Trolls and shills: How disinformation sites InfoWars, Natural News and US Right to Know manufacture fake news

Milieu control is an attempt by group leaders to limit exposure to outside information. It was made famous by Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist who studied brainwashing in China during the Mao regime. Reasons are given to followers as to why outsiders of the group should not be listened to. A modern example of this is the accusation that protesters are being paid by George Soros.

In online discussions, this is well known as the “shill gambit”. When confronted with evidence that is contrary to someone’s belief they will often begin asking questions like “how much are you being paid?”. These accusations are even promoted by leaders of anti-science movements to convince their followers not to listen to anyone with different information.

Sometimes all it takes is one statement from a company employee to be misinterpreted to feed the conspiracies.

Speaking at a public event, Monsanto’s Dr. William Moar explained to a student when asked how Monsanto handles the vast amount of misinformation about them on the internet:

An entire department dedicated to debunking science which disagreed with theirs.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. When a company’s main product is under threat they will, of course, invest money in protecting it. The practice is even done by the organic food industry. In a New York Times story, Stonyfield executive Gary Hirshberg explains:

That is why Dr. Benbrook, who had served as chief scientist at the Organic Center, a group funded by the organic foods industry, resigned his job and sought a university appointment....

The organic industry knew that a research department with their names directly on it would not be accepted as well by the public. So they sent their own Dr. Charles Benbrook to a university program to hide behind a false halo of independence.

At Washington State Dr. Benbrook was supported by many of the same backers, including Organic Valley, Whole Fields, Stonyfield, and United Natural Food Inc. The companies stayed closely involved in his research and advocacy, helping him push reporters to write about his studies.

What neither the organic industry or Monsanto, is doing is having employees hide behind anonymous social media accounts to promote their products. If they were they would be violating FTC guidelines and should be held accountable there. According to Federal Trade Commission guidelines:

…if there’s a connection between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed.

That didn’t seem to stop Robin Greenwald, Michael Miller, and Aimee Wagstaff. The lawyers are currently suing Monsanto, claiming that their product caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma suffered by their clients. They are claiming that, based on the existence of this department to examine research, that Monsanto also pays its employees to argue with people on social media.

it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs.

There is, of course, zero evidence of this, and calls into question where exactly these lawyers are getting their information. The original Daily Kos story did not make this claim, and it only seems to appear on such conspiracy theory web pages such as Natural News, and InfoWars.

Unfortunately, all it takes is an accusation to be made, and it will be accepted as fact by individuals who already make such an assumption. The Twitter accounts of US Right to Know (USRTK), an organic industry front group astroturfing in the name of “transparency”, were quick to spread the lawyer’s claim.

The use of the word troll by Carey Gillam is especially troubling. Dehumanization of people with a difference of opinion brings back memories of the term “cockroaches” in the Rwanda genocide or calling slaves in the South two-thirds of a human. Why should people inside their group listen to anyone that isn’t even being considered a human being?

It is not far-fetched to consider whether such language has led to a rise in crime against both biotech and plant scientists. Recently Molotov cocktails were launched at a research facility in Italy, one scientist had his office broken into, and Mexican researchers found themselves the target of a mail bomb.

I asked Ms. Gillam to provide a screenshot of just one such social media account that this was in reference to, and she replied with a screenshot of my own tweet.

Whether Monsanto’s product caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in these individuals will be up for the court to decide. One can hope that the court will look at the evidence without thinking that “this person was just paid by Monsanto to be here”. But if the lawyers behind this lawsuit are using notorious “fake news” web pages as their evidence, I don’t think Monsanto has much to worry about.

We should be much more worried about a new rise in eco-terrorism that the leaders of these anti-GMO groups appear to be instigating.

A version of this article appeared at Medium as “Are lawyers behind Monsanto lawsuit citing InfoWars and Natural News?” and has been republished here with permission from the author. 

Stephan Neidenbach is a middle school teacher in living in Annapolis, Maryland. He holds a BS in business administration from Salisbury University and an MS in Instructional Technology from University of Maryland University College. He started and runs the Facebook group We Love GMOs and Vaccines. Follow him on Twitter @welovegv.

  • Craig

    the reference of the 2/3 a human related to slavery is a disservice to the truth. It was an effort by abolitionist-minded Americans to reduce the influence of slaveholders, since they could cast the votes of their slaves. The less voting power they had, as a product of the slave votes, they sooner slavery could be ended by majority vote.

    • Felix Meister

      It’s 3/5ths of a person and it wasn’t about voting it was about relative taxation, wealth and tax burdens.
      It’s the three fifths compromise.

      Although it did lead to greater electoral college votes due to the recounted population.

  • Pamela

    This definitely hits in the top echelon of crappiest articles written over the course of human history. Done Monsanto’s Genetic Illiteracy Project proud, in its unique rehab-center way. God bless God’s chosen people.

    • Kevin Patti

      What a convincing counterargument, laden with facts and reason.

      • b6785l

        Wow, a rebuttal also overflowing with knowledge and perspective!

        SHILL LOL

        • Kevin Patti

          Thanks for immediately jumping to the Shill accusations. it shows that you have no facts on your side.

          • b6785l

            I don’t have a SIDE. I look for facts. Monsanto is legitimately AT A MINIMUM a corporation with more shady direct connections to the Washington greed machine in the USDA and FDA than you’d be comfortable to know.

            For me, it goes back to Agent Orange, the bullying of small farmers re-using seed and the general greed it takes for a company to want to control the global food supply.

          • Jason

            It seems like all you are doing is propagating conspiracy theories. Using phrases like “Washington greed machine” or perpetuating myths like control of the global food supply or bullying small farmers.
            If you look for FACTS, why do you choose phrasing that seems to indicate otherwise?

          • b6785l

            What conspiracy theory Jason? I’m hoping your brain didn’t just explode when you googled Agent Orange? That is old hat, old news proven factual bio warfare!!
            Are you truly unaware of how a corporate interest may not be directly in line with public interest? So the idea of the regulatory govt agencies being a legislative wing of Monsanto doesn’t bother you at all? That’s a fact.

            Lets talk science Jason. Lets talk Glyphosate in commercial food, lets talk about the world including the EU greenlighting the use of this possibly deadly herbicide. Or do you think im just perpetuating myths?


          • b6785l

            Its the shill level on both sides that is pathetic. You guys on the pro Monsanto blind faith shill side, then the anti vaxx alex jones shills. You both suck

          • Jason

            Who’s said anything about blind faith? I prefer to rely on the evidence when making decisions on food safety.

          • Damo

            Who is dealing with blind faith? I don’t think many here care one way or the other about Monsanto. We care about the truth. Or at least I do.

          • Aguirre15

            Yeah that German Risk Assessment Agency which acted as rapporteur to the European Commission on glyphosate reassessment sure looks like a buch of hacks:


            Who is the CLOWN?

          • b6785l

            You are


            Look at us trading websites comparing dick lengths. Im done with you. Enjoy your cancer vegetables you loser LOL

          • Aguirre15

            Ah yes the noted technical journal the Huffington Post. That article, as misleading and inflammatory as it is, has nothing to do with the EU reassessment. You continue to beclown yourself. How did you escape the reservation over there at

          • b6785l


            I am literally the last person to choose Huff Post for my news. If anything, you’d normally be calling me some kind of alt right neocon. That’s why this conversation has been so engaging for me. Makes me feel pity for these poor people who have the GALL to question Monsanto.
            Monsanto is lucky to have people like you that truly cant imagine them doing ANY WRONG!

