The GMO Debate: Meetings about non-existent food safety issues

Updated On
anti-GMO rally

We may collect a share of sales from items linked to on this page. Learn more.

This guest article is contributed by Mischa Popoff, a former organic farmer and USDA-contract organic inspector and the author of Is it Organic?

No one died in a car crash before the car was invented. So where are the meetings to discuss banning cars to prevent car accidents?

When it comes to keeping our food system safe, this is precisely the thinking of organic activists who oppose the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Unlike the automobile, GMOs have never caused a single death or illness. But this vocal minority wants them banned… just in case.

The French tried banning dynamite (TNT) in the late 1800s… just in case.

In spite of the fact that unstable nitroglycerin – the key ingredient in TNT – becomes completely stable when mixed with Alfred Nobel’s patented clay mixture, French politicians invoked the “precautionary principle” and created L’Administration des Poudres et Saltpetre which ensured no one would use TNT anywhere in France. And it led to Napoleon III’s defeat at the Battle of Sedan in 1870 where Prussian soldiers deployed TNT against hapless French soldiers who were stuck with old-fashioned gunpowder.

Ahh… bureaucracy at its best.

Following historical suit, French politicians today are every bit as precautious, putting France at the head of the global-organic anti-GMO movement. But what’s really surprising is the GMO industry’s response. Executives at the helm of every biotech company, every farm bureau and every commodity group are listening rather intently to the very people who seek to put them out of business.

The most blatant example is the biotech sector’s favorite go-nowhere meetings in Washington DC: the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). Established over a decade ago during the Bush Administration, these meetings have focused of late on just one thing: how to “protect” organic farms from GMOs, with nary mention of the fact that GMOs pose no risk whatsoever to organic crops, which of course explains why certified-organic farmers and GMO farmers have been farming side-by-side for two decades now without incident.

There was a glimmer of commonsense when President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack suggested organic farmers could buy insurance to protect against GMO “contamination,” again, in spite of the fact that there’s no such thing. He said, in essence, If you want protection from something that scientists and the federal government say you don’t need protection from, then go to the private insurance market and buy insurance.

Think of it like a tennis star insuring his arm or a Hollywood starlet insuring her legs. You can insure anything on the private market.

But the problem with Vilsack’s “solution” – besides the fact that no self-respecting American organic farmer would bother buying such insurance – is that it provides tacit recognition of activists’ claim that GMO pollen drifting onto organic crops constitutes contamination. Even if handled by private insurers, the very suggestion of such a scheme from a high-ranking cabinet member implies that GMOs are indeed a problem, a BIG negative; something that organic farmers need to insure themselves against!

The message embedded in Vilsack’s proposal is that a GMO crop growing next to an organic crop is akin to a hailstorm on the horizon or a plague of locusts. It’s like getting a restraining order preventing someone you despise from coming within 150 yards of you even though that person has never so much as threatened you. Who will bother finding out the facts behind your relationship with this person when a restraining order tells them all they need to know? Clearly you’re the victim.

But rather than object, GMO executives went a step further. They got Republican Mike Pompeo to draw up a GMO labelling bill in Congress which, they hope, will be their industry’s salvation by providing for voluntary GMO labelling which will put a stop to all the mandatory labelling schemes like the one that Democrat Barbara Boxer tried to pass last year, or that is now law in the state of Vermont. And the way Pompeo’s bill will work is by establishing – for the first time ever – an allowable threshold-limit for GMO contamination in organic crops of 0.9%.

GMO Labelling Protest
Photo by Alexis Baden-Mayer

Hang on. There’s no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs. So, excuse me all you highly paid GMO executives, but isn’t this a huge step backwards?

Either way, the nature of both of the “solutions” that have been arrived at in the pro-GMO offices of Sec. Vilsack and Rep. Pompeo – voluntary insurance and voluntary labelling – involve conceding to the anti-GMO organic activists’ unfounded claims that there is something wrong with GMOs, even though there isn’t, and these same activists already agreed to this when they got their own federal standards back in 2002.

It gets worse. Pompeo’s bill also adds a bevy of hoops for GMO crop-developers to jump through. Why? To satisfy the political demands of anti-GMO organic activists of course, along with bureaucrats and politicians in Japan, China and… wait for it… France. You can’t make stuff like this up.

Remember what happened to the healthcare insurance industry when they decided to play along with Obamacare? Pompeo’s bill will have the exact-same effect on America’s leading role in agricultural science, which is fine if you’re an executive sitting atop one or two of the handful of GMO crops already approved. Not so good if you’re a startup biotech company or an American farmer waiting for the next generation of GMO crops.

