out from the non-GMO seeds. At this time the only testing methods available require the grinding (and destroying the germination viability) of the seeds.

Falck goes on to discuss how important the Non-GMO Project is in preventing cross pollination—what the organic industry refers to as contamination—of organic crops. Already in short supply, the industry feels that it cannot afford to risk losing acreage. By encouraging the growth of the Non-GMO market in conventional agriculture, the organic industry feels like they are being protected. Putting the burden of proof on conventional food, with mandatory labeling, essentially creates a free tracing system for organic corporations.

Kellee James provides market data to the organic industry and, in an interview with Bloomberg News, admits to being fearful of the future if domestic farmers continue using genetically engineered crops. 

If imports dried up tomorrow, I think the industry would be in real trouble,” she said. Many organizations with ties to the organic industry seem to have materialized for just this purpose.

GMO Inside (run by Food Babe, Food Democracy Now, and Green America) admits as much when discussing the reasons for their campaign against the yogurt brand Chobani. “By shifting away from GMO feed for their cows, Chobani has the power to shift thousands of acres of farmland to non-GMO farming techniques.”

c80b7594acf0f0fb295052669804ab9d

The NOAP called for grassroots movements to get involved in politics. These organizations are expected to direct federal, state and local funding into the organic movement. Grassroots organizations are called on to push school boards to bring in organic food to school cafeterias and “promote the NOAP agenda” (direct quote from the document) at every level of education from kindergarten through college. Grassroots organizations are asked to, “populate the ranks of government agencies that deal with organic agriculture with bureaucrats who understand and are supportive of organic agriculture.” A sentence that, were it written by a major corporation, would have been a front page headline in many major newspapers. Many of the tax exempt organizations like Green America, GMO Free USA and the non-GMO Project have direct ties to organic food producers.

Part of the cost of growing non-GMO and organic crops are incurred because the farmer must keep their crops free from cross pollination from neighboring farms. While this poses little difficulty for most farmers who communicate with their neighbors (some even grow conventional and organic on the same land), the burden is still ultimately on the shoulders of the farmers choosing to grow a specialized crop—in this case organics—and follow the self-imposed rules of that industry. In an attempt to shift that burden, the NOAP sought to “protect organic” farmers by shifting the burden of protecting organic crops on to conventional farmers and biotechnology companies. Only a year later we find the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association filing suit against Monsanto to do just that: shift the liability on to Monsanto. Isaura Andaluz, a board member of OSGATA, is even one of the names attached to the NOAP along with Mikes Adams of Natural News and John Roulac of Nutiva.

Everything the anti-GMO movement has been doing in recent years appears to have been a coordinated effort to increase the availability of crops to feed organic livestock. Some of the biggest names in the organic movement came together six years ago to create such a plan. This plan is being carried out as a direct attack on conventional farmers and affordable food. The anti-GMO movement is spending millions of dollars on state labeling laws, speakers, and even questionable research, trying to raise doubts about GMOs. Is it just a coincidence that with 20 percent of its milk production (compared to 5 percent nationwide) coming from organic farms that Vermont became the first state to mandate genetic engineering ingredient labels?

Stephan Neidenbach is a middle school teacher, husband, and father living in Annapolis, MD. He holds a BS in business administration from Salisbury University and a MS in Instructional Technology from University of Maryland University College. He started and runs the Facebook page We Love GMOs and Vaccines, follow him on twitter @welovegv.

  • Stuart M.

    Excellent article. As an English teacher myself, I am very envious of his excellent research and writing style. I didn’t detect a single typo anywhere!

    • RobertWager

      That’s it Stephen you are hired. I produce lots of typos…

  • Farmer with a Dell

    Of all “organic” schlock, organic dairy is possibly most representative of the ironies of organic marketing.

    All the romantic notions of quaint backward little families relaxing together on their small organic dairy farms resonate with naively nostalgic consumers, but in reality organic dairy is BIG, BIG corporate business — just look at how Gary Hirshberg has prospered, and Horizon/WhiteWave to name just two.

    Nutritionally there is virtually no difference between “organic” and ordinary milk. Oh, organic marketers drone on and on about a minuscule presence of antioxidants and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) as if those are magic elixers in trace amounts. What they don’t tell you about is how organic milk most often has to be utrapasteurized to attain an acceptable shelf life, nor do they tell you how organic milk contains a lot of pus (somatic cells, SCC) from the chronically infected udders of cows housed, milked and managed in obsolete facilities under strict organic regulations.

    Marketers of organic milk like to lie about modern dairy farming, slandering it with the most egregious falsehoods and parodies. What they don’t advertise is just how inhumane and cruel organic dairy farmers are to their cows and little calves. When an animal gets sick for any reason the organic farmer will not treat the disease with any sort of effective modern medicine. Organic regulations strictly forbid it. Instead the poor sick animal is dosed with useless quack remedies, if with anything at all, and left to suffer through the illness or injury as best it can, often with fatal consequences. The more unscrupulous organic farmers will wait until an animal is near death, then irresponsibly treat it with massive doses of drugs and dump it into the conventional market.

    When organic zealots dream and scheme to take over the dairy world, as they do, they forget to mention an important consideration in that takeover. They prefer to count farms, as in their goal to double the number of organic dairy farms each 5 years which would double the amount of organic milk consumed and presumably displace an equal number of conventional dairy farms. But milk production per cow on organic farms is abysmally low, it is dreadfully inefficient and costly — that is why organic milk is so hideously expensive in the supermarket. On average, organic dairy farms produce less than 1/2 as much milk per cow as modern dairy farms. If all dairy would become “organic”, as the marketers scheme, we would need more than twice as many dairy cows to meet current consumer demand for dairy products. Of course, the “twice the price” feature of organic dairy products might reduce consumer demand significantly…especially among everyone except the affluent upper class of shoppers, of course. Organic food is terribly elitist and discriminatory.

    Marketers like to hint that organic food production is somehow more gentle, less damaging to the environment but nothing could be further from the truth. Differences between organic and conventional dairy farming are virtually insignificant. Both use large farm machinery powered by diesel fuel and gasoline, lubricated with oil, except the organic farmer uses his about twice as much per acre as the conventional no-till farmer to produce about 20% less crop per acre than the conventional farmer. Organic farmers use pesticides clumsily, mostly organic pesticides that are more primitive, less effective and more toxic than modern ag chemicals in the hands of trained professional applicators. Organic is woefully inefficient and polluting.

    Organic farming relies upon the old moldboard plow and aggressive surface tillage equipment which we all have known, since before those tools caused the dustbowl fiasco, are prime causes of soil erosion. In a feeble attempt to compensate for lost soil resources organic farmers use large fuel-hogging trucks to haul in vast quantities of waste materials from outside the farm to try to build back their remaining soil. If there were significantly more organic farms there would be too little waste material from outside to be shared among the organic farms. Soil wastes and suffers. Organic farming is not sustainable.

    The “organic” phenomenon is a marketing ploy. It has become BIG business, far from the advertised tiny local agrarian utopia marketers strive so hard to create as their image. No, BigOrganic is the reality and Stephen Neidenbach’s email mining has unearthed the dirty secrets of the BigOrganic plotters, schemers and profiteers.

    • Carolyn Parsons

      My biggest problem with organic dairy is the fact that a cow can’t be treated with antibiotics when they get a painful udder infection. That is the definition of cruelty.

      • Farmer with a Dell

        Plus cows forced to live in small organic dairies tend to get frequent udder infections due to being housed much of the time on hard, damp concrete in cramped, dirty antiquated facilities and due to being milked with obsolete milking equipment, too often poorly maintained and inadequately sanitized because organic regulations prohibit the use of truly effective modern disinfectants. The fundamental cruelty of organic rules is unacceptable in this day and age. This, together with the refusal to render effective modern medical care to animals under organic management make it all the more depressing to know trendy consumers vainly pay a premium price to inflict boutique cruelties upon God’s innocent creatures.

      • SageThinker

        What does happen then? Can the cow be removed from the production herd and treated and then returned after the antibiotics are stopped, after a washout period? That would make most sense to me. I think current USDA organic standards are not perfect. They have good points and bad points.

        • Jason

          Often the cows are just sold to a conventional dairy and then treated and become part of that conventional dairy herd.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            No conventional herdsperson would risk buying a sick cow from an organic dairy. That would be an easy way to drag in some hideous disease to the detriment of your own livestock. Besides, organic dairies often ignore genetic merit when selecting sires, even selecting for lower production with the idea less productive animals will be more durable in harsh organic management environments. Even crossbreeding with beef breeds is sometimes resorted to if the organic farmer’s pasture management is poor. The resulting ‘organic’ animals, interesting as they may be, do not assimilate fruitfully into a modern dairy herd. Maybe some spent organic cows go to petting zoos but most go to slaughter to make organic ground beef to be grilled over genuine faux organic mesquite at some trendy overpriced organic yuppie boutique eatery. Thus the loopy organic circle is completed.