          • Aguirre15

            Well your fellow travelers Mike Adams and Alex Jones would probably call themselves alt right wingers too, but I am afraid they are just nutcases, nothing more elegant than that. This is not a political question , simply science.

          • b6785l

            What is simple science? That Monsanto creates a world of pesticide dependent produce? GOOD JOB!!! WOO HOO!!

          • Aguirre15

            I said the ISSUE is “simply” one of science. I did not say the science was simple and for someone like you, who is clearly not educated in the biological sciences, it is certainly not simple. Best leave it to the experts and not the Huffington Post.

          • Damo

            So, normally you would think that Huffington Post is no worth reading because it disagrees with you. But in this instance, you agree with the article, so it is a reputable news source? That is called confirmation bias. I hold no opinion one way or the other about Huffington Post, I follow up by looking at the sources and the science.

            Also, alt right and neocon are two different things. In fact, one was created to oppose the other. You really have no clue.

          • Jason

            So the idea of the regulatory govt agencies being a legislative wing of Monsanto doesn’t bother you at all? That’s a fact.

            See what I mean? This is a theory that these two organizations are conspiring against you. That is what’s called a conspiracy theory.

            Lets talk science Jason.

            I’d be happy to. Where would you like to start?

            Lets talk Glyphosate in commercial food…

            Again… happy to. What is your issue?

            lets talk about the world including the EU greenlighting the use of this possibly deadly herbicide.

            This ought to be a red flag to you.. but it seems it isn’t. The very fact that so many world agencies agree on the relative safety of this SHOULD be an indication that it’s pretty likely that they’re right. But instead it appears that, to you, it’s some indication that the whole world is in on the conspiracy.

          • b6785l

            My point is that I don’t assume that a companies interest naturally match the interests of the general public.
            I am skeptical of the safety of the safety of roundup, considering it took a long time to notice how much damage it can do to fish and other water living creatures. The fact that it was found to be safe to consume by regulatory agencies that have had egg on their face more than once before doesn’t completely sell me.

            To act like there is NOTHING TO SEE HERE is as dumb as me acting like the sky is falling and we are all going to die from eating GMOs. Truth is in the middle. Don’t let it ruin your day

          • Aguirre15

            Thats why we have a worldwide statutory regulatory infrastructure.

          • Jason

            My point is that I don’t assume that a companies interest naturally match the interests of the general public.

            That seems wise. I don’t either. But there’s also no reason to assume they don’t. In my opinion, they don’t really need to match. So long as laws aren’t being broken (including food safety & environmental laws), what’s it matter?

            I am skeptical of the safety of the safety of roundup, considering it took a long time to notice how much damage it can do to fish and other water living creatures.

            It’s your prerogative to be skeptical, but (in my opinion) creating some grand worldwide conspiracy to explain away why none of the worlds regulatory agencies seem to agree with you doesn’t really make sense.

            The fact that it was found to be safe to consume by regulatory agencies that have had egg on their face more than once before doesn’t completely sell me.

            This argument seems a bit myopic to me. Sure… the EPA, FDA, and probably every other regulatory agency in the world have been wrong before. But to never be wrong is kind of a high hurdle to hold someone too, isn’t it? Especially when science is always evolving as is what we can & cannot detect. The truth of the matter is that they are right FAR more often that they are wrong. But there just aren’t very many internet threads dedicated to all the times the FDA has been right about something. Apparently, it not a very juicy subject.

            To act like there is NOTHING TO SEE HERE is as dumb as me acting like the sky is falling and we are all going to die from eating GMOs. Truth is in the middle.

            I think there is a LOT of ground between “there’s nothing to see here” and “enjoy your cancer vegetables”. But I’ve never argued either. All pesticides carry risk. Glyphosate is no different. Banning glyphosate carries risks (shift to older more toxic alternatives). Not using any pesticides at all also carries risks. So the correct decision is probably somewhere in the middle. That’s why I rely on what the science says. If, in the future, the weight of the evidence points elsewhere, then that’s what I’ll believe.

          • b6785l

            Thoughtful response, actually enjoy your perspective. I am more or less a troll in this discussion but thanks for engaging and staying on point

          • Aguirre15

            Agent Orange was developed by the US and British governments at the time of WW2. Monsanto and other companies produced it under obligatory government contract. Your raising it in this context is just plain stupid.

          • b6785l

            Its historical context bub

          • Aguirre15

            It was NOT a “Monsanto” product so get over it…and by the way no farmers were “bullied” about saved seed. From the first introduction of RR soybeans in 1996 farmers willingly signed a very clear Grower License Agreement obligating them to respect Monsanto’s patents. Nobody forced them to buy RR beans but they sure as hell did…lots of em.

          • b6785l

            LOL OK NO ONE WAS BULLIED. Don’t let facts get in the way of your longwinded diatribe

          • b6785l

            I’m pretty sure I won this internet battle. Good luck with the rest of your uninformed life bro!

          • Aguirre15

            So bringing suit in a clear case of breach of contract is “bullying”? What are you, a bolshevik?

          • b6785l

            The farmers who were bullied were the ones who didn’t buy into the soybeans, but had the other area farms crops legitimately cross pollinate with their seed. Then Monsanto came in and filed lawsuits. BULLYING 101, pea brain.

          • Aguirre15

            The only case I have ever heard of where that happened was the case of a guy up in Canada who actually propogated such seeds for commercial use. He ended up losing that case all the way up to the Supreme Court. Monsanto does not bring suit for inadvertant cross pollination caused by drift.

          • Damo

            Show one case where this happened.

          • b6785l

            Farmer Troy Roush has appeared in films and been quoted in several articles concerning his dealings with Monsanto relative to a legal case centered on patent infringement. Roush has alleged that Monsanto trespassed on his property illegally. He has suggested that GMOs are not healthy. He has also stated that patented plants have “torn apart rural communities”.

            Unfortunately, Monsanto cannot speak on the case involving Troy Roush. Monsanto and the Roushes concluded their litigation in 2002 with a confidential settlement agreement. Both parties agreed as part of the settlement that they would not disclose the terms of the settlement or discuss the litigation. The parties mutually agreed to a set of four exclusive talking points that each side could use to reply to inquiries about the litigation:


          • Damo

            “It is interesting to point out, that while Mr. Roush is a harsh and frequent critic of Monsanto and GM crops, he remains a customer of Monsanto having purchased a considerable amount of corn and soybean seed from us during 2008.”

          • Jason

            I can’t speak for this situation specifically, but I can give you perspective on this issue from someone who’s been in the seed business in Indiana (as Roush is) for a couple decades dealing with these very farmers.

            The “tearing apart rural communities” claim is a bit of a stretch. What Roush is referring to is the fact that, most often, these farmers are “ratted out” by their neighbors. And, trust me… farmers aren’t ratting each other out over inadvertent pollen drift. Pollen drift is, literally, a non-issue.