Croissants anyone?

Unlike cars which can be dangerous, there has, as mentioned, never been a single example of GMOs causing harm to people, animals or the environment anywhere in the world. Genetic engineering is the most promising scientific advancement in farming since the development of the Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis process back in 1917. No American should be ashamed of our leading role in developing this field of science.

But Hugh Grant, the chairman of Monsanto, the largest GMO corporation in the world, says he actually considered changing the company’s name back in 2002. It would have cost $25 million, so he decided not to do it, but now says this “was a big mistake.” A bit pathetic, what? Not a single illness or death and this guy thinks his company needs an alias?

GMO executives all wish they could change the channel rather than endure another tax-funded rant from their opponents. Thanks to the voodoo propaganda of a handful of organic activist millionaires, the public is now wary of this field science, right alongside the very people who should be its most vocal champions.

Alfred Nobel is turning over in his grave, along with Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs.

It’s time for biotech executives to stop living in denial. We don’t label foods based on the opinion of a vocal minority. Suppressing technology is the M.O. of losers. And in spite of what French politicians, American organic activists and lackadaisical GMO executives might say, GMOs are our future. So act like it.

243 thoughts on “The GMO Debate: Meetings about non-existent food safety issues”

  1. GMO is a dangerous poison. Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, “developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.” The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. Everywhere GMO is being grown, food allergies, disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others have been skyrocketing in the human populations.

    There has been a drastic decline of crop-pollinating insects all over the world, and what this means for the future of the world’s food supply. Wild pollinators like bumblebees, butterflies, and beetles are basically disappearing. GMO industrial agricultural practices are causing this insect genocide. Pollinating insects in general, which include a wide range of insects and other animals, are simply vanishing from their normal habitats and foraging areas. That lower diversity and lower abundance of wild insects means less fruits and destruction of the diversity of plants and their fruits worldwide.

    GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

    GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―surviving deadly weed killers. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

    GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

    By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

    GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

    Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

    The toxins associated with GMO should never be tolerated. NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE neurotoxins are absolutely the main factor causing the collapse of bee and pollinator populations along with other lethal chemicals, glysophate, etc. When these poisons are banned as they were in Europe the bee populations start to recover. GMO neonicotinoids, roundup etc. MUST BE BANNED OUTRIGHT and all the farmers along with USDA, Biotech and chemical companies told to cease and desist from what they are doing.

    An even scarier prospect: the “BT” version of GMO soybeans and corn, (basically pesticides engineered directly into the plant )

    The “BT toxin” gene is put into the DNA of the corn in order for it to manufacture its own toxins that kill pests. The BT gene originated from a soil bacteria that also infiltrates the microflora (friendly digestive bacteria) in your gut. The Bt gene converts the microflora in your intestine into toxin-manufacturing machines.

    So, to be clear, eating GMO corn products can cause your gut (which is primarily responsible for keeping you healthy) to turn into a breeding ground for tiny little pesticide factories inside your body, actively creating toxins which are designed to kill living things. These toxins are found in the blood and are readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb.

    • What you have failed to take into consideration Mark is just how powerful the legal system is here in North America.

      If someone could show, by the mere preponderance-of-evidence, that farm chemicals or GMOs might have caused some kind of health or environmental problems, civil cases would have been launched years ago.

      Look what happened to cigarette companies; look what happened to the makers of silicone-breast-implants. Look what’s happening to General Motors right now with their faulty ignition switches, and what happened to Toyota with their faulty brakes.

      Don’t you think the French government would just love to sue Monsanto? If ANY of your claims are true, why haven’t they?

      • So you’re saying if no one is suing then it must be safe? Poppycock. It took decades to get the tobacco company to admit in front of Congress that they lied about the health risks of smoking. The fact is all the companies you mentioned above tried to hide their defects and it tooks years or decades to get the facts out.

        • Well, you have had decades to get your case together Caroline. What are you waiting for?

          More to the point, where are the studies that support your position that GMOs are unsafe? And why doesn’t a government in Europe fund more such studies?

          • The question is WHY DON’T THE AMERICAN GOV’T FUND STUDIES TO TEST THE SAFETY OF GROWING AND EATING GMOS? Because Big Chem, Big Gov’t, Big Pharma, Big Junk Food, Big Agr… all do not want safety tests done. Why do you keep focusing on Europe? They don’t eat a fraction of the GMOs as we do.

          • I see. And why exactly do you believe that only the American government could fund such studies?