          • Jason

            I wouldn’t say no conventional dairy. It happens around here from time to time. It might be more common if organic dairies were more common in Indiana. A good cow with an infection is easy to treat with antibiotics and can be bought cheaply.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            There may be occasional examples, Jason, but most of us run closed herds these days, have for years. Our genetic improvements come through sires via AI.

            We are reluctant to bring in a “good cow” from outside, regardless of her origin. It’s a rare, rare thing to find a “good cow” by modern standards residing in any organic herd – few achieve production or lifetime records worthy of serious attention.

            Besides, we don’t rely upon antibiotics in the fashion you suggest to patch up broken cows and buy them “cheap”. Most of us raise surpluses of replacement cattle that, due to our housing being filled as fast as we can build it, we are forced to sell…and those are good young cattle with excellent potential, so when we sell them for whatever price, it seems too “cheap” to us. We would love to keep them all — nothing, absolutely nothing so satisfying as seeing what a fresh heifer with superior genetics might accomplish!

          • Jason

            I’m not speaking of patching up a broken cow. I’m speaking of giving a cow with an infection some antibiotics.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Jason, what you’re suggesting we do with cattle is roughly equivalent to bringing onto your home farm seed potatoes with inferior genetics infested with late blight or nematode…when you’re already in the seed potato business, spuds so plentiful around the place you practically have to give the extras away (just to put it in context you might be more familiar with). Why would any professional agriculturist do such a thing? Please give us lowly stockmen a little credit for knowing what the hell we are doing — it’s rare, but every now and again we actually do sumpthin right ;>)

          • Jason

            I’m not suggesting any such thing. I know that no good herdsman is going to buy a crummy cow just because it’s available. I’m suggesting that when a dairyman sees an opportunity to get good genetics to add to the herd, they do it. Why wouldn’t they?

        • hyperzombie

          Dairy cattle treated with antibiotics cant be returned to Organic production in the US, but they can in Canada and the UK after a 2 month washout period. But for some reason the meat cant be certified organic meat. Weird.

        • Carolyn Parsons

          As others have stated, the cow often goes into a conventional herd. Some organic dairies also operate conventional dairies side by side and the cows move across to the other herd, other times they are sold.

          Selling a cow, especially a young one is often a money losing choice. The investment in rearing the replacement cow is recouped during her productive lifetime. In some cases the price one gets for the cow does not cover the replacement costs. A young cow that is an excellent producer is more likely to stay in the herd and not be treated, or treated with ineffective “natural” and other woo treatments. Some infections are not serious and clear well on their own but others are serious and even life-threatening if left untreated. It depends on the bacterial species and several other factors including the age of the cow.

          • hyperzombie

            Pssst. Dont tell anyone but i believe that most Organic dairy farmers would treat the infection with antibiotics, take the cow out of circulation for 2 months, and just not tell anyone.

            Farmers are not generally cruel to the animals under their care (even if the rules are). No one ever tests the Organic animals, so it can be our little secret.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep, same way they use ‘non-organic’ and even treated seed because, if they’ve looked around a little bit and didn’t find a convenient source of ‘organic seed’, the official rules of the game encourage them to skip all the organic runic ceremony and just buy and plant modern seeds that work best.

            Most organic dairy farmers definitely do keep a stash of effective modern medicines at the house where it won’t be a subject of conversation during the one and only annual visit from their friend and mentor, the “organic certification inspector”. But it does make me chuckle when these organic dairy producers whine about the high cost of homeopathic cures. Turns out these fools actually believe in this woo and liberally ‘experiment’ with them on their livestock, turning to antibiotics and other effective modern drugs when an animal is really, really sick The most deluded among them even dose their kids with quack remedies. Of course children are remarkably durable and usually bounce right back from the sniffles, so the quack nostrums get credited with “cure” after amazing “cure”. It is a cult following that defies rational explanation.

          • Kevin

            Cows that aren’t kept confined are more able to not have the health issues you say are so prevelant. When a cow is placed in a “conventional” herd there is still a market for it and it’s milk.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Wow, another urban myth to your credit Kevin. Easy one to debunk, though…

            Oh yeah, back in the day when you were an overpaid bankster grifting off vulnerable ag clients your dairy accounts featured obsolete dark cramped dirty little old cow barns that were hard as hell on cows and calves. When those herds ‘went organic’ or ‘went pastured’ the very act of relieving those cows from that barn environment improved their health visibly. When you hear organic dairymen rave about how great things became for cows when they transitioned to organic, and when you look at the mediocre condition of their cows now under organic management, you simply have to wonder, wow, how terrible was their housing and management before going organic?

            Oh, and those expensive new state-of-the-art dairy barns and milking facilities you and your crappy bank were too cheap and frightened to finance back in the day, Kevin? Those are working out great for cows! Designed and managed expressly for the comfort, convenience and needs of modern high-bred dairy cattle performing to near their genetic potential. Plenty of open space, ample feedbunk access and rations formulated by professionals delivered by skilled feed mixing crews, state-of-the-art milking facilities and equipment, rubber belting on the floors and cow traffic areas, perfectly sized stalls with deep sand bedding or mattresses (air or water) that keep cows comfortable and spotlessly clean, even cooling systems in the heat of the summer and high volume fans to keep any flies away. Cows love it, they thrive on it and if you accidentally leave a gate open to outdoors the girls, after clocking a few taunting victory laps, are soon crowding to get back inside with the good food and away from the flies. Every bit as accommodating and comfortable as your office or living room — how much time do you insist upon working, eating and sleeping outdoors?

            Yep, those sorts of modern facilities are expensive but the cows unanimously indicate they are worth every penny — ‘course an ignorant anti-agriculture skinflint banker like yourself wouldn’t understand anything about that, Kevin, you worthless old fossil.

        • J. Randall Stewart

          An upvote for a common sense solution.

          This is exactly how conventional cows are treated.

        • NecktopPC

          RE: “Can the cow be removed from the production herd and treated and then
          returned after the antibiotics are stopped, after a washout period?”

          Not according to the USDA Organic Regulations.

          “Antibiotics, including those used in dry cow therapy, are not allowed for use in organically-produced milk in the US. If an animal does get sick and requires antibiotics, she must leave organic production permanently.”

          SEE: A review of the steps in controlling mastitis cases:http://nmconline.org/articles/organic.htm

          • SageThinker

            Sure, seems like USDA organic regulations are not perfect. Nobody said they are. Seems like it would be good to revise dairy cow rules to allow for treating of infections and return to the herd after a 2 months washout period.

          • NecktopPC

            The Canadians use a two week ‘washout’ period.

          • SageThinker

            Seems more sensible than to prohibit antibiotics altogether or exclude from the herd forever.

          • NecktopPC

            As they say; prevention is better than cure.

          • SageThinker

            Depends what you mean by that. Prophylactic use of antibiotics can be harmful in the long-run if you see it in an ecological lens (or “agroecological” to be more precise) as it causes antibiotic-resistant bacteria to emerge, and then we’re screwed. It’s already a serious health issue and i think it’s the 3rd leading cause of death in hospitals these days, the antibiotic resistant infections.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “Depends what you mean by that.”

            I provided some information on the topic earlier in this thread.

            Mastitis Control on Organic Dairies in the United States: A review of the steps in controlling mastitis cases
            http://nmconline.org/articles/organic.htm

          • SageThinker

            Guideline 213 is something, but it’s not legally binding but voluntary as i see it. USDA organic standards could use some revising to allow use of antibiotics in cases of real need, then a washout period — probably more than two weeks — but still return to the herd. I agree that this seems extremist, the total prohibition of antibiotics even for treatment of infection.

      • NecktopPC

        Mastitis is a disease that affects a large number of dairy cattle throughout the world. A survey conducted in the major milk-producing countries indicates that each year clinical mastitis afflicts 15% to 20% of cows35. In Canada and the United States, it is thought that 50% of cows have one or more infected quarters. In Denmark, it is estimated that mastitis is the cause of 30% to 40% of veterinary interventions.

        Using antibiotics is not an ideal solution. Other than the problems they cause with the milk (withdrawal for x days, contamination from antibiotic residues, problems associated with yogurt and cheese processing), antibiotics have not reduced the incidence of mastitis (footnote A)37. Problems associated with resistance or even ineffectiveness are quite real in the case of mastitis caused by coliforms and Staphylococcus aureus15.