            Monsanto had another famous lawsuit in the part of Indiana where I lived & worked at that time. Moe Parr was another “Food Inc” featured farmer. He was turned into Monsanto by local growers for assisting farmers who wanted to plant Roundup Ready beans illegally. And I can assure you that his account of how he was an innocent bystander is far from accurate. Generally speaking, it’s very easy to tell the difference between intentional planting and inadvertent pollen drift.
            Anyway… in most of these cases, there are two sides to every story. And I wouldn’t expect someone who was being sued to give a fair & honest account of the whole situation. Especially if a movie director needs to make their story as appealing to the masses as it can be.

          • b6785l
          • Damo

            “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. “

          • b6785l

            That is messed up. That is copy pasted. If you search it within Wikipedia, it comes right up. Let me find a better link for you since you clearly cant internet on your own. Its ok some people are dumb AF. Not all your fault, its how you were raised and other environmental factors im sure that are contributing factors to your ignorance.


          • Damo

            I followed your link, idiot.

            From the Cornell link:

            “But to reduce costs for his riskier late-season planting, Bowman purchased soybeans intended for consumption from a grain elevator; planted them; treated the plants with glyphosate, killing all plants without the Roundup Ready trait; harvested the resulting soybeans that contained that trait; and saved some of these harvested seeds to use in his late-season planting the next season.”

            A clear violation of the contract he signed.

            So, I am sure environmental factors are the excuse for your lack of reading comprehension. Or maybe you are just “dumb AF.”

            You cited a source that disproves your argument. You are a real brainiac.

          • Damo

            Did you read that?

          • b6785l

            I did! I know that they are within their rights, still though in their position of financial power anyone who tries to oppose them will NEVER be able to. Hence, bullying. I know its basic capitalism and I’m fine with it, but still bullying.

          • Kevin Patti

            Bullying of which small farmers? Specific cases, please.
            Some facts to uphold your other items (aside from Agent Orange. Monsanto is not the creator, the University of Chicago was, nor were they the only manufacturer forced to create it by the US government, others included Dow and Diamond Shamrock, so laying the blame for this solely at Monsanto’s feet is disingenuous.)

          • b6785l

            Specific cases please?

            What the hell. I hate to parrot the article, but are you guys paid by Monsanto?

          • Kevin Patti

            Because asking for evidence means I’m paid by a company I don’t work for.
            Your continued accusations of shilling, instead of actually responding to the arguments, shows that you know your arguments are bullshit parroted from the Anti-gm talking points.

          • b6785l

            What evidence are you asking for? you want names and phone numbers? You want to cross reference my sources?

            We are talking about a for profit company who wants to patent VEGETABLES! If the idea of a company owning the rights to FOOD and also sourcing the majority of the earths pesticides for commercial use doesn’t bother you GOOD FOR YOU IDIOT

          • Kevin Patti

            You made a blanket statement stating that “Monsanto bullies farmers.”
            Surely you can provide one example of this actually happening?

          • Damo

            So, there are no cases of Monsanto bullying. Good to know.

          • b6785l

            Ya when a company wins or settles 145 out of 145 lawsuits


          • b6785l

            Monsanto funds the Generic Literacy Project. Does that concern any of you asshats? Or is that a conspiracy too?


            That is like a Monsanto press release!

          • Damo

            And what facts have you found?

          • b6785l

            The facts as I see it:

            Monsanto created a world of pesticide dependent seeds that may or may not have negative health consequences. Assume they have 0 negative effects to our health, they aggressively look to take ownership over the world’s food supply. They are an extremely powerful lobby in of themselves, with 0 checks and balances in place between the USDA and FDA and themselves by allowing collusion to take place. It’s not black and white. This website makes it seem like Monsanto shits unicorn rainbows

          • Damo

            No seed is pesticide dependent, however, some do have pesticide tolerant traits.

            Monsanto, or any company really, wants market share. But there are seed companies out there with more market share than Monsanto. I don’t think Monsanto cares about food–they care about turning a profit by selling seed.

            There are many lobbies–including one for the organic food industry. If you have a problem with lobbyists or the current system of lobbying, address that.

            Not sure why people think Monsanto has the FDA on the dole, if they did, don’t you think their competitors would be denied permission to sell their products?

            Also, none of that was fact. It was all opinion.

          • WeGotta


            Calling a shill a shill is reason enough to accuse a potential shill of being a shill.

            Person: “Stop! Thief”
            Patti: Thanks for jumping to accusations of theft. Shows you have no facts.”
            Cops: “You’re under arrest.”

          • Kevin Patti

            Evidence of me being a shill: Nothing.
            I am not getting paid for this.
            If you have evidence to the contrary, put it up on the internet for all to see.

          • WeGotta

            Yikes. Even worse when you don’t get paid.

            I’m working on several tests to route out shills.
            The easiest is a declaration of non shillness.

            Like this:
            I, the person knowns as “WeGotta” hereby swear that I receive no compensation from any party (directly or indirectly through contract work, etc) for comments written about food policy, gmo or any other topic in articles after which you might find my comments.

            Now you……

          • Kevin Patti

            I, the person knowns as Kevin Patti hereby swear that I receive no compensation from any party (directly or indirectly through contract work, etc) for comments written about food policy, gmo or any other topic in articles or on any other medium in which you might find my comments.
            All of my opinions are my own, formed after review of the available evidence.

          • WeGotta


            Kevin passes.


          • Damo

            “Calling a shill a shill is reason enough to accuse a potential shill of being a shill.”

            I hate to be a broken record, but you are incoherent again (or still).

          • WeGotta

            Try to concentrate on it for awhile. Really try to think about it.

          • Damo

            That is what you should have done before you typed it.

          • WeGotta

            Maybe you should start with children’s books.
            I suggest you start with Dr. Seuss.

            Pick a book, read it, and give me your report.
            Specifically, what is the lesson of the story you just read?

          • Damo

            What are you even talking about?

            You are the one having issues clearly and cogently expressing yourself.

    • Aguirre15

      So lets say that you had a great idea and decided to create a wonderful new product. You went thru all the government approval processes and set up your new business. It proved to be a very popular product and sales were going very well. Suddenly a bunch of people, many of which were competitors of one form or another, began to bad mouth your product, then tell terrible lies about it in order simply to scare people away from using it. Would you just curl up in the fetal position and admit defeat or would you fight back? Monsanto has put up with more irrational hatred and abuse for no reason than almost any other company in history. Are they not allowed to respond? To defend themselves? Are you nuts?

  • Stuart M.

    Hooray, Stephan Neidenbach! I too am a “lowly” middle school teacher with a BA in Economics and an MS in Accounting. I always get the “Monsanto shill” treatment whenever I make any pro-genetic engineering comments anywhere. What always goes through my head is, “I WISH I was getting paid!”

    • Damo

      Funny thing, I hear that a lot too. But I could care less about Monsanto as a company. I don’t even own stock in it.

  • Alokin

    The practice is even [italics mine] done by the organic food industry.

    I am sure it was not your intent, but “even” suggests that somehow, the organic food industry is generally thought of as above such tactics. That could not be farther from the truth. Marketing organic products is founded on misinformation and fear mongering because the science is not on their side. They have no other choice but to use such tactics.

    • WeGotta


      Marketing of all products is founded on misinformation and fear mongering. These “tactics” are common place. Most people see hundreds of ads a day.
      Most will be misinformation professionally crafted to get more people to choose foods that are scientifically proven to cause harm if eaten in excess.