            If American regulators are really as corrupt as you claim, then why don’t European politicians take the lead, spend a few-hundred-thou and prove their point once and for all?

            For that matter, why doesn’t Whole Foods or the Organic Consumers Association fund such a study?

            We’re waiting Caroline.

          • No one is prevented from making comments Caroline.

            Let me spell this out for you. Go to the store, buy something made with Monsanto’s food, and feed it to rats in a controlled lab experiment. If it causes health problems you’ll be able to sue Monsanto.

          • You’re silly or maybe obnoxious is a better word. You think by ending each comment with a question that you’re putting me on the defense? People are smart enough to see through your deception and duplicity.

            Let me spell this out for you. Mothers are switching to organic food and they see a big improvement in their children’s health. Our movement is growing everyday because people can see the evidence all around them. OUR CHILDREN are sick, fat and depressed. And we know now that Big Chem-Biotechs, Big Gov’t, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Junk Food or Big Popoff do NOT care about our children and their future.

            Do you understand that?

          • Sure I understand that Caroline. I grew up on an organic grain farm, I worked for 5 years as an organic inspector, and I remain a huge supporter of the organic farming movement. But where do you get this idea that we have to ban GMOs? From what you just described, it would hardly seem necessary. Let the market decide.

          • Here is a link to a database with over 2,000 peer reviewed studies.

            I am much more likely to believe the studies than your stories about moms. Your children are fat, sick and depressed? Mine are thin, healthy and happy.

            See, we can both tell stories.

            Do you have any actual evidence to back up your stories?

          • You lie Misha. My comments have been waiting for approval for several days.

            The truth is you are censoring comments here.

          • You’ll have to speak with the editor of this site. I’ll say this Ted: it wouldn’t be the first time an editor withheld “off-color” remarks made in response to what I have written. That is an editor’s job. He is ultimately responsible for everything that appears on this website.

          • I see that my comment was finally allowed, no bad language just truth.

            Strange you had to be called on your censorship to make you hals honest, I think you know what I mean .. ;).

            I see that the post I made tonight is still waiting for approval. No bad language just truth.

          • Yes Ted. I’m really glad your comment was finally posted above because by making such a comment you prove beyond any doubt that anti-GMO organic activists like you don’t have any facts on your side, so you’re forced to resort to character assassination instead of reasoned debate. Thanks Ted! Keep up the good work.

          • Does that mean your not going to censor the comment I posted this afternoon?

            Sheeesh …. do we have to call you on your corrupt censorship every time?

          • I see the comment I posted yesterday is still waiting approval.

            I think the readers are the ones who should decide if my comments are substantive.

            Are you going to permit my comment or are you going to provre the lie you wrote here the other day where said you were not censoring comments?

          • I don’t censor anyone, and neither does the editor of this website. But editors are responsible for all comments that appear on their sites as surely as newspaper editors are responsible for everything they print. As such, editors have the right to delay a posting, or delete it, as they see fit. Otherwise they would be exposed to lawsuits.

            With that said, I have yet to see a substantive comment posted by you in response to any article I have ever written. You’re always going on about Monsanto poisoning the environment or using us as guinea pigs. Do you have any evidence? That’s what I mean by “substantive.”

          • As you know there was nothing in the comment that you are censoring that hasn’t been posted on multiple disqus sites before.

            This corrupt dance that we seem to need to do with you is tiresome. It is becoming clear why your fringe political party said you were unfit to serve in the Canadian legislature.

            You have said that posts are not being censored, yet it is obvious that is not true. This speaks more to your corrupt character and your willingness to lie about anything if you think is serves your corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry agenda.

            You are a JOKE Misha, just a corrupt Canadian gad fly that is trying to piece together a living spreading your disinformation and lies, and shilling for a genocidal .GMO pesticide agenda that is making thousands of people very sick .

            The trouble is that you don’t have the character to actually own what you do, and that is why you censor posts and lie about it.

          • Well thank you for proving my point Ted Miner. Twice in that comment you called me a liar, and you provide no evidence.

            It doesn’t matter if you and other organic activists have done this before; that doesn’t make it right. It could very well be that this is why your comments are being delayed by the editor of this website. As I explained, that is his job.

            So, did you have an example of where I lied?

          • In your world the Truth hurts because it distroys your corrupt talking points and points out your lies. Maybe that is why you have been censoring my posts

            You replied to FrenchKissed·
            18 hours ago

            The Genetic Literacy Project is just a GMO pesticide industry disinformation site. There are others as well like biofortified, and GMO answers and more.