        In organic agriculture, the use of antibiotics is neither normally authorized, nor desirable. There are however a large number of preventive and curative measures available to producers to deal with the problem. Mastitis control also entails a good understanding of the factors that encourage its incidence and the microorganisms that cause it.

        SOURCE: http://eap.mcgill.ca/agrobio/ab370-11e.htm

        • J. Randall Stewart

          I see you still think you are an expert when you have zero experience and even less knowledge.

          Those of us with real practical experience and actual knowledge can see that you have neither experience or knowledge.

          For example: How is it even possible for antibiotics to reduce the “incidence” of mastitis?

          Perhaps you could explain this further? You will, of course, make perfect sense to the other ignorant and critical folks while providing further source of hilarious Dunning-Kruger comedy to those of us with some actual experience and knowledge in the area.

          You obviously don’t even know that no wet cow is ever treated with antibiotics. (production)

          SOURCE: I’m a lifetime crop farmer with a dairy. It is sad that people like you are “educating” the public about how we do things.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Right you are RJS. Our self-invited guest lecturer, BobbleheadPC, is hopelessly misinformed and ill intended, as usual. Doesn’t know cattle from catalytic converters. ‘Course ol’ BobbleheadPC doesn’t let any of that break her stride — just keeps the propaganda spewing at the pace of a brisk trolling gish gallop. Just as we’ve heard so many times before: ‘if you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with BS’, that’s our favorite bobblehead!

          • NecktopPC

            So in other words; this website was designed and dedicated to DroneFarmerBS lecturers.

            I get that.

          • NecktopPC

            I have never claimed to be an expert on any subject or topic, unlike yourself and your DroneFarmer cohorts have. I merely provide information which you, and your GMO apologist friends, seem to conveniently ignore.

            The last time (4 months ago) you asked of me to explain something further for you, and or, to provide some information on a particular topic or issue, you simply resorted to the same childish and uninformed rhetoric: “hilarious Dunning-Kruger comedy.”

            RE: “Should I use low-lignin corn and/or alfalfa? Yes or no? What do you know about the benefits? Speak as a consumer. (Edit, or you could assume the role of expert if you feel more comfortable in that role) – J. Randall Stewart”

            My response to you on this subject can be viewed through this URL and, to which you had no further responses – http://www.denverpost.com/2016/04/01/science-sacked-in-boulder-gmo-plan/

            Latest: RE: “For example: How is it even possible for antibiotics to reduce the “incidence” of mastitis? – J. Randall Stewart”

            I provided information above, which clearly stated: “Using antibiotics is not an ideal solution – In organic agriculture, the use of antibiotics is neither normally authorized, nor desirable. There are however a large number of preventive and curative measures available to producers to deal with the problem.”

            And those excerpts were in fact, the essence of the information contained in my previous post above, which you obviously over looked – Eyes Wide Shut?

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Reread my reply about the part you missed.

          • NecktopPC

            Can’t really be bothered or wast more time with that.

          • Jason

            People “conveniently ignore” the information you provide because to anyone with even a little bit of knowledge or common sense, your information is obviously bull śhlt.

          • NecktopPC

            More DroneFarmerBS (bull śhlt) is all you’re truly capable of.

          • Jason

            I’m not sure what DroneFarmer is, but yah. You post a lot of BS.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            I have never claimed to be an expert on any subject or topic,”

            That is your tone. This is done by making blanket declarations, refusing to consider other viewpoints, offering extensive “advice” and “knowledge”, and refusing to admit when you are wrong or when you have made an error, Perhaps this is just how you come across, perhaps you are just arrogant, or perhaps you are prime Dunning-Kruger, I’m not really sure. Furthermore, yes you have claimed to be an expert.

            The last time (4 months ago) you asked of me to explain something further for you,

            I never asked you to explain something to me. I asked you some questions about how you–as a consumer–feel about low-lignin.

            Low-lignin is that it is a hard trait to work with in the production cycle–yet it has great potential. I had hoped that perhaps you would see how beneficial it is. I had hoped that you would see how hard it is to get that trait bred into crops without losing other desirable traits. I had hoped you would find out that low-lignin has been conventionally developed for decades, yet has the potential to make decades worth of progress in just months if using GE technology.

            None of that happened. You instantly assumed that I was ignorant, you assumed the role of expert and instructor, and you proceeded to “educate” me.

            Perhaps you could have found out that the majority of low-lignin crops are non-GMO. You could have found out that I have experimental low-lignin crops growing on my farm. You could have found out that I’ve raised a large amount (over 100K tons) of low-lignin crops. But no–that is certainly not your style.

            Like you said–you are a consultant. Being the resident expert is what you do. However, it appears unlikely that you’ll consider other viewpoints contrary to your pre-conceived conclusion, no matter how much experience or “expert” that other person may be.

            Asking about low-lignin vets a person’s understanding and bias.

            People like you understand almost nothing about the real benefits or challenges of a BMR corn or low lignin alfalfa–yet you are quick to declare you’ll never accept it as a GE trait. Why? If it is more efficient, it is certainly better for the environment, the cows, and everything society should care about. It has nothing to do with pesticides or human feed, and everything to do with nutrition.

            When it comes to agriculture, you get a F in understanding and an A in Bias.

            Do you want to try that low-lignin thing again? Question: How can low-lignin help consumers? Follow-up question: Is it better to get the exact same plant using decades of breeding or months of genetic engineering?

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “I never asked you to explain something to me. I asked you some questions about how you–as a consumer–feel about low-lignin.”

            You having trouble reading your own words?

          • J. Randall Stewart

            What about low lignin? If the identical plant can be made in a fraction of the time by GE is that good or not?

          • NecktopPC

            I’ve already schooled you on that topic. You should have paid attention and taken better notes.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Thank you for your effort. I take responsibility for any misunderstanding.

            I’ll re phrase the question, I probably wasn’t clear enough last time.

            This question is based on: Knowing that low lignin trait is a natural, conventional trait, and knowing the benefits it provides, and also knowing the difficulty and time it takes to breed the trait naturally:::

            *Do you support using GE technolog that will create an identical plant in a few weeks instead of the few decades natural breeding takes?*

            Yes or No

          • NecktopPC

            I do not support the biotechnology that is Genetically Modified Organisms.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Do you support using GE technology that will create an identical plant in a few weeks instead of a few decades of natural breeding?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Nobody cares what you support, BobbleheadPC. Your irrational fears are irrelevant to any sane discussion for the same reason we do not let the bobbleheads on our dashboards drive our cars.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “Nobody cares what you support”

            Nobody? Good luck with your naive ego and DroneFarmerBS.

            RE: “we do not let the bobbleheads on our dashboards drive our cars.”

            They sure seem to driving some of the tractors.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Heh, wrong again BobbleheadPC. These days we let GPS steer our tractors to accomplish the latest and greatest in agriculture — precision farming! ‘Course that’s just one more modern detail in agriculture you and your loopy anti-agriculture anti-technology cultists would know absolutely nothing about. Just one more curious technology for you ignorant Luddite cranks to fear and hate.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “These days we let GPS steer our tractors”

            Pretty soon there will be no more need for you too.

            You’re a ‘dying’ (thanks to the agro-toxins corporations that supply GMO farmers with there ecologically destructive agrochemicals) breed.

            All you’d be left with, is; more DroneFarmerBS.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Wrong once again, BobbleheadPC, wrong, wrong, just amazing how you can be so wrong so much of the time!

            See, as long as there are urban and suburban bobbleheads lurching around there will be need for me and a small army of git-r-done folks like me to feed all those loopy fools like you. So, I’m not “a dying” and neither are you, BobbleheadPC.

            But when it comes to being “ecologically destructive” and unsustainable, all you urban and suburban bobbleheads are at the very heart of the problem — sure, a few farmers like me produce tons and tons of food for you demanding clods, which you hoggishly consume and busily convert to unsightly flab and human excrement. Every day of every week of every month of every year you bobbleheads are gobbling and excreting into leaky septic systems or into sewage treatment facilities where your sludge is ultimately deposited in landfills.

            And what have we to show, BobbleheadPC, for all the good wholesome food we grow and you industriously convert into stockpiled sewage sludge? Nuthin’. A total waste — you waste our food, you waste our oxygen, you waste our bandwidth…and if you think our farming is damaging the planet, well, we do it to feed you so I guess you are actually the one wasting our planet, you and your urban bobblehead blow buddies, eh?

          • NecktopPC

            “Why does WF allow non-organic produce on shelves without checking the conditions they’re grown in?” he called the answer he got “corporate doublespeak” and summed it up as: “Whole Foods don’t ask, [and] they
            [the farmers] don’t tell.”