      And yet you somehow want people to feel angry about the marketing of organic products? WTF?
      What exactly is the harm inflicted on consumers who “fall for the misinformation” from organics? Is it sickness and death?

      • Aguirre15

        Well it is a fact that far more people have gotten sick from eating mismanaged organic produce than have reported even so much as a sneeze from GM food.

        • WeGotta

          More people die from taking selfies. So what?
          It’s not organics that’s causing the sickness.

          There are people who spend all day dreaming up ways to influence people to eat more of what will eventually sicken and kill them. They routinely use misinformation as well as outright lies.

          And now our government is going to use tax money to pay those same people who help sicken and kill people every day.
          The reason? Alleged “misinformation” which in reality would result in minimum harm, if any to the consumer.

          Here’s my prediction. This PR campaign is destined to fail.

          • hyperzombie

            “More people die from taking selfies”

            Really? No one dies from taking a selfie, they die from doing something stupid while doing it. Stupid Kills.

          • WeGotta

            Really? No one dies from doing something, they die from the cessation of life.

          • hyperzombie

            Wow… Total logic fail.

          • WeGotta


            When did you turn into such a snooze?

          • Damo

            As if there is ever a moment she doesn’t fail at logic.

          • Aguirre15

            Sorry you’re losing me. Which PR campaign are you referring to?

          • WeGotta

            The 3 million dollar tax payer funded campaign for gmo by the FDA.

          • Aguirre15

            Huh? Pray tell how is the FDA spending this 3 million? The only PR campaign I’ve ever seen any evidence of in this country is anti GMO or the ever popular “certified non gmo”

          • WeGotta

            That’s the only PR campaign you’ve ever seen?

            Well, I guess that’s why they still have jobs. People like you are so fooled they can’t even see the lies, let alone be able to see through them.

            How are they spending it?
            Don’t know yet.

            My guess is that they’ll use professional misinformation peddlers called ad agencies and PR firms.
            Maybe even the same ones who use misinformation to harm people for real as opposed to big bad organics who use it to make science feel bad.

          • Aguirre15

            Okey dokey


          • Damo

            What are you talking about? Have any proof of this campaign?

        • Damo

          To be fair, the argument doesn’t seem to be about manure versus synthetic fertilizer (though i would stand firmly in the camp of responsible use of both if it were), but that GMO is somehow inherently unsafe regardless of how it was grown.

          • Aguirre15

            Well having lived and worked in a country which made liberal use of night soil, I’m pretty much ok with synthetic.

      • Alokin

        It’s paying more for something based only on marketing claims, not because a product is actually safer or more nutritious. One of the best things that people can do to improve their diet is to eat more fresh or minimally-processed fruits and vegetables, especially the poor. Paying a premium price for organic food means one’s food dollar does not stretch as far and that makes it that much harder for poor people to eat more fruits and vegetables.

        Marketing that highlights the value of eating more fruits and vegetables is not based on misinformation and fear mongering, it is based on sound nutrition science. It’s the appeal to nature and telling people that “organic” is healthier, more nutritious and worth a premium price that is misinforming consumers and selling based on fear.

        • WeGotta

          You’ve got two totally different subjects completely intertwined.
          There’s the subject of marketing and the subject of health and how it’s affected by the food we eat.

          Yes, the science is clear regarding which types of foods are better for health.
          If our government really cared about our health, we would see science based information regarding what is healthy to eat more than we see misinformation pushing us to eat what is known to cause disease.

          But we don’t. So there is a vacuum that will be filled by someone else. Some people don’t trust “scientists”, journalism or the government regarding food. I think they have every reason to be skeptical based upon solid evidence that suggests scientists, journalists and government don’t really care about us as much as they care about special interests.

          Then there’s marketing. Here’s a field of science that somehow is accepted in society. Yet the whole thing is based on peddling misinformation and lies which are meant to manipulate people for the highest bidder.
          You choose to single out “organics”. Yes, they manipulate people. But it’s hardly the most sinister marketing out there.
          I would be happy to see an outright ban on all advertisements.

          • Aguirre15

            You continue to imply that there is some nefarious marketing campaign to sell GM foods to consumers. That is completely false. The customers for GM seeds are farmers. THEY are the ones who benefit from the traits and THEY are the ones who are the targets of GM marketing. GM is completely innocuous as far as food is concerned and that has been the position of the regulators from the beginning. There is nothing to “sell” to consumers.

          • WeGotta

            Are you kidding?
            You are saying there is no organized marketing campaign to get consumers to choose gmo?

            What farmers want to buy is not the same as what consumers want to buy. I will buy what I want to buy and buy it from farmers who care about what the customers want.
            If there is no difference between gmo and non-gmo, then there is no reason to make a big deal when people choose one over the other.

          • Aguirre15

            No I am not kidding!

            What specific GMO foods are you concerned about and why?

          • WeGotta

            I’m not concerned about anything really.
            I’m just protecting science and standing up for evidence based facts.

            Fact: There are millions of dollars spent on direct marketing of gmo to consumers.

            Hypothesis: It’s marketed directly to consumers because the farmers are pissed that they were talked into buying something people don’t want to eat after all.

            Fact: The government plans to use tax dollars to market gmo directly to consumers.

            Hypothesis: They will choose to pay our tax money to the same sorts of professionals that spend all day dreaming of misinformation that pushes people to buy and consume more things that are deadly if eaten in excess.

          • Aguirre15

            Protecting science?

            There is the same scientific consensus on GMO safety as there is on climate change yet we are told that deniers of climate change are antiscience. This is entirely inconsistent.

            The big PR campaign has been ANTI GMO and it was spun out of whole cloth by a cabal of big organic, snake oil peddlers and other naturopathic fearmongers. It is a web of lies off of which millions of dollars are being made.

            You know the vast majority of GM grains and oilseeds are fed to animals where the GM question disappears completely, even the EU knows that. Refined oils made from those soybeans doesn’t contain any DNA anyway so, again, the question is irrelevant.

            Your hypotheses are bullshit.

          • WeGotta

            Thanks for providing a chance for me to explain.

            “There is the same scientific consensus on GMO safety as there is on climate change yet we are told that deniers of climate change are antiscience.”
            One can “believe in science” and still make choices against the best scientific advice.

            You may fully accept that choosing to buy ice cream is not in line with the best scientific evidence regarding health and still choose to buy it. No one is going to call you anti-science.
            If you have health problems as a result of your food choices, then please don’t presume to lecture me about science and health.

            Mediation is scientifically proven to provide a multitude of benefits including increased concentration and a sense of peace.
            If you don’t meditate daily, then don’t presume to lecture me about my consumer choices. I will argue that I’m scientifically more able to analyze information and make sound decisions owing to my improved concentration and objectivity.

          • Aguirre15

            Hey I am all for folks eating more fruits and veggies and cutting out a few hamburgers and fries but that has absolutely nothing to do with GMO’s.

            Do you get fucked up when you “mediate” or do you do it totally sans chemical assistance?

          • WeGotta

            Meditation changes your brain chemistry so there is no need for assistance. I don’t condone drug use unless you have your shit locked.

            Meditation is scientifically proven to make you feel better, make better decisions, and improve your longevity. I highly recommend it.