            The architect of this GMO pesticide industry disinformation network is Jon Entine See:

          • It is self evident to all but the most corrupt sycophants.

            You are not an expert on anything but fawning sycophantic pretender projecting a phoney and thin resume. The GMO pesticide industry might find it useful, but then they are just happy to get the slime of the earth if it will serve their corrupt genocidal GMO pesticide industry agenda,

            The TRUTH that you are a JOKE hurts.


          • Mr. Popoff, Ted has made a real good point. I have been involved in this debate for years now and up until now i have been pro GMO. after reading the hard core truthiness he has smacked us all with, im afraid im going to have to switch sides now. I am just stunned that i had never seen it before. Up until now i have relied on peer reviewed scientific opinions based on data and research. as it turns out Mr. Popoff GMOs are bad because you are a stupid liar and a doo doo head and don’t want to debate this guy or that guy and your butt is big and it stinks and you like to kiss your own butt. so yeah Ted keep fighting the good fight brother. You sure changed my mind.

          • Good God… TJ my man! You’re right.

            My butt is getting rather large since I began chowing down on GMOs a decade ago. I too am also going to switch sides.

            Right now by GUM!

          • I have posted it again so you can see what it is.In your world the Truth hurts because it destroys your corrupt talking
            points and points out your lies. Maybe that is why you have been
            censoring my posts

            I can see you are holding it again.

            Your as corrupt and disingenuous as they come Misha.

          • Comments that include links are automatically held for moderator approval. Mischa has no control over what is posted or not posted on this site.

          • Google “Genera GMO studies”

            There are 2,000 studies done since 1980.

            Canola oil has never been studied and you probably have some in your cupboard. It is a hybrid from rapeseed oil which was not for human consumption.

            GMOs might be the most studied type of food in the world.

        • GMO crops have been studied for over 30 years. There are over 2,000 studies showing that GMOs are safe.

          Can you provide one study that shows GMOs are not safe for humans?

          • Show us your studies first. It would be the first time that anyone has seen you prove a claim.

            I promise to respond with comments and my studies.

            Put up or shut up time. Even if it is after 420.

            Prove that you have some real stuff, and not just empty corrupt allegations..

    • You apparently don’t realize that the rat tumor “study” you are talking about has been overwhelmingly condemned by nearly all scientists. It has so many flaws that it is a joke in scientific circles.

        • Logic test, Can a study be repeated over and over again, if it was a two year study and it was only released 23 months ago? Me thinks you are using flawed logic again to push your agenda.

          • What does this have to do with “If there was any basis whatsoever to the Séralini study on rats eating a GMO diet, his experiment would have been repeated again and again by now.” It is literally impossible for someone to have done this in this time frame but that doesnt stop you from using it as propaganda. Why are you always so misleading?

          • I didn’t ask if anyone DID replicate it. I asked if anyone was planning to. Apparently not. So, apparently, even organic activists don’t see merit in Seralini’s study.

          • Yes you asked that after sqying this little bit of propaganda ” his experiment would have been repeated again and again by now”.
            Your logic of “organic activist” not currently conducting a study is proof they dont believe in his work. Feel free to look into some quotes on the study and how it was retracted. Thousands of independent scientist have bern very outspoken about it.

          • I see. So you’re pretending I was saying the replication of Seralini’s study would have to be completed by now. That’s absurd, and you know it.

            If you could point to single person planning to do so, you’d have a stronger case. As it stands, no one is doing so. No one.

            Scientists can talk all they want. Let’s see at least one of them replicate Seralini. Then I might believe him… and you.

          • It is absurd, that is exactly what I said about your claims. This is a word for word “If there was any basis whatsoever to the Séralini study on rats eating a GMO diet, his experiment would have been repeated again and again by now.” Notice your last sentence, I once again am being factual and you are lying. Can you not even keep you lies and propaganda straight at tjis point?

      • Actually, I think the Seralini study should be cited as evidence that long term consumption of GE corn is not harmful to health. Sure, its design was flawed, but even then, Seralini had to misrepresent his data to create the illusion that eating GMO is dangerous.

          • He’s probably tenured. Either that or he has in his possession a snapshot of a higher-up at the University of Caen in a compromising position with someone other than his wife.

          • I doubt it. Though he probably would I doubt that he’d have any takers. Take a look… can you tell which one is the white, lumpy thing with the little beady eyes and which is the test rat? I didn’t think so. He’d have to be really good at smoking pipe, and I doubt he is. In the end, enthusiasm can only take him so far.