            Whole Foods Market must ask farmers who supply non-organic produce, a simple question: “Do you spread ‘biosolids’ on any land where you grow crops sold to Whole Foods?”

            Whole Foods et al., should label produce grown in sewage sludge. As signs in Whole
            Foods’ meat departments say, “The more you know, the better.”

            Certified organic food cannot be grown in sewage sludge — or “biosolids,” the Orwellian PR euphemism used by the sewage sludge industry.

            SOURCE: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11618/dont-ask-dont-tell-concerned-citizen-uncovers-whole-foods-policy-selling-food-gro

            National Organic Program Regulations: More specifically, the act defined the standards for organic labeling of crops, livestock and processed products and prohibited the use of non-natural farming techniques such as synthetic pesticides, genetic engineering, sewage sludge, artificial fertilizers, and non-organic feed and growth hormones in livestock and poultry.
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Organic_Program_Regulations

            http://www.dolls2u.com/farmer-p-14936.html

          • Farmer with a Dell

            You are babbling again, BobbleheadPC. So, you are a WholePaycheck shopper, why am I not surprised…a fool and her grocery money are easily parted. Now, be a hero and go generate some more biosolids, BobbleheadPC, that seems to be about the only thing you CAN do…pile up unsightly flab and excrement.

          • NecktopPC

            You can only resort to more DroneFarmerBS.

          • agscienceliterate

            These farmers use GPS for much more minutely precise delivery of fertilizers, water, and pesticides, thereby preventing waste and runoff. These farmers feed you, and yet you mock and complain about modern farming. If you would take a day off from this site and read about modern farming and biotech, your posts and questions might have more relevance.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “you mock and complain about modern farming. If you would take a day off
            from this site and read about modern farming and biotech, your posts
            and questions might have more relevance.”

            You are the one who is mocking the ‘real farmers’ – you put the likes of “farmer with a dell”, “joe farmer”, “jason” and “j randal stewart” in the same category as real farmers? Of course you’re a real scientist too, right?

            What those avatars put into words on sites such as this, is nothing more than parroted sentiments for the pro-GMO narrative, or as it is now more well known: DroneFarmerBS.

            Here is something about modern farming, which you should take you a full day to read – and i doubt that even after reading the information there; your post will still have very little relevance.

            http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/

          • agscienceliterate

            Oh, you want to talk about avatars? Let’s start with yours. On second thought, let’s not. You seem to really fear the fact that farmers and pro science advocates post here with information that doesn’t fit your confirmation bias. I have never claimed to be a scientist, but I do claim to be literate about agricultural science and biotechnology, and I am proud of it. You send an article about an anti-GMO movement, big deal, as if that is going to underscore your many anti-GE biases. Believe me, there are reasons why those of us with cool avatars don’t bother to give you our true identities, just as you have your reasons for using your silly necktie avatar. As one farmer, Farmer Sue,who used to post here says, “Your mind is slammed shut tighter than a hog’s ass at fly time. ”
            You have a right to remain rigid in your anti-farming anti-science beliefs, and we have a right to respond to them.

          • NecktopPC

            DroneScienceBS

          • agscienceliterate

            So? Don’t eat it then. No one forcing you. Plenty of stuff labeled organic and nonGMO certified for people like you. Leave the GE foods to the rest of us who appreciate the ecological sustainability and reduced footprint in the production of healthy GE foods.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “Plenty of stuff labeled organic and nonGMO certified for people like you.”

            Actually you are wrong again.

            http://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/costco-gets-creative-to-meet-shoppers-huge-appetite-for-organics/

          • agscienceliterate

            Oh you poor pathetic thing. There are over 3000 foods labeled non-GMO certified, and thousands of foods that are labeled organic. That’s not good enough for you? Somehow, I don’t feel sorry for you. Somehow, I don’t think you’ll go hungry. Somehow, I think you will still continue to bash farmers who produce healthy GE foods. Somehow, I don’t think you will be happy to you reduce GE choices for the rest of us. Whatta guy. Ugh.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “There are over 3000 foods labeled non-GMO certified”

            Well don’t keep the list to yourself – please provide a link to that.

          • agscienceliterate

            Jeez. Do I have to blow your friggin’ nose for you? Look it up. Google “nonGMO certified.” Grow a pair and grow up.

          • NecktopPC

            Perhaps you’re putting too much blow up your nose.

            The Non-GMO Project remains the most widely accepted non-GMO
            verification program in the US. To date, there are 35,000 food products
            from 2000 brands that are Non-GMO Project verified.
            http://non-gmoreport.com/articles/new-non-gmo-certification-programs-emerging/

          • agscienceliterate

            Well, about time you blew your own nose! You looked it up! Yay for you!
            Now you know how many products as non-GMO verified. I said 3000, you say 10 times as much. Terrif! Now, you have no excuses. You are a big boy. Put on your big boy panties and take responsibility for what you choose to eat. Eat nonGMO certified. Eat organic. You won’t starve, and these companies will snigger all the way to the bank. You have nothing to complain about, unless you are concerned about the fact that I choose GE foods, and dude, that ain’t none of yo’ business what I choose to eat.

          • You are an anti-vaxxer who thinks Wakefield was framed.

          • NecktopPC

            Aaoooooo!

            Howling at the moon DroneFarmerBS.

          • Kevin

            I understand that. I used to milk cows. I love all animals.
            Now I am retired.
            Personally I drink fresh milk straight from the tank. It has never posed a problem. I know the farmer who produces it. I trust her.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          There might be possibilities for prevention, BobbleheadPC, if…and this is a BIG if…IF organic regulations would simply allow the use of effective modern disinfectants in managing cow contact surfaces. And IF organic rules did not require cows must spend time each day away from shelter regardless of climate and weather conditions, often lying with their udders on cold ground or snow, just as often in mud and muck. And IF, when organic cows are housed, that housing wasn’t nearly always obsolete, cramped, injury prone and fundamentally unsanitary. And IF organic rules required and allowed for effective fly control. And IF organic milk producers weren’t encouraged by profit motives to retain obsolete milking facilities and equipment that are so crucial to promoting tissue stresses and spread of infection, especially in low producing cattle.

          Yep, in a perfect world, BobbleheadPC, all nastiness would be prevented…especially, one might expect, in an authoritarian “certified organic” regime that is boisterously touted as being so, so very, very perfect. I guess the perfect vision of organic food production is all a big tenuous lie, a phony charade marketed to delude naive grocery shoppers and food consumers, ’cause organic milk production is far, far from being anything like perfect.

          • NecktopPC

            I don’t know what could be more nasty that the conditions animals are made to endure in the world of conventional agriculture; not to mention being fed GMO products.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well see, BobbleheadPC, that’s just one more thing you’ve been wrong about all this time — you’ve let your handlers jerk you around by the hair to believe that hateful nonsense. But, huzzah!, you’ve learned something today, BobbleheadPC, namely that modern state of the art dairy facilities and equipment cater exclusively to the comfort, convenience and well-being of the animal.

            Careful with this sketchy business of learning facts, BobbleheadPC — too much of that might get you moved from the kiddie table and could eventually jeopardize your cherished Dunning-Kruger trolling status.

            That would be a tragedy — you could no longer throw irrelevant novice drivel against the wall to see what might stick; you could no longer preface your premeditated prevarications with the disarming ruse “…I have never claimed to be an expert…” then go on to misinform everyone with one of your scintillating Dunning-Kruger monologues; you would begin to feel compelled to link to legitimate credible peer reviewed science sources, shunning your handler’s echo chamber propaganda websites; in short, the wonder and joy would be flushed from your puerile perspective of the real world.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “…modern state of the art (modern, being perhaps the most important key word here) dairy facilities and equipment cater exclusively to the comfort, convenience and well-being of the animal.”

            DroneFarmerBS soapbox lecture at its best.

            Female cows are artificially inseminated shortly after their first birthdays.3 After giving birth, they lactate for 10 months and are then inseminated again, continuing the cycle. Some spend their entire lives standing on concrete floors; others are confined to massive, crowded lots, where they are forced to live amid their own feces. A North Carolina dairy closed its doors following revelations from a whistleblower that the cows were forced to eat, walk and sleep in knee-deep waste.