            The discussion was about passing imaginary tests of “science literacy” by making certain consumer choices over another.
            You suggested that choosing non-gmo means you are “anti-science” and I corrected you.

            Nobody follows expert scientific advice 100% of the time. If you believe people should base every decision of their lives strictly upon what experts in each of the relative fields think, you are deluded.

          • Aguirre15

            Try Tai Chi

          • WeGotta

            PR campaigns should be ended altogether. All non-science based, non-factual misinformation and lies intended to influence consumer choices must end. Especially if those manipulations cause harm.

            This includes any advertising from “big organics”.

          • Damo

            This is laughable.

          • WeGotta

            Let nothing go

          • Damo

            Not even sure what that means. Is this more of your unintelligible ramblings, or are you insinuating that I am paid to post, based on an unfounded and unproven accusation that has been lately featured among the conspiracy websites?

            If it is the latter, please provide proof that I have ever been paid to post. Thanks.

          • Damo

            Are you going to provide any evidence for your “facts” up there? Especially, since you claimed you were standing up for evidence based facts.

          • WeGotta

            Paid trolls exist.
            Monsanto trolls told to let no negative comment go unchallenged.

            Damo and others can’t seem to stop from posting some sort comment after mine. Even if they’ve got nothing real to say because I’ve blown up their carefully crafted talking points.

          • Damo

            Ok, you haven’t blown anything up, you have pretty much been made a fool.

            Just because shills exist, doesn’t mean that everyone that disagrees with you is one.

            I only comment on posts you make that I come across, I don’t seek any out. Unfortunately, you post a lot of nonsense on articles I have an interest in. Being critical of you is not evidence that anyone is a shill. It is evidence that their is disagreement. Do you really think that Monsanto, the FDA, or anyone else really cares about the opinion of either one of us enough to pay someone to sway them?

            When I tell you that I am not interested in arguing, but rather showing you that you are wrong in your reasoning, it means just that. Their is no hidden agenda, like I said a long time ago, go to someone that has no stake in the game and ask them to explain critical thinking to you.

          • WeGotta

            Just sayin that you and paid trolls have something in common.

            Yes, the FDA cares enough. The plan to use 3 million dollar of tax money to pay for people like us to convince other people like us to buy gmo instead of non-gmo.

            Yes, the people who have corrupted the FDA care enough to pay trolls to illegally lie on comment sections like this one.

            No, posting insults at the end of people’s comments is not “being critical”, “showing that you are wrong in your reasoning” or “explaining critical thinking”.

          • Damo

            “Just sayin that you and paid trolls have something in common.”

            Sure thing. You and paid trolls also have something in common. So what?

            “Yes, the FDA cares enough. The plan to use 3 million dollar of tax money to pay for people like us to convince other people like us to buy gmo instead of non-gmo.”

            Still waiting for a source for that, you have made similar claims multiple times, but still no source.

            “Yes, the people who have corrupted the FDA care enough to pay trolls to illegally lie on comment sections like this one.”

            What corruption? And illegally lie? What does that mean? And you are critical of supposed FDA supported lies (once again, no source to back this claim up) but seem to have no qualms over the many lies that are spread by the non-GMO side. Why is that?

            “No, posting insults at the end of people’s comments is not “being critical”, “showing that you are wrong in your reasoning” or “explaining critical thinking”.”

            I agree with that. That is why I alw

          • Alokin

            I think that is one of the problems for GE tech; the consumer does not see a direct benefit. That does not mean there is no benefit to the consumer, lower, more stable prices, for instance, but if GE crop improvement had produced a couple of “gotta-have” products consumers fell in love with in the beginning, plant biotech would not be facing such an uphill PR battle now.

          • Aguirre15

            Of course you are right. Communication of ag biotech to the broad public has been challenging and unexpectedly so in many ways. I first got involved in the development of herbicide tolerant crops in the mid eighties and it was clearly driven by unmet needs in weed control. The project I was working on at the time was based on mutagenesis so it was going to be exempt from the GMO label per se but I think everyone had a positive sense of the developing regulatory framework for GMO’s at the time. In retrospect principles such as substantial equivalence, which made perfect sense at a molecular level, were worded ambiguously enough to allow opponents of GM technology to raise questions later on no matter how baseless. After herbicide tolerant crops were launched, followd by BT crops shortly thereafter some significant broader advantages began to emerge, namely, very enhanced prospects for conservation tillage and significant reductions in the risk of aflatoxin contamination of corn. Also there was a general reduction in the volume of insecticides used and a hugh switch away from more problematic herbicides to glyphosate, Should advantages like this have been better communicated early on? Yes. Were biotech products a hit with their target customers? Also a resounding yes!

          • Alokin

            Yes, science and scientists have flaws, but science is the best way to seek the truth; it is really the only self-correcting method we have. The solution is to do science better, not reject science.

          • WeGotta

            I agree wholeheartedly.
            Special interest influence is one of those flaws.

            Let’s fix those things people confuse for actual science, which is our “official” scientific institutions and regulatory bodies’ opinions.

            In other words, if you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones.

          • Alokin

            If bias can be shown due to the influence of special interests, fine, that should be revealed, but just because a special interest funds a project does not mean the science is inherently flawed; the science should be judged on its own merits. That is one of the great things about science, it has its own internal set of standards that can be used to detect bias.

            The glass house point is a good one. Anti-GE and anti-pesticide activists seem perfectly willing to accept the conflict of interest represented by organic industry involvement or support from purveyors of things like homeopathic detox products, but claim that all research with any level of support from conventional ag interests is tainted.

          • WeGotta

            Influence by special interests is bias.

            Special interests literally write legislation, literally write scientific papers, literally occupy nearly all high level government positions and literally craft the messages we see in the media.

            If you don’t see how special interests influence and bias our government then you don’t have the capacity to explain what science is supposed to be. Nor what is safe for me or not.

            Once again, you confuse the sins of marketing with the rational choice some people make between to “substantially equivalent” things. If they are the same, it doesn’t matter why someone chooses one or the other.

          • Alokin

            That is a tautological argument. If a researcher’s work is influenced in such a way as to result in bias, yes, of course, then influence is bias. However, mere association or financial support is not evidence of influence or bias. It may be, but one does not strictly follow the other, and bias can be detected through scientific methods and critical thinking.

            We are talking past each other. I am talking about science and you are talking about the politics of making policy.

          • WeGotta

            I’m talking about reality. You know, that thing we study using science? The thing we USE to help us navigate the real world. The TOOL that helps us understand things.
            Maybe you have a different definition of science than I do.

            It’s an observable fact that big money and special interests have tremendous influence over science and with our government.
            Do you really think we can’t apply science in order to understand what’s happening in real life?

            Since it’s a fact that special interests are a huge problem in science and in government, it’s perfectly sane and rational to point it out where it exists and look upon it with skepticism.
            This is perfectly compatible with science.

            You can apply science to anything and everything. You could apply it to government and straighten out all the nonsense that happens.
            But we can’t. Because most things are controlled by special interests. The media included.

            And you think it’s somehow irregular to point it out and be concerned about it? You have an irrational belief that since the scientific method is infallible, all science must be.
            It’s not. Any time a human is in the picture it’s definitely not pure unadulterated science.
            Again, that’s just a fact that’s backed up by plenty of research.