            (and yes, I know that’s terrible of me to say).

          • The anti-GMO sect of the organic movement is all-enthusiasm, all day long, and by that I mean all-propaganda with no redeeming features or facts to buttress their tax-subsidized case.

            So no… it’s not that terrible of you to say.

          • Sure Misha.


            You get up every morning to promote the on going conspiracy to keep the poisonous pesticide laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our children.

            What a JOKE you are, and you have the audacity to accuse others of propaganda.


          • You get up every morning to promote the on going conspiracy to keep the
            poisonous pesticide laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our children.

            Typical Teddy. Personal attacks, issue avoidance and lies.

            Post some evidence to back up your lies Teddy.

          • I see you’ve ended up on a site that most no one reads. Most legitimate sites won’t post Popoffs bogus crap.

            Sorry tool, I’ve seen how whacked out you are on the dope you’re smoking.

            You are a FAILURE, and all your bogus claims will not change that self evident FACT.

          • Why won’t you debate Mischa? Are you afraid of him?
            I’m sure he would be more accommodating about your personal attacks than I am.

            What do you have to lose besides your self respect and your ignorant paradigm?

            Don’t be afraid, debate Mischa.

          • Misha is seen as a corrupt joke who has been trading on a very thin resume after his own ultra right wing party in Canada removed him from the ballot as unfit to serve in the Canadian legislature. Misha spenda his days like you do trolling for the GMO pesticide industry agenda, He has absolutely no credibility with any serious independent scientists. The fact that the industry needs to use Misha’s bogus crap and disinformatin shows how weak their position is.

            Misha is just a common internet troll you you, and you are a FAILURE.

          • Excellent.

            Your overlords have programmed you properly. You drank the koolade and asked for more.

            You know that you could not ever win a debate with a chair much less Mischa so you just attack them personally diverting attention away from the actual issue.

            You never actually talk about GMO, you talk about the people that talk about GMO.

            It is classic. You do it over and over again.

            I think you must have certain responses typed out so you can quickly cut and paste them, like the capitalized ‘failure.’

            If you don’t already have that, it would save you a lot of time.

          • I’ve debated Misha on these disqus forums before, he never stays on topic always trying to spin it to his corrupt illegitimate agenda.

            This site moderates any proof based on links. .

            It’s just like Mishsa to hide behind a moderator and claim there is no prooof.

            The real question is why are you following me around the internet. I know most dope smokers like you have a hard time focusing on anything of substance except the substance you are abusing.

            Your lack of clarity and comprehension makes it tough for anyone who wants to really discuss these complex issues.

            Carry on tool.

            You are a FAILURE..

          • Pointing out bogus issues raised by whacked out dope smokers is about issues.

            Nothing personal at all. I’d do the same with any other whacked out tools posting bogus crap that they are unwilling to debate.

            The fact that you are so sensitive to the exposure of your own BS is just another sign you are a FAILURE.

          • Poor Teddy. The sad part is … it’s not curable. Oh, well. Lots of us read and analyze and ask questions and make intelligent decisions, and I really commend that. Or …. perish the thought! …. they actually talk to actual farmers who use GE crops.

          • It might see like a waste of time for you.

            After all anyone who has followed you pretty much has that figured out, but some of us like to point out the truth so others with less experience with your propaganda and disinformation

            Truth tellers can save the innocent public you are trying to deceive a lot of time.

          • No Misha, there are many people who share the same truth about you. See:

            Food Safety News

            Critic of Organic Agriculture Lacks Credibility
            By Mark A. Kastel | August 25, 2014

            Recently, Mr. Mischa Popoff wrote an op-ed for Food Safety News critical of the organic movement. Popoff is a former Canadian organic certification inspection contractor, the author of a self-published book
            critical of organics, and a commentator affiliated with
            ultra-conservative think tanks in the U.S. that are funded by agrochemical interests.

            The article below, entitled, “Who is Mischa Popoff?,” was penned by researchers at The Cornucopia Institute in 2011. It remains accurate andrelevant today.

            When The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group, officially launched in April 2004, one of its primary issue areas was what it referred to as “The Corporate Attack on Organic Agriculture.” At the time, Cornucopia’s focus was on the father-and-son team of Dennis and
            Alex Avery at the ultra-conservative Hudson Institute’s campaign to discredit organics. Now, in 2011, after seven years of successfully exposing the genesis of Hudson’s ire, and greatly diminishing its effectiveness, a new generation of “Trojan horse” naysayers has emerged.