            On any given day, there are more than 9 million cows on U.S. dairy farms—about 12 million fewer than there were in 1950. Yet milk production has continued to increase, from 116 billion pounds of milk per year in 1950 to 206 billion pounds in 2014.8,9 Normally, these animals would produce only enough milk to meet the needs of their calves, but genetic manipulation—and, in some cases, antibiotics and hormones—is used to cause each cow to produce more than 20,000 pounds of milk each year.10 Cows are also fed unnatural, high-protein diets—which include dead chickens, pigs, and other animals—because their natural diet of grass would not provide the nutrients that they need to produce such massive amounts of milk.11

            Studies have shown that providing cows with cleaner housing, more space, and better diets, bedding, and care lowers their milk’s SCC as well as their incidence of mastitis.16 A Danish study of cows subjected to automated milking systems found “acutely elevated cell counts during the first year compared with the previous year with conventional milking. The increase came suddenly and was synchronized with the onset of automatic milking.”17 Instead of improving conditions in factory farms or easing cows’ production burden, the dairy industry is exploring the use of cattle who have been genetically manipulated to be resistant to mastitis.18

            SOURCES:

            http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/cows-milk-cruel-unhealthy-product/

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727794/Investigation-launched-North-Carolina-dairy-farm-cows-filmed-wading-manure.html

            Have you had your milk today?

            (brackets mine)

          • Farmer with a Dell

            PETA? Oh, for the love of Mike, BobbleheadPC, spare us the choking laughter — we had no doubt PETA was among the various handlers who routinely jerk you around by the hair and get you believing their hateful nonsense. You probably get sucked into sending them donations, too, don’t you? Yep, you are part (a small subservient part) of the Big Biz of organized hate mongering. They use you as the perfect stooge, with your big empty bobblehead nodding obediently.

          • NecktopPC

            If I had the choice of who might jerk me around, and I most certainly do; I’d pick PETA any day over the consistent DroneFarmerBS, that you and your GMO shill corhorts spew…nonstop diatribe balderdash.

          • Needham’s M. Garden

            I think this sentence alone pretty much summarizes Necktops farming experience….

            “Female cows are artificially inseminated shortly after their first birthdays.3 After giving birth, they lactate for 10 months and are then inseminated again, ”

            Just so you don’t embarass yourself anymore Necktop – let me explain.

            1 – all cows are female – female cows is like saying female girls…..

            2 – you must be implying that the female cow is denied the pleasure of sex because she is artificially inseminated? – horrible sounding practise – or is it just that the word “artificial” scares urbanites?

            3 – should a “female cow:)” need 10 months to rebreed she (the female cow:) would not be around for long…

          • Needham’s M. Garden

            Funny story comes to mind when my urbanite cousin from the concrete jungle of Toronto came to the farm…

            We were standing by the fence outside the barnyard where one of our beef cows was nursing her calf.

            My cousin (who was certainly old enough at the time to know better) asked “is that your bull?”

            Surprised I answered – uhhh no!
            He said ” oh – I thought only bulls had horns”

          • NecktopPC

            Full of ‘bull’ your are; is all.

          • NecktopPC

            DroneFarmerBS.

            Cattle (commonly called cows), are among humankind’s most important domesticated animals. They are even-toed ungulates or hoofed mammals, of the species Bos taurus of the family Bovidae, or bovids. Through history, they have had a tremendous effect on human culture, economy, and religion.

            SOURCE: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cattle

          • Needham’s M. Garden

            unflippenbelievable! These hippy “organic” preachers would have the world think that somehow conventional high producing herds are mistreated and are unhappy cows – as if poor husbandry of a dairy herd is somehow going to produce more milk. Here is a little “no-brainer” for any armchair urbanite wanna be farmer – happy, healthy cows produce big milk, and I suppose the opposite therefore is true.

          • NecktopPC

            Simply more DroneFarmerBS.

    • Kevin

      So untrue you are. You omit glyphosate and pesticides.
      It must hurt so much to not have a monopoly.
      Their moronic dangerous approach to our food supply is and will keep us motivated. It will all be fixed when Monsanto and the like are just a bad memory.
      You lie big time.
      I work for no one for money. With no skin in all of this, my mission is to do the right thing. I intend to continue to expose people like you.

      • Farmer with a Dell

        Expose people like me, Kevin? Then you will be exposing readers to the factual science-based information championed by me and people like me! It’ll be the first good and sensible thing you’ve done in a long, long time.

        And that would be a major change of character for you, Kevin, a burned out old ex-bankster who panicked during the 2008-2010 ag economy downturn and sold out your ag clients and their notes on the discount market. You haven’t found work in ag lending since…and you never will again, we will see to that. You must have been about the most ignorant and worst ag lender ever. Now you while away your time flaming websites with your inane anti-agriculture anti-technology propaganda. You really should get outside once in a while for some fresh air because your comments have become increasingly shrill and incoherent. You appear to be on the verge of completely losing your mind Kevin.

      • Stephan Neidenbach

        Homework assignment. Go research what a monopoly really is and get back to us.

      • I intend to continue to expose people like you.

        Yet all you’ve managed to achieve so far is to expose yourself …

    • Kevin

      ignore Farmer with a Dell. He/she is a spokesperson for Monsanto appearing all over the internet. This individual wants to cause confusion and to intimidate those of us who get it.

  • SageThinker

    I am under the impression that most dairy operations and most livestock operations in general do feed a large amount of the meal from canola oil production and soybean oil production, which generally contains glyphosate. Is this correct? The meal is what remains when oil is pressed out of the produce, and because the oil generally contains only a tiny amount of the glyphosate (on the order of 1%) then the meal contains a greater amount as it becomes concentrated.

    • hyperzombie

      (on the order of 1%)

      Funny, 1% LOL.

      • Farmer with a Dell

        Ha, ha, yeah — it must be a clever modern way to put one’s thumb on the scales as in olden times, like adding sand to sugar; as if every 100lb bag of soybean meal is really only 99lbs meal and 1lb herbicide.

        What an insufferable fool that guy routinely makes of himself!

    • Needham’s M. Garden

      hehheee – 1% – that must be those guys that “douse” their crops with ten dollar per litre roundup – those guys that build berms around their fields – pump in 10 dollar per litre roundup till their crops is totally submerged – ya those guys Sage.

      Can you explain to us farmers how soybean meal is concentrated – do they distill it or something?

      • SageThinker

        Why are you giggling in an odious way, “Needham”, what’s wrong with you? Anyway, “douse” is a relative word and i never said that, and application depends on potency and glyphosate is extremely potent per mass unit, so i’d say “laced” with glyphosate. Anyway, soybean meal is the by product from oil pressing and indeed nearly all glyphosate remains in the meal and not in the oil in processing, as shown by the processing factors in the FAO report on glyphosate residue in crops from 2005 if you want a reference, and so the glyphosate level in the meal is greater than that in the unprocessed soybeans. Make sense?

        • Needham’s M. Garden

          I am giggling at your lack of understanding and the fact that you are being used whether you know it or not by the corrupt “organic” industry.
          Sadly or brilliantly depending on how you look at it the “organic” industry knows that less than 2% of the population is involved in farming, and likely 2% of that 2% is likely to defend their practices assuming they even have the time to read forums such as this. Therefore they can come up with these outlandish claims and almost everyone will “gobble it up” not knowing any better.

          Every single scary story about food currently going around the internet is rubbish and the “organic” industry and guys like “the health ranger” are starting all this nonsense.

          Do some critical thinking and follow the money – who stands to gain the most from scaring people about perfectly safe farming practises and scary food stories?

          The icing on this cake is slowly coming off and 10 years from now I would wager that you will be embarrassed to repeat the things you are saying today.

          • SageThinker

            Well then bye. Ain’t talking to an abusive person.

          • agscienceliterate

            And the irony is that the organic industry doesn’t even have to pay him to spew this stuff! Ha ha ha!

    • J. Randall Stewart

      ” because the oil generally contains only a tiny amount of the glyphosate (on the order of 1%) then the meal contains a greater amount as it becomes concentrated

      Did you really just type that? So you think that soy meal fed to cattle is >1% glyphosate?

      • SageThinker

        You misunderstand me. I mean that the oil contains about 1% of the total glyphosate that is in the soybeans, and the rest of the glyphosate is isolated into the meal in the pressing. Capiche?

        • J. Randall Stewart

          Got what you meant. My mistake. Thanks.

          • SageThinker

            Thanks for acknowledging it, i appreciate it.

  • NecktopPC

    Freedom of Information Act request, seem to confirm some of the hidden agenda behind the pro-GMO movement.

    WHY FDA POLICY ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS VIOLATES SOUND SCIENCE AND U.S. LAW

    Full story here: http://www.psrast.org/drukeratfda.htm

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      An opinion from a lawyer written 20 years ago who cherry picked documents, hence why he lost his case.

      • NecktopPC

        People can’t handle the truth, especially the FDA, whom have been long ago, been co-opted by Biotech and Big Pharma – ‘they’ own ‘them’.

        You are naive to think that the lawyer would stand a chance against the machine (system). But some very interesting information (whistle blower) came of it at least. Now we know.