          • Damo

            Oh,once again, your ignorance about science has made you say a bunch of gibberish.

          • WeGotta

            Let nothing go.

          • Damo

            More nonsense.

          • Alokin

            You have an irrational belief that since the scientific method is infallible, all science must be.

            You are not paying attention, I never said science is “infallible”, I said it was self-correcting and has an internal set of standards that can be used to detect bias. Furthermore, science is a human enterprise, there is no such thing as pure, unadulterated science; you can’t separate it completely from human flaws, but again, if you know what to look for, those flaws can be detected. That’s called critical thinking.

            For instance, when an anti-GMO activist researcher’s work is financed by the organic industry and its ideological patrons, that is a concern, but alone, it is not enough disqualify that work from consideration. If one then evaluates the research and finds the author’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence or the evidence is weak, equivocal, or uninterpretable yet it is still cited by the project’s anti-GMO funding source as “proof” of their claims, then the conflict of interest becomes of greater concern. And if those results are outliers and seem to always come from the same cast of characters who have themselves stated a preferred outcome, then even greater skepticism is warranted.

            On the other hand, research supported wholly or in part by the biotech industry should also be looked at the same way. If the research is done well and conclusions are plausible and well-supported by the evidence, and if those results are consistent with and supported by multiple lines of evidence from a number of other researchers, then the funding source is of little relevance.

            Yes, I agree, there are problems with science, peer review, science education, public perception of what science is and what it can do, science journalism, politics getting in the way of science, etc., but as I said before, the way forward is not to condemn those things, but to do them better.

          • WeGotta

            So let’s do them better.
            Let’s use science to do it better.

            Let’s organize a national science system which educates future scientists and the public alike in the best possible way using the best science available while avoiding all the potential pitfalls of human weakness as determined scientifically.

            I’d support the effort 100% I’ve thought about what that would look like.

            We could have the whole country vote on which “problems” should be addressed and rank them on priority.
            Then, we could use our new system to solve them.

            But this is not likely to happen. And it’s not likely to happen for the same reasons that cloud the gmo discussion.
            Some people make a lot of money from things the way they are.

            They don’t really care about science any more than how it can help keep the money flowing.

          • Alokin

            So it’s all or nothing, is that what you are saying? Either science is made to be perfect or it is worthless? There is no way to make use of what we have as we work to make it better?

          • WeGotta

            That’s not what I’m saying.

            What I’m saying is that we should apply science toward goals. “Blind support” and science is an oxymoron, even if the blind support is for science. Maybe especially so.

            Let’s use science to create a trustworthy, robust and healthy scientific apparatus that we could all use to finally overcome those same obstacles that have plagued our species since we could rub two sticks together. The ones that don’t get better just because our tools are more shiny and expensive.

            I “have faith” that science could be used to create such an apparatus.
            But it won’t happen until people start “applying science” to their own lives and choices. Preferably before they start telling others what to do.

            Most important is the reason behind all of this in the first place. The reason we use science.
            Using a system of organization just because you like the system is awesome. Everyone should have passion for what they are doing. Otherwise, what is the point of it all?
            But just because scientists love science and just because science is useful, it doesn’t mean all science applied to anything and everything is going to help us achieve our goals.
            The goals come first.

          • Alokin

            That is what I find so frustrating. Most people will probably say they want agriculture to reduce its footprint on the planet and produce healthy, wholesome foods. Those are common goals; goals that I share. So along comes science and it provides an exciting, powerful new tool, plant biotech, that can help us accomplish those goals in some of the most sustainable and safe ways imaginable, and yet people who claim to value “good” science find ways to reject what amounts to a strong scientific consensus in order to quiet their cognitive dissonance. For example, such a person might say: “Plant biotech is not natural, it’s not God’s plan, nature finds a way and we are opening Pandora’s Box, GE products are harmful (although I can’t point to any credible evidence to support that claim) and therefore, the science that supports plant biotech must be fatally flawed due to the influence of special interests.”

            As you and I have agreed, science is the best way of seeking the truth of our physical world, but there are other domains such as ethics and philosophy that are also very important. Doing science is not an end in itself, it is a means, I don’t disagree with that, but science does not always have to be goal oriented, it can be exploratory or a way of expanding knowledge in the hope that will lead to something positive or interesting.

            If the goal comes first, then why handicap science in achieving those goals with unfounded fears and unsubstantiated accusations? Plant biotech got off on the wrong foot because the first GE products did not resonate with consumers and it was too easy for critics to demonize GE plants by associating them with pesticides. But there is a whole lot more to plant biotech than glyphosate resistance and Bt, it has tremendous potential as a tool for achieving the goals you say are important to you.

          • WeGotta

            That’s what I find so frustrating.
            People refuse to let go of their favorite tools in order to achieve popular common goals.

            There are many tools we could use to create better agricultural systems. Yet you won’t let go of one specific, unpopular tool that isn’t needed in the first place.

            Here is truth:
            We don’t need it.
            A lot of people don’t want it.

            It’s not “handicapping” the whole field of construction when people choose to use one type of hammer over another. More fear mongering and misinformation.

            Obviously, your favorite tool means more to you than the goal.
            You have wrapped up all your hopes and dreams into one type of tool. You have imbued gm technology as our savior.

          • Alokin

            What is the popular, common goal in play here? Is it possible to have too many tools in the tool box? Isn’t a system more resilient when there are more options? Why don’t people want GE foods? Is that based on evidence or ideology? Should people be able to force their ideology on others?

            We don’t “need” a lot of things, but are you seriously saying that supporting a technology that can make food production more efficient, more sustainable, more environmentally benign, more stable, less dependent on pesticides and in some cases, more nutritious is not a good thing? I thought those were popular, common goals. You think people are justified in sacrificing progress towards those goals based on misinformation and ideology?

            If plant biotech represented a significant risk of harm to people or the environment, I would agree with you on many points, but the evidence does not support such a claim. The truth is out there, you just have to put in the effort to understand the science and develop your critical thinking skills in order to filter out the lies and biases.

          • Damo

            “We don’t need it.
            A lot of people don’t want it.”

            There are many tools we don’t need. With Bt plants, the use of pesticides are not needed, which one should we get rid of.

            A lot of people do want it. So what?

          • WeGotta

            Bt plants are pesticides.
            Geez, you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

          • Damo

            Yes, in the same sense that all plants have built in pesticides. In the same sense that the bitterness of some veggies is a natural pesticide. But they are not sprayed chemicals. You don’t know what you are talking about.

          • Aguirre15

            So science by referendum eh? Pretty soon you will find you need a politburo then you’re well on your way down that slippery slope.

          • WeGotta

            No, no no.
            Direction by referendum.
            Goals by referendum.
            Moral compass by referendum.
            Ideas by referendum.
            Definitions by referendum.
            Government by referendum.

            Once we figure that out, by referendum, we apply the best methodology to accomplish the goal in the smartest way possible using science.

            A politburo is just another word for a few having power over the many.
            Well, that’s what we have right now but its called different things.
            We already fell on our asses. Time to pick ourselves up.

            True scientifically minded people are not fooled by such superficial differences such as using aliases.