            The latest attacks come from Mischa Popoff, a Canadian who purports to be an advocate for organics and is publicizing his self-published book entitled, “Is It Organic? The author misses few opportunities to impugn the integrity of the organic label, or USDA oversight, while
            simultaneously defending biotechnology and the industrial agriculture system that organics seeks to replace.

            “Addressing the potential damage from attacks by the Hudson Institute, and other right-wing think tanks such as the Hoover Institution, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was relatively easy,” said Mark A. Kastel, codirector at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. “Every rebuttal that we published,
            or preemptive media advisory we issued, was put into context by including the corporate agribusiness funding base for the work of these entities.”

            Like the Averys, Popoff is a conservative ideologue, a global warming denier, an ardent critic of hybrid automobiles, and has suggested that the American mortgage crisis that precipitated the financial meltdown
            was caused by “overregulation.” His book sold on his website is subtitled: “The Inside Story of Who Destroyed the Organic Industry, Turned It into a Socialist Movement and Made Million$ in the Process, and a Comprehensive History of Farming, Warfare and Western Civilization
            from 1645 to the Present.”

            “Popoff calling the $30-billion organic industry a ‘socialist
            movement,’” says Cornucopia’s Kastel, “is akin to the fascist leaders inGermany, during the 1920s and ‘30s, referring to their movement as the National Socialist party. It’s Orwellian doublespeak. Nowhere in the
            food industry have entrepreneurs and investors realized greater financial reward, with virtually no governmental funding, than in meeting the higher standards consumers are seeking by paying a premium for organic food.”

            Popoff acted as an organic inspector a number of years ago. He now challenges the propriety of organic accreditation and third-party certification by suggesting, echoing the Averys at Hudson, that, “There is currently little proof of actual cleanliness, nutrition and fair play
            in the global organic industry.” Popoff’s unsubstantiated claim is that 80-90 percent of organic food in North America is fraudulent and imported.

            That’s not to say that Cornucopia doesn’t share some of Popoff’s concerns. Popoff suggests that the entire certification process is without merit and should be replaced with a testing protocol for prohibited toxic chemicals.

            “We think there is great merit in doing spot testing, as Congress required, and we have criticized the USDA for not having implemented testing until now, but it would be prohibitively expensive to test all farms and crops and would not substitute for other careful oversight protocols,” said Will Fantle, research director at The Cornucopia

            USDA’s National Organic Program, sensitive to the need for spot tests, is currently soliciting public comments on a new federal rule outlining the periodic residue testing of organically produced agricultural products. The proposal calls upon independent organic certifiers to conduct more surprise inspections of organic operations.

            Cornucopia, in its role as an organic industry watchdog, along with many other organic advocacy groups, supports the proposed new regulationrecently published in the Federal Register (available for public comment until June 28).

            “This is a scheme similar to how the Internal Revenue Service conducts audits,” added Fantle. “Strategically conducted tests, and aggressive prosecution if willful violations are discovered, will surely act as a powerful deterrent. I will add that there is no documentary
            evidence to believe that widespread fraud is currently occurring in the organic industry.”

            It appears that Popoff pins his credibility to his role as an insider and organic supporter. But even that is open to debate as he hasn’t actually done any organic inspections in years and has been inappropriately identifying himself as an “International Organic
            Inspectors Association (IOIA) Advanced Inspector.”

            The executive director of IOIA, Margaret Scoles, says that she often gets calls and messages from people who are confused by Popoff’s claimed credentials.

            “A recent message I received was signed, ‘Mischa Popoff, IOIA Advanced Organic Farm and Process Inspector,’” says Scoles. “I was surprised,” she adds. “In 2008, I asked him to discontinue using the term because there is no such thing [Advanced Inspector]. He just made up the title. We asked him not to use the IOIA name in any way to imply membership status with our association, but his continued use of our name on his website and in his emails still causes confusion.”

            Popoff was an Inspector member of IOIA between 1998 and 2004, Scoles notes. But, she notes, “He has never worked for us and has no affiliation with IOIA.”

            Popoff’s political ideology comes through strong and clear in some of his writings (click here to view a sampling) and statements; his other website also exposes ultra-conservative views.

            In addition to his suggesting that organics is some kind of socialist construct, he has stated that, “Liberals destroy agriculture in B.C. [British Columbia]” and suggested that the liberal American financier George Soros is somehow financing an organic “bureaucracy” instead of substantive oversight.

            “Mr. Popoff’s contention that the organic industry has some kind of socialist/liberal agenda is a gross misnomer,” stated Kastel. “Support for organics cuts across all demographics with liberal and conservative
            suburban consumers, urbanites and rural farmers ranging from dreadlockedhippies to conservative Christians, Mennonites and the Amish.”