        • Farmer with a Dell
          • NecktopPC

            Same ole DroneFarmerBS tactics.

            Soooh predictable.

        • Stephan Neidenbach

          If you think there is a anything I haven’t seen, by all means. But I even read Druker’s book. He is essentially saying that because in the early 90s some in the FDA were concerned about this new technology that there is some massive coverup. Yet he completely fails in actually giving a risk posed by GMOs currently on the market that can’t be applied to “nonGMOs” currently on the market.

          I like Druker. I heard him talk in DC in October, and he is one of the few in the anti-GMO movement to actually go talk to the Cornell Alliance For Science rather than just immediately demonize them. He says he wants to keep dialog open, and I respect him for that.

          But I can like someone without having to agree with them.

          • NecktopPC

            Good for you – do you want a medal, or a chest to pin it on.

    • Kevin

      The Monsanto folks are just trying to protect their positions. These people are indefensible and weak.
      Thank you for shedding light on the subject.

      • Stephan Neidenbach

        Why are you so obsessed with Monsanto? Do you work for Syngenta or something?

        • NecktopPC

          That would be like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire – really; it made no sense at all.

      • NecktopPC

        They sure are, and spending scores of millions of dollars to do it too – thanks.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “Nowhere in the entire document is there any mention about dangers from GMOs to our health or to the environment.
    The entire focus is on the perceived threat GMOs pose to organic
    farmers through the fear of “contamination” and the lack of organic
    livestock feed.” – This story.

    “The Director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) called for bioengineered products to be demonstrated safe prior to marketing. He stated: “… CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans. And the head of the Biological and Organic Chemistry Section chided agency bureaucrats for turning prior policy “on its head” in attempting to equate bioengineered foods with their conventional counterparts. He also pointed out that lack of definitive evidence that a bioengineered food is dangerous is not an assurance of safety, noting that “in this instance ignorance is not bliss.” Photocopies of the documents from which these comments were excerpted are on our website along with several other revealing memos from FDA scientists.”
    Source: http://www.psrast.org/drukeratfda.htm

    • Jason

      Alliance for Bio-lntegrity!! I literally laughed out loud at that. Awesome!

      • NecktopPC

        Expected.

        • NecktopPC

          FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING
          (1) HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS–AND
          (2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY
          SOURCE: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.htm

          • Jason

            Doubling down on bülł śhlt source? Yah….that sounds like a good idea.

            It’s hilarious that you think that an organization that exists solely to oppose genetic modification would find problems with the system that regulates genetic modification.

            Hmmmm…. I wonder if that would be a trustworthy source?

          • Kevin

            Good example. You are about as trustworthy as
            a child molester would be in an elementary school.

          • Jason

            I don’t expect anyone to trust me. That’s why I use trustworthy sources.

          • Kevin

            The only things you lack would be judgement, the ability to know trustworthy and the character necessary to be honest yourself.
            Monsanto has an agenda that is based on money above all, like the politicians they buy and the “studies” they fund. Like you they are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

          • Jason

            Lol… You’re just precious.

            No śhlt monsanto is trying to make money, brainiac. So what? That doesn’t change the fact that every bit of evidence has shown that GMO foods are no different than non gmo from a safety standpoint.

            Get over yourself and your idiotic conspiracy theories.

          • NecktopPC

            You should not keep ‘these trustworthy sources’ to yourself, in forums such as these.

          • Jason

            I don’t. When posting information that I have gleaned from these sources, I happily post them.

          • NecktopPC

            I post what I glean too. You can’t handle it because you’re a DroneFarmerBS Monsanto apologist Shill.

          • Jason

            Yah…that’s probably it. Good luck with all your “sources”.

          • NecktopPC

            Well; rather than just parroting more of the same old DroneFarmerBS (bülł śhlt) perhaps you can put some effort into trying to discredit the information from the ‘organization’ or ‘source’ which I provided.

          • Jason

            It is an organization that exists solely to sell Drucker’s ridiculous book. A book which relies on fear & doubt to sell an idiotic conspiracy. There is no need to discredit it. It’s clearly not a reliable source.

          • NecktopPC

            Figures.

            Just more DroneFarmerBS

          • Jason

            Sure it is. Just hop over to their website & tell me what you see.

          • NecktopPC
          • Jason

            Oh look!… A bunch of documents from before the first biotech crop was ever released well over 20 yrs ago. I see your information is nice and timely.

            Let’s take a look……looks like most of these seem to agree with the FDA policy or are making suggestions to use procedures that we are currently using. Others are just short memos that don’t indicate anything specific at all. And none of them show any specific dangers of geneticly engineered crops.

            Yah… You really got yourself some good stuff there, necktop. Nice work on that, Shelock.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “Oh look!… A bunch of documents from before the first biotech crop was ever released well over 20 yrs ago.”

            So you’re advocating having to wait, until ‘they’ are, and have been released, disrupting and destroying agricultural biodiversity by promoting ‘its’ monoculture plantations of genetically engineered (GE) food crops?

            RE: “Yah… You really got yourself some good stuff there, necktop. Nice work on that”

            Here’s some more ‘good stuff’.

            Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn
            http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Livestock_Deaths_from_GM_Corn.php

            “Nice work (GMO) on that”.

            Its obvious that history (20 yrs ago) teaches nothing.

          • Jason

            So you’re advocating having to wait…

            No, dunderhead. I’m advocating that 25 yr old documents might be the most up to date material for scientific opinion on the subject… and the really aren’t the best material to support your claims when the predominantly agree with policies put in place by the FDA.

            And I’m also advocating that phrases like this ” disrupting and destroying agricultural biodiversity by promoting ‘its’ monoculture plantations of genetically engineered are not only ridiculous, agenda driven propaganda, but they’re also flat out lies.

            And some nut accusing Syngenta of cattle deaths proves what, exactly? Did you even notice that he tried the same thing in civil court and it was tossed out? You realize that any nut can accuse anyone of anything… right? I wonder why no one else is having this problem??

            It’s obvious that getting called out on your horrible choice of sources time & time again has taught you nothing.

        • Jason

          Well if you post a source like that, I should hope that would be expected! It’s the only appropriate response.

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      Not sure what any of what flying yoga lawyer said has to do with the above article.

      • NecktopPC

        You can take the ‘human’ to the information but you can’t make ‘them’ think.

    • Peter Olins

      Oh dear, some wild claims from an ambulance-chaser’s website, written 17 years ago! You really need to get some more current information, preferably from a scientist, not a lawyer.

      • NecktopPC

        What a naive and stereotypical statement from what appears to be a matured person and a scientist at that too.

        It matters not that it was written 17 years ago. The importance of that was obviously overlooked by a bias and narrow vision. It clearly exemplifies the fact that there were serious questions regarding the science (GMO) and the so-called safety of it, from the get go.

        Surely; you can’t pretend that several scientists have been found to be doing research on behalf of the biotechnology (GMO) industry, and at the same time, receiving pay off by the very industry for which they write (studies) so glamorously about.

        You have no argument, other than to use the same old cliche statements of “ambulance-chaser’s websites” or, “conspiracy theory”.

        University scientists caught conspiring with Monsanto to manipulate public opinion on GMOs

        SOURCE: http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16407-university-scientists-caught-conspiring-with-monsanto-to-manipulate-public-opinion-on-gmos

        GMOs Safe to Eat, Says Research Group That Takes Millions From Monsanto
        SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/18/gmos-safe-eat-says-research-group-takes-millions-monsanto

        UNDER THE INFLUENCE:
        THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND GMOS

        The National Research Council (NRC) – the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences – enjoys a reputation as one of the elite scientific bodies in the United States, and independent institution that Congress calls on for impartial scientific advice about topics like genetically engineered crops (commonly called GMOs). However, the NRC’s far-reaching ties to biotechnology companies and other agricultural corporations have created conflicts of interest at every level of the organization, which greatly diminish the independence and integrity of the NRC’s scientific work.

        Among other conflicts, Food & Water Watch found that the
        NRC (and its parent organization, the National Academy of
        Sciences’):

        • takes millions of dollars in funding from biotechnology
        companies

        • invites sponsors like Monsanto to sit on high-level boards
        overseeing the NRC’s work

        • invites industry-aligned, pro-GMO scientists to author NRC
        reports

        • draws scientific conclusions based on industry science

        • operates at times as a private contractor for corporate research.
        SOURCE: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/ib_1605_nrcinfluence-final-web_0.pdf

        Perhaps the NRC should engage with an ‘ambulance-chaser lawyer’ and file a law suit against “Food & Water Watch”.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “The anti-GMO movement is spending millions of dollars on state labeling laws…” – This story.