          • Aguirre15

            You’re just a central,planner at heart. I’ve seen close up the ravages of such thinking in my 4 decades of working all over the world and it wasn’t pretty.

          • WeGotta

            You mean such thinking as equal rights, democracy and the sanctity of individual freedoms?
            Where have you seen that?
            I’m still looking.

          • Aguirre15

            Nope. I mean such things as totally pervasive corruption, economic stagnation, no individual freedoms and general hopelessness. The difference between you and me is that to you its just talking points but I actually experienced it on the ground.

          • WeGotta

            You just described what’s going on in the US, though we are stuck in stagnation further along the line of progress than most countries.
            Corruption: yes
            Economic stagnation: yes
            Individual freedoms: going away
            General hopelessness: increasing

            The difference between you and me is that you don’t think it’s happening right now in the US and you don’t think science could help in turning it around.

          • Aguirre15

            Its all an abstraction to you isn’t it. You need to get out more.

          • Damo

            Corruption ain’t going away. The best we can do is seek it out and eliminate it. Someone will always try to play unfairly.

            Economic stagnation? Are you crazy? We have seen something like 7 straight years of growth.

            Individual freedoms? That is an up or down depending on your viewpoint. The freedom to bed whoever you want seems to be a pretty well protected in the last few years, even expanded. Some freedoms–like property rights–have been eroded.

            Hopelessness? Do you have a stat for that? I don’t know anyone hopeless? Except for a few unhappy souls that are still sad their candidate didn’t win (by the way, mine didn’t) in the last presidential election, most people I know are looking at new technology, new techniques, new energy sources, new whatever, and are full of hope.

          • WeGotta

            Elimination of something means it “goes away”.

            You really don’t know what you are talking about.

          • Damo

            That’s your response, elimination means ” it goes away?” Which is factually incorrect. Meanwhile you ignore all the ways you were otherwise wrong about everything. Your defense of your malformed opinion is that I don’t understand the definitions of a word, that you also don’t seem to understand?

            Glad we have the brilliance of WeGotta to show the way.

          • WeGotta

            I would be the best president. The best.
            Nobody could president better than me.

            Personally, I’d just sit on my ass and make Americans do all the work.

          • Damo

            So, only by referendum could research be done? That is ridiculous. I enjoy freedom. Currently, the minority has freedom from the desires of the majority. I can go out and do whatever research I want, and if it brings about nothing, so be it. If it brings about significant change so be it. But I am free to do it. What you are proposing is tyranny of the minority by the majority. Many tools for many people and many situations is what we have, you propose one tool for everyone–regardless if that is what they want or not. Frankly, it would also backfire on you, since most people if told we are going to use science to develp whatever they want, are going to be selfish and vote for bringing about cheaper goods, more of them, regardless of social or environmental cost. How do we know that? Because everyday people make those same decisions with their wallets.

          • WeGotta

            What backwards nonsense.

            Here’s you:
            I demand the freedom to do things that affect other people in ways they don’t want.
            It’s tyranny when people tell me to stop doing things that affect them.
            If we let people decide for themselves they’ll just screw it up. The proof is how sometimes some of them do certain things based on the situation they find themselves in.

            You really are all messed up.

          • Damo

            Nope, you are the one messed up. You demand that people only do things that you agree with and believe that some kind of vote will back you up. People already vote with their wallets, and you are losing that vote.

            However, nothing you said makes any sense. How am I demanding to do things that affect others?

            It is tyranny to not allow people to do as they please. How am I affecting you by doing research? Even if it is research you don’t care about. You are a totalitarian, just not one with any power.

          • WeGotta

            As usual, you’ve got the whole thing backwards.

            I want to touch your food! I wanna!
            You can’t stop me! This is America!
            There’s nothing wrong with me putting my fingers in your food!
            I made up some tests and that’s why it’s okay! If you don’t believe me you’re a test denier!
            I wanna touch every bodies food! Why don’t they want me to?
            Whaaaaaaaaaaa! I wanna!
            Mommy, make them let me!

          • Damo

            No one is touching your food. It is you trying to enforce your will on me. I don’t eat “junk food” and have no problem with eating food grown using modern techniques. I have the option to buy organic, and I choose not to (most of the time, I do buy from select farms near me that actually are stewards of the earth and treat animals humanely; not just jumping on a marketing bandwagon). No one is forcing you to eat anything you don’t want to, however you seem willing to force me to eat food that might not have been grown in the most environmentally friendly way. You are the one being tyrannical here, not me. You have the option to choose non-GMO or organic certified. So stop dictating what I or anyone else can do.

          • WeGotta

            My god!

            Now you want to take credit for what all the people opposed to your grubby little fingers in their food have set up?

            “I can touch your food! If you don’t like it, you try and stop it. Don’t tell me what I can do or cannot do to your food!
            See! Look at what the ‘don’t touch my food’ groups have accomplished against my will!
            This somehow proves I have a right to touch your food!
            If you don’t let me touch your food you must be anti-fingers!”

          • Damo

            Somehow, you think putting words in my mouth somehow justify your own misunderstanding of your options. Go away. Arguing with you is pointless, you are too dumb to know what you don’t know.

          • WeGotta

            Go away!
            You are dumb!

          • Damo

            Yes, childish comebacks is all you have left. Goodbye.

          • WeGotta

            That’s all you seem to understand.

            Tried complex issues like government and societal issues versus the individual as a free person. You were lost.

            Tried to simplify with concrete examples such as how the evidence proves that assurances of safety from scientists doesn’t guarantee you won’t be harmed. You were still lost.

            Tried to explain critical thinking using textbook examples and fundamental guidelines. You still didn’t get it.

            Tried simple definitions to see if we are even talking about the same things.
            You wanted none of it.

            Tried to get you to read Dr Seuss to test for basic reading comprehension. You refused.

            So now I’m trying to use your own language.

            You’re the baby!
            I know you are but what am I?!!
            I’m really not talking to you this time!

          • Damo

            “I made up some tests and that’s why it’s okay! If you don’t believe me you’re a test denier!”

            This is the crux of your argument: I don’t understand science so I will belittle it.

          • WeGotta

            We’ve already covered the topic of “understanding science”.
            You couldn’t get past the first step and give your definition of science.

            I’ll bet I have more science experiments going on in my kitchen right now then you’ve ever participated in.

          • Damo

            You seem to think that copy and pasting a definition from Merriam Webster is equal to being a scientist. I think you have proven your ignorance enough, you should stop digging.

          • WeGotta

            Of course.
            You are always ready to stop right at the moment of truth.

            Science has an accepted definition. It’s usually on the first page of science text books too.

            But who knows what you think it means.
            You sound just like a cult member.

          • Damo

            Nope, you don’t understand it. That much is obvious. You have continued to demonstrate as much. Have fun pretending that a copy and paste gives you some kind of innate understanding of a subject i spent years studying hands on.

          • WeGotta

            I have lots of fun, thanks.

            Have fun pretending to know it all.

          • Damo

            “If our government really cared about our health, we would see science based information regarding what is healthy to eat more than we see misinformation pushing us to eat what is known to cause disease.”

            Are you really so dense as to not know that the government has been involved in nutritional recommendations for over 70 years? The latest, “My Plate”, recommends limiting oils, fats, and refined carbs while consuming most of your calories in the form of whole plants. So unless you think broccoli and apples are junk food (which you still haven’t defined), you are lying or just really ignorant about reality.