            Like the Averys at the Hudson Institute, he’s also attacked The Cornucopia Institute, suggesting that they have partnered with Soros and claiming that the organization’s largest funder is the farmer-owned
            cooperative Organic Valley (another one of Popoff’s targets in his book).

            “Because Organic Valley CEO George Siemon doesn’t back his thesis to switch all organic oversight exclusively to testing, he attacked Siemon and now is going after Cornucopia,” said Kastel. “Interestingly, Popoff
            has also promoted a testing business that would directly benefit from this recommended approach.”

            Kastel and Siemon are in good company. Popoff’s book also attacks Deputy USDA Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, a well-known organic supporter,and Michael Pollan, a New York Times journalist and author of the bestseller “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.”

            “By trying to tie all of his favorite villains together, Mr. Popoff discredits himself and leaves all of his statements open to question,” noted Kastel.

            “Not only is Organic Valley not our largest funder, we do not receive any financial support from the cooperative, or from Mr. Soros, and fully stand by our independence as an organic industry watchdog,” Fantle affirmed.

            Almost no element in the organic farming movement has been spared attacks on its credibility by Popoff. One of the certifiers impugned, OCIA International, responded to what they referred to as “false statements about our organization and organic certification in general.”

            “We would like to set the record straight. On a YouTube video, Mr. Popoff states that there are no unannounced inspections performed on certified organic farms. This is untrue and is covered in the NOP Final Rule and also in the OCIA Standards.”

            The USDA organic regulatory language includes: Additional inspections may be announced or unannounced at the discretion of the certifying
            agent or as required by the Administrator or State organic program’s governing State official. And the contract OCIA, one of the original nonprofit certifiers predating the USDA, has with its farmers and
            processors reads: The inspector shall have the right to make unannounced visits, take samples, and require residue tests.

            “We take our responsibility to follow up on any questionable activities in organics very seriously,” said OCIA President Peggy Linzmeier. “Mr. Popoff’s fictitious stories, challenging the credibility of the organic label, are injurious to all the farmers and organizations in this industry that are acting with high integrity.”

            Although his material has primarily appeared on what has been referred to as the “echo chamber” of conservative websites, Popoff has developed an extensive database of e-mail addresses in the organic industry.

            “Either he’s had tremendous financial support in his data mining efforts or he’s personally invested countless hours in developing this electronic mailing list,” stated Fantle. “If it weren’t for this level of outreach, we would probably entirely ignore his rantings, which all too often grossly distort the facts.”

            Research indicating organics’ nutritional superiority and
            demonstrably lower level of exposure to agrichemicals, antibiotics and hormones, can be found on Cornucopia’s website or that of the Organic Center.

            “Whether it is research conducted by the USDA, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine), or numerous peer-reviewed journals, there is considerable scientific backup for the faith consumers have in the ethical approach organic farmers have taken,” added Kastel. “Mr. Popoff’s claims to the contrary just don’t hold water.”

            © Food Safety News

          • O-M-G… You actually cut-and-pasted Mark Kastel’s entire article. That’s hilarious Ted!

            I have a standing offer to debate Mr. Kastel, anytime, anywhere. If it was worth his time to write that 1500-word essay about me, why doesn’t he take the time to debate me in an open forum?

          • I had to post the whole thing because you’ve been censoring links.

            I would love to see you debate Mark Kastle. Unless you can bring more than what I’ve seen from you these last months he will most likely mop the floor with you.

            I’ll pass off a link of this conversation to Mark. I would love to see you debate him in front of a group of small family farmers. I hope if it happens they will put it up on utube so we can all see how you’ve done.

            If I’ve learned one thing about you, Misha, it’s the fact that you can’t tell the difference between truth and the fiction you bring fromr your special alternative reality.

            I might even want to watch the debate in person so I can smell the mendacity oozing off of you when you can’t get by with spinning your corrupt GMO pesticide industry fantasy.

          • Teddy, why oh why do you feed your children poison? Can you read? Buy organic or “non-gmo.” That can’t be so hard, right? The rest of us are dying every day from eating gmo foods, right? So you really don’t have to worry about us for very long. Lucky Teddy!

          • I responded to your post over 18 hours ago but it has been heald by the moderator for some unexplained reason.

            I’ll reproduce it here without the link, which has finally been posted as a comment to Misha below.