    All told, since 2013, the food, farm and biotech industries have disclosed spending $192.8 million for lobbying to influence federal GMO labeling legislation and for other issues.

    EWG’s analysis is based on documents filed with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate.

    Anti-GMO-labeling spending for lobbying has dwarfed that of GMO labeling advocates, who disclosed that they spent $6.6 million last year, $2.6 million in 2014 and under $1 million in 2013. Since 2013, industry lobbyists have outspent GMO labeling advocates by over 2100%.

    In a related development, EWG calculates that food and biotech companies and trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to oppose state GMO labeling ballot initiatives. When combined with Washington lobbying expenditures that mention GMO labeling, the total amount spent by labeling opponents is close to $400 million. This estimate does not include lobbying expenditures in state legislatures.
    SOURCE: http://www.ewg.org/research/lobbying-anti-labeling-groups-tops-100m

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      You mean an NGO funded by the organic industry thinks the biotech industry is spending too much money defending itself from attacks on them from said NGOs and the organic industry?

      • NecktopPC

        Do you think an Government Office would disclose, or admit the same?

        I could provide the same information which is also available by the mainstream media, i.e. Guardian.

        If you wish; you are surely free to provide information to the contrary.

    • Kevin

      I appreciate you for being truthful.
      There are some who comment on this article who unlike you obviously have issues with the truth. Lets not elect them to any political position. Lets be sure to boycott them in the classroom.

      • NecktopPC

        Totally – thanks.

  • Kevin

    We will make it hurt for the GMO perpetrators this time. We don’t buy milk with GMOs just like the Jewish don’t buy pork. The system doesn’t hide pork. Why are GMOs treated differently? Like I said this will hurt. We have alternatives and choose them. The increased yield myth about GMOs has proven to be untrue. The herbicides and pesticides are in the GMOs in very high levels.
    The farmer with the Dell always supports Monsanto. He is a conman sponsored by the bad guys. It can be tough to make a living but honesty pays off. Look around and you will see his comments all over.
    Someone needs to oppose him. The craps he says is easy to oppose.

    • Stephan Neidenbach

      System for your faith based diet works the same way as it does for Jews. Jews by food voluntarily labeled kosher the way you can buy NON GMO or organic. Great system, perfect example.

      • Kevin

        So if foods contain peanuts we should just voluntarily disclose?
        You are a good example of why there should be no tenure for teachers. Fortunately I was taught to question and challenge conclusions & statements like the one you made here. You are another individual brought to us by Monsanto. Nice try…

        • Stephan Neidenbach

          Peanuts are an ingredient, “produced with genetic engineering” is not an ingredient. You should have paid more attention in school.

          You compared your dietary restrictions to that of Jews and Kosher, now you are back pedaling because your comparison fell flat.

          Mandatory breeding method labels are an over reach by government and don’t inform consumers about health, nutrition, or even the environment. Your “want to know” is a loaded question that amounts to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum, not a legal defense.

          • Kevin

            It amazes me that you teach in a school. If anyone is throwing a tantrum it is you. Grow up…

          • Stephan Neidenbach

            Funny. I can actually hear you pounding your fists on the table because you failed to prove your argument.

          • NecktopPC

            Its due to your inherent paranoia or vivid imagine, which may be causing you to (actually) hear such things.

          • agscienceliterate

            I have been getting more info from him for my critical thinking class …. These are rich! Speak into the mic, Kevin.

        • I do not want to start a flame here. But I have to respectufully disagree with you Kevin. Food ingredient is something which is materially present in the food. So if food contains traces of peanuts, the peanuts are present and can be detected with sensitive immunochemical tests. Hence peanuts are ingredients. On the other hand if you feed a cow with soybeans, the cow converts the proteins and DNA present in that soybean into its own proteins and its own DNA and the final product eg milk does not contain soybean proteins or soybean DNA. Thus neither corn nor soybean is an ingredient of cows milk. And it makes a little difference whether it was GM soybean or mutagenic or organic or whathever soybean. I understand that you can have your personal perfectly valid reasons for avoidoing certain agricultural processes such as the use of transgenesis in crop breeding, however I do not understand why the current labels such as organic and Non-GMO do not work for you. Why do you think that other people should adopt your values? Do you thing that such a mandatory labeling and tracing of animal feed will not have costs attached to it? What other consequences it might have? How it will affect the poor? What is the European experience with labeling? Even in EU we do not label milk or animal products derived from GM fed animals a s GM. There is no way how to verify such claims for example. Have nice day

    • Jason

      Milk with GMOs?? How does milk have GMOs? You obviously know nothing about this subject. Why do you choose to comment on it?

      You’re a funny little man.

    • agscienceliterate

      Tell me about “GMO milk.” What the H is that?

      • Kevin

        You are definitely not worth my time. Go back to your playpen.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          So, there ain’t no “GMO milk”, then, eh Kevin, you pathetic old faker? Why can’t you just admit your statement about “GMO milk” was ignorant and malicious?

          Instead you insult a man who poses a legitimate question by suggesting he isn’t “worth my [Kevin’s] time”, which abundant unemployed time we all know, Kevin, couldn’t possibly be more worthless and wasted. Perhaps if you used your worthless wasted time to read credible information and learn some science-based concepts of agriculture…uh, well, let’s not fantasize something you are incapable of accomplishing. Troll on Kevin, troll on!

          • Kevin

            Like I said, but you couldn’t understand. Milk from cows fed GMO feed as well as with antibiotics. If people, most of whom have functioning intellects read this they will get it. Remember the decimation of the bee populations (try to get along without them).
            We have had these exchanges before.
            I guess you have an agenda that is pro Monsanto and therefor are not on the up & up.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, there is no “GMO” in milk and the bees are not being decimated by GMO or glyphosate (people in the know say bees aren’t being decimated at all, actually). Seems everything your handlers send you out here to mutter about is complete horseshit. And you seem to believe every word of it hook, line and sinker.

            It is you and naive stooges like you who are foisting the agenda. I just farm and defend against unscientific stupidity recited by anti-agriculture anti-technology tools like you, Kevin. It’s getting so defending against shabby misinformation attacks from screwups like you is almost as much work as the damned farming around here. And, still, we feed you losers. What’s the point?

          • hyperzombie

            Dairy cattle are not fed antibiotics. In fact if any antibiotics are found in the milk the entire load of milk is rejected, costing the farmer 1000s of dollars. So there is never any antibiotics in milk.

          • Kevin

            They are also fed hormones. Farmers do have to dump tanks of milk when contamination gets too high. The cost of doing business. Like speeding tickets to a salesman. No big deal.

          • hyperzombie

            They are not fed hormones, well other than the hormones that are in all plants. Cows have lots of hormones in them already, this goes for every other living animal or plant.

            Farmers do have to dump tanks of milk when contamination gets too high.

            LOL, 0 antibiotics are allowed.

            The cost of doing business

            I am guessing that you have never actually met a farmer, they really dont like flushing their money down the toilet.

          • Kevin

            They are given hormones and they may not like to dump milk, but they do dump when it is necessary. I have financed a lot of “supplements” and seen milk dumped.

          • agscienceliterate

            What “supplements” do you finance, and does that mean you are in the business of profiting from the sale of supplements? Disclosure would be indicative of your biases.
            And which “they” are given hormones? You talking about dairy cattle? What hormones, specifically, and which ones result in “dumping”?

          • agscienceliterate

            Aaaaaaand …. If I just drink milk from cows vaccinated against smallpox, I won’t get smallpox! Huh??

          • agscienceliterate

            He’s right. He isn’t worth my time. I just thought I would give them a forum in which to explain himself. Guess he doesn’t want to take advantage of that.

          • Kevin

            Didn’t bother reading your comment. I have learned that you are not taken seriously very often.
            I agree, you aren’t.

        • agscienceliterate

          My goodness. And I thought you were serious about this “GMO milk” stuff. You really hate it when somebody asks a question about your ridiculous assertions, don’t you?

          • Kevin

            I don’t like to waste my time. You do like to waste my time because you get paid to.

          • agscienceliterate

            Why, Kevin — thank you! I appreciate your comment that you believe my brilliant pearls of wisdom are worthy of compensation. That is so nice of you! Actually, I don’t get paid, but I appreciate your endorsement of my insightfulness, perspicacity, and thoughtful scientific retorts to your bizarre assertions, which unfortunately you seem not able to provide citations for. I would really love to know what “GMO milk” is. But you can’t ‘splain that, so you need to throw out little diversionary statements about my employment.
            I will tell you a surprising statement, Kevin. There is no “GMO milk.” It’s cute that you think there is, though. Avoid it, whatever it is.
            And please tell me how much you think my posts are worth, okay? Trying to get a down payment for a sweet little motorcycle here.
            (Don’t you just hate it when someone pulls back the curtain on your flimsy little fakeries and exposes them for the crude shams they are?)