          • WeGotta

            Say you had a job where one of your top priorities was to make sure that “widgets were safe”.
            Widgets are like everything else. Could be safe, could be deadly. It just depends.
            But, your job was to make sure widgets were safe for Americans.
            You have all sorts of tools and resources at your disposal to help make sure “widgets are safe”.

            Here is your company’s mission statement:
            “Our employees are responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of our customers’ widget supply.”

            Your boss comes in with bad news. Public health experts tell us that widgets are the main cause of disease and death.

            Do you think any of the following would be acceptable to your boss?
            1. It’s only some kind of widgets that are not safe. Most is safe.
            2. It’s not my fault that widgets aren’t safe.
            3. Look at this excellent ‘safety guide for widgets’ I put together.
            4. I’ve been working on widget safety for 25 years.
            5. The consumers of widgets are responsible for the safety of widgets.

          • Damo

            How is this example relative to the discussion? Are you claiming that GMOs are responsible for death and illness (nay, the main cause!!) Or is this some hypothetical?

            Are these 6 choices the only options? In most cases (and especially in cases of food borne illness) a recall occurs. Couldn’t my boss be happy with a recall?

            I really am having a hard time figuring out the logic of your example and the discussion. Are you denying that the government doesn’t have nutritional recommendations? Are you sticking to your original accusation that the government is pushing unhealthy food?

          • WeGotta

            It’s so simple and yet you don’t understand. So sad.

            The “missions statement” is taken from the FDA.

            Their job is to keep our food supply safe.
            Certain foods are responsible for our greatest health problems.

            Logical conclusion:
            They suck at their job.
            I don’t trust them.

            The industry that profits from those certain foods that cause harm gives lots of money to the people who run the FDA.
            Politicians pick high level executives from the same industry to head the FDA.

            Logical conclusions:
            The FDA sucks at its job because of corruption.

          • Aguirre15

            Rubbish! The last 4 FDA commissioners were MD’s with academic or research backgrounds and have no ties to industry.

          • WeGotta

            Official evidence that Aguirre15 is a liar.

            FDA Commissioners:
            1. The shill nominee: Scott Gottieb
            (CNN) “President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration, Scott Gottlieb, is a physician, a cancer survivor, a venture capitalist and a government insider who has long said he wants to tear down the wall of FDA regulations he believes is holding back innovation.”
            “The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade and lobby association, sent out congratulations almost immediately after his nomination was announced in early March.”
            “We look forward to working with Dr. Gottlieb in his new role,” PhRMA President and CEO Stephen J. Ubl said, “as they seek to modernize the drug discovery and review process and advance competition in the biopharmaceutical market.”

            2. The last shill: Robert M. Califf
            Financial disclosures “listed seven drug companies and a device maker that paid him for consulting and six others that partly supported his university salary, including Merck, Novartis and Eli Lilly.”
            “A conflict-of-interest section at the end of an article he wrote in the European Heart Journal last year declared financial support from more than 20 companies.”
            “In a sense, he’s the ultimate industry insider,” said Daniel Carpenter, a Harvard political science professor who has written extensively about the F.D.A.”

            3. Shill before that: Margaret Hamburg
            Does it hurt the FDA when top people like your general counsels leave and then become lobbyists or lawyers for industry?

            “This perception of the revolving door is damaging to everyone, and as a principle I am not considering doing any boards of any company big or small that was regulated by the FDA for a couple of years — a cooling-off period — even though some of the smaller biotech companies are technically really interesting and it would be fascinating to see from the other side. It’s unfortunate that people really think there has to be a complete division between the work of FDA and the industry.”

            Isn’t it tempting to leave government and make money?

            “People are being asked to come for salaries that are much lower than in the private sector or academia. Increasingly, we’re asking highly trained professionals to share offices, to not even have their own desks.” “I gave up a lot of money to take the job, in fact. I mean, Rob got a pay cut when he got confirmed.”

            Interesting article:
            You know the true professional shills when you hear them.
            You can’t tell if they are just playing the game to get what they want (FOS) or if they actually believe what they say (dangerously deluded).

          • Aguirre15

            What a relief. I thought sure you were going to play the stupid and well worn Michael Taylor gambit. Anyway, putting aside your selective innuendo, the fact is that our drug approval scheme in this country is sclerotic compared to the rest of the developed world and needs to be rationalized. Good for Gottlieb.

          • WeGotta

            That’s one opinion.

            But, what’s obviously not opinion based upon the evidence is:
            1. That future, current and former FDA commissioners have strong ties to powerful industries that benefit from current regulations and who are actively trying to change those regulations which hurt their business.
            2. Drug companies lobby against marijuana reform.
            3. Drug companies kill people when they manipulate science to say those things are safe.
            4. A huge health problem is prescription drugs.
            5. The prescription drug problems came during the tenures of those past commissioners

          • Damo

            1. Really, you can see into the future?

            2. This is true. What does this have to do with anything?

            3. Once again, true, but what does this have to do with anything?

            4. Yes, prescription drugs were pushed. The climate at the time was that doctors weren’t doing enough for pain relief. We overreacted and pushed pain pills. Now we are retracting. I agree opioid pain relievers are a problem (I assume that is what you are talking about, but I could be wrong, I am not aware of any other prescription drug problems), but middle ground is what we need, not overreactions.

          • WeGotta

            1. Are you that dense?
            2. Can’t help it if you don’t know.
            3. Can’t help it if you can’t tell.
            4. “WE”?????
            I knew it.

          • Damo

            1. Not as dense as you and your conspiracy crap.

            2&3. You have no link,but you are trying to claim evil by association.

            4. We as in a nation. It was health policy at the time.

            You knew what exactly? You have yet to demonstrate that you know much about anything.

          • Aguirre15

            What the hell is this supposed to mean? Regulatory agencies don’t tell you your product causes disease and death and then let you decide what to do about it. There are plenty of examples of them pulling products from the market or not approving them in the first place. Starlink corn, for example, was very publicly recalled on the mere suspicion that its expressed protein might be allergenic, which it turned out not to be. What you appear to be suggesting is simply detestable.

          • WeGotta

            So you’d tell your boss this:
            What the hell are you talking about?
            There are plenty of times I did my job correctly. Remember that widget I took off the market?
            What you appear to be saying is detestable!

            I’d fire you then and there.

          • Aguirre15

            You make no sense at all. “I” didn’t “take the widget off the market”. The regulators did.

  • CumExApostolatus

    The article states: “The organic industry knew that a research department with their names directly on it would not be accepted as well by the public. So they sent their own Dr. Charles Benbrook to a university program to hide behind a false halo of independence.”

    Hahahaha! Who in their right mind thinks a ‘university program’ denotes a ‘halo of independence’??

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Too bad, so sad.

  • BooBooBaby

    I skimmed this so-called article because I noticed you only attacked The Rightwing sites and Not the Leftwing Nutjob sites. There’s more brainwashing going on by the Lefty Liberals and their News sites and Lying Rags. They have most of the Fake News coming from them….plus most News sites are Leftwing Liars!

    Oh, and it was proven that George Soros and his Hate Organizations do and have paid Lib-t4rd Protesters aka Rioters!

Send this to a friend