          • Kevin

            GMO crops fed to cows makes GMO milk. Not a big stretch. Hormones in feed makes unwanted changes in people. GMO crops are wiping the bees out. This can’t be a good thing for anyone. Have a great day.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            OK Kevin, you know how the drill goes…you’ve made yourself out a fool so many times before..

            a) you make stupid inaccurate claims, as above.

            b) when we stop chuckling over your profound delusional ignorance we ask you to cite sources confirming your gloriously bizarre prevarications

            c) you link to some irrelevant stupid-assed anti-technology echo chamber propaganda website

            d) we point out your inane bias and the pathetic insufficiency of your “sources”

            e) you become frustrated because your statements are so blatantly untrue they cannot be supported so you concede with the usual personal attacks and the inevitable “shill” taunt — also a laughably inaccurate claim on your part

            f) we acknowledge your stunning defeat, one more in a long, long line of self-inflicted humiliations on your part and thank you for playing, anyway

            g) a short time passes and you return to regurgitate virtually the same asinine non-truths you’ve recited so many times before

            h) go to step ‘b’, above and repeat the cycle over and over and over and over

            No longer amusing Kevin, you ridiculous old fool. Time for your nurse to put you to bed for your nap, no?

            Oh, btw — if “GMO feed” makes “GMO milk” then that would be quite exceptional because I’m acquainted with a dairyman in Pennsylvania who once took an opportunity to feed some rejected Hershey’s candy as part of his cows’ daily diet. The cows loved it! But they did NOT produce chocolate milk, Kevin. They produced regular old white milk, just like before and since…and just like with “GMO” feed. How is that possible Kevin? Oh, wait, I know, go to step ‘c’, above, so never mind Kevin, we all know the drill.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. There is no such thing as “gmo milk.” And GE crops are not “wiping out” bees. Get off the activists sites and read up.

          • Kevin

            And Hillary never lies.

          • agscienceliterate

            You can believe what you want about Hillary.
            If you make outrageous claims about “GMO milk,” then if you post on this site, you can bet that people will be asking to document what you mean by that. Sounding like an ignorant Food Babe or Michael Pollen devotee don’t get ya many credibility points here.

            What part of DNA in milk protein can be attributed to animals fed GE crops?

            None. https://gmoanswers.com/ask/if-cow-eats-gmo-corn-or-soy-there-any-way-tell-or-there-any-difference-animals-meat-or-milk

          • agscienceliterate

            And brown cows make chocolate milk, right?
            Face palm.

          • hyperzombie

            Hmmm, So a mother that eats a bag of Doritos, will she feed her baby GMO human milk? Is she now a GMO human? Is the Baby a GMO human?
            How about teenagers that eat bags and bags of doritos, are they GMO humans? What if they breed with organic fed humans, would the children be some sort of GMO/ Organic hybrid? Do we need to label these children?

          • Peter Olins

            Priceless!

          • agscienceliterate

            Since you have said you “finance supplements,” does that mean you sell supplements to dairy farmers? What do you sell them? What makes you believe that there is such a thing as “GMO milk” ? What in the DNA of milk protein shows GE feed?
            Do you have current reliabie studies about bee populations? All recent studies over the past few years affirm no such thing.
            Have a nice day, but don’t weasel off without responding to your astonishing claims.

          • Peter Olins

            Should organic farmers be banned from fertilizing their fields with “GMO” manure?

          • kfunk937

            I think so, sometimes. Particularly as I was at ground zero of a massive E. coli outbreak from a local organic orchard specialising in MacIntosh cider.

          • FallsAngel

            We had camphylobacter and e. coli from a goat dairy that sold unpastuerized milk.

  • SageThinker

    I really don’t think this article makes much sense.

    This document essentially admits that the entire anti-GMO movement is built around the lack of non-GMO feed for organic livestock.

    No, it doesn’t, and you don’t show how it does.

    • Farmer with a Dell

      The article is fine. It is you, Daft Tinkler, who has never made much sense. Always babbling on and on and on about minute traces of glyphosate and mangling the science and the arithmetic. Like the way you were sayin’ soybean meal is “on the order of 1%” herbicide! Wow, there’s a thigh slapping howler! For every cwt soybean meal feed sold that would be 99 lbs soybean meal and 1 lb herbicide — one full pound herbicide! What a profoundly stupid and irresponsible thing to say, Tinkler!

      You should see if your day boss has any busy work for you tearing off a roof somewhere. Maybe you can handle a responsibility like that…if you have adult supervision. You certainly are an irresponsible hack when it come to science-based agriculture, Tinkler. It is truly a shame how you insist upon humiliating yourself in front of everyone here.

  • SageThinker

    People want good products and they want to encourage use of non-GMO (and therefore non-glyphosate) feed. That’s not an “attack” nor is it the entire motivation of people aligned with the organic movement, nor is it evil or insidious, nor is it some kind of hidden agenda. It’s plainly said, and it’s transparent. There’s no deep hidden agenda.

    • agscienceliterate

      Wrong. Don’t speak for “people” when you have a hard enough articulating what you want for yourself. You do not speak for me.

      • SageThinker

        Dude, speak with respect or don’t speak to me. I don’t hesitate to block abusive people. I know a lot of people and i know what they are saying.

        • agscienceliterate

          Then do not disrespect me by brushing me with your moldy broad brush dipped in ignorance and generalities. Speak for yourself only.

          • SageThinker

            I speak of what i see other people saying as well and i will continue to do so. I know lots of people and i hear their thoughts and their values as well.

          • agscienceliterate

            You are blind and deaf. You hear only what you want to hear, you see only what you want to see. You do not speak for me.
            If you really are so deluded as to perceive that you speak for others, run for office.

    • Needham’s M. Garden

      So would you prefer crops grown with products less safe than glyphosate? Because glyphosate is so safe that anyone can buy it here in Canada. Everything else I use requires a license.
      You know how many products in the “organic” industry are restricted use as well right?
      In your perfect little world though there likely is no weeds, bugs or disease I guess..

      • SageThinker

        La la la la la you’re not worthy of talking to with your condescending bs.

    • hyperzombie

      People want good products and they want to encourage use of non-GMO (and therefore non-glyphosate) feed.

      You know that this is not true.. Why lie, what is the point and end game of your lies?

      • SageThinker

        I that is true. You are odious to project lying accusation upon me here. Fuck off.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          Ah, the frustrated old fraudster, Daft Tinkler, shows his true colors, once again.

          It’s always the same — Tinkler poses as an informed jackass, recites one of his asinine claims, gets easily debunked for the umpteenth time, becomes angry and petulant, tells the more knowledgeable debater to “fuck off”, or some other puerile epithet. No substance in the Tinkler, just a blast of fetid hot gas.

          This is the fate of all vacuous trolls, all being used as disposable tools of the anti-agriculture anti-technology special interest lobbies. Just peddling their overpriced organic snake oil.

          • JP

            But, you know, it’s everyone else but him being “abusive” and “condescending.” I don’t think he’d recognize irony if it smacked him straight in the face.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Heh, yeah, the Daft Tinkler has “irony” tucked safely out of his sight, same as he assiduously avoids eye contact with “the scientific method”, “ethics” and “peer review”. Those concepts simply don’t serve his purpose, I guess.

      • SageThinker

        That’s what a lot of people want. I’m not lying.

        • hyperzombie

          Lots of people want Jessica Alba to wash their truck in a string bikini, what is your point?

  • Brian

    Do you all realize how obvious your formulea is? You are a AstroTurf GMO site, and you have commentators who back you up for 7 cents per comment. We get it. Those of us who believe organic is better, and poison laced GMO food is bad will OF COURSE work together to stop you. But you knew that.

    http://gefreebc.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/crimes-of-monsanto/

    http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving-door-fda-and-the-monsanto-company/

    http://yournewswire.com/shocking-secret-e-mails-found-prove-monsanto-paid-scientists-off/

    http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/11/29/27-examples-of-journalists-failing-to-disclose-sources-as-funded-by-monsanto/

    • agscienceliterate

      7 cents? Is that all I should get paid for supporting scientific advances in modern farming? Which company, pray tell, pays this largesse? There are numerous GE seed companies, you know.
      Oh, and Brian, shouldn’t the $60 billion organic industry also pay for statements I make, over and over and over and over again, advising you and your ilk to eat organic and non-GMO certified, and to stick to those products? I should think that’s worth a lot more than a measly 7 cents per word, don’t you?
      Definitely stick to organic, dude!