            You replied to FrenchKissed·
            18 hours ago

            The enetic Literacy Project is just a GMO pesticide industry
            disinformation site. There are others as well like biofortified, and GMO answers and more.The architect of this GMO pesticide industry disinformation network is Jon Entine See link in my response to Popoff below.

          • Yes, some actual studies please.

            No more links to YouTube videos of some environmentalist giving an hour-long speech.

            And please, please, PLEASE no more links to Google searches. Organic activists have to learn that performing a Google search is the BEGINNING of the research process, not the conclusion.

            Thanks for your supportive words IJR.

          • I have been asking Ted Miner for days to post studies. All he does is lob poorly crafted personal attacks and avoids the issue.

            Unfortunately, that is very typical in the GMO debate.

            Without considering the issue, I am called a “paid shill” and evil.

            I am done debating people like Ted, who are not interested in exchanging dialogue like adults do.

          • All Ted Miner does is personally attack me and avoid debate. It gets old, i gave up. I hope Ted will take you up, but I doubt that he can do it like an adult.

          • That’s because most people think you are a joke and a gadfly that is not taken seriously except by a lunatic fringe.

            It basically boils down to the fact that your not worth the time or the effort.

            You aren’t smart enough, or have the training ,, and don’t have integrity enough to stand in Dr.Seralini’s shadow.

          • Truth tellers pop up from time to time.

            Sometimes it’s good to take the time to see your corrupt GMO pesticide industry narratives shattered by the TRUTH.

          • Right…

            You’re no doubt referring to the truth that organic activists are so worried that they test organic food for GMO content, but not for prohibited pesticides or fecal coliforms from improperly-composted manure.

            You are aware, I trust, that 43% of all USDA-certified organic food tests positive for prohibited pesticides. Right Ted?

          • No Misha.

            Did I say that Misha you are you trying to put your own corrupt words into my mouth?

            You are a phoney tool Misha, and your sleazy attempt to spin something I didn’t say just proves that your ultra right wing political party was right to remove you from the ballot because you were unfit to serve in the Canadian legislature.

            You always wonder in a case like that, but after seeing your utter shameless sociopathic dishonesty it is obvious that the made the right call.

            No wonder you are seen as a gadfly and kook in most circles.

          • And, Teddy, how do you feel about organic mutagenesis? Safe? Should it be studied for … what, 30 years? 100 years? You don’t mind if your organic foods are blasted with toxic chemicals or irradiation, right? Ah, the usual silence and blank blinking stare … c’mon, Teddy, defend organic mutagenesis. Please.

          • Not only that, but organic crops are not tested to ensure they’re safe or genuine. This results in half of all organic food testing positive for prohibited pesticides, and in much higher rates of food-borne illnesses resulting from the consumption of “organic” food.

          • Mischa, I’d love to see more info on that; link or other resource re prohibited pesticides used by organic growers, as well as higher rates of illness from “organic” food…. it would be very helpful to me. Not that I want to attack organic, but the “Organic – good; gmo – bad” attitude is luddite, and THAT I do want to attack, on behalf of local farmers and of good science. I know you’ve worked in the organic industry and the USDA, so you probably have some good info on this. Our locality is trying to get a handle on actual pesticides used by both organic and GE farmers, and this info would be very helpful in that study, so that they can localize their investigation into what actually IS being used by whom, in what toxicity, and at what levels. Thanks.

          • Teddy, I almost wet my pants laffing at your statement about “integrity” and Seralini (in the same sentence)! More spitting and frothing vitriol from a science-loathing luddite. I’m sorry you flunked all of your science classes and critical thinking classes, so sad, but the rest of us are very clear on why you’re ranting against science.

            (you DO accept science when it’s convenient to you though, right? Like when it confirms global warming / climate change? Or do you cherry-pick your science?)

            Oh, and “your” should be “you’re” (you are) in your second sentence. Let’s be careful with grammar and spelling, Teddy, because words mean something and words (and clarity) are important. To a lot of us, anyway. (oh, please don’t tell me you flunked spelling and grammar too? I am soooo sorry ….. but there are remedial classes for spelling, grammar, critical thinking, AND science, so all may not be lost.)

          • I think you would make mincemeat out of them, Mischa. I’d pay to see it. (altho I think you stretch a wee bit by calling Seralini an “organic academic” — maybe the former word, but certainly not the latter!)

          • I know; being called a “paid shill” is beginning to be kind of a badge of honor, because by definition it’s coming from someone who has nothing more to offer than schoolyard name calling; instead of “you’re a big poopy-head,” it’s now “you’re obviously a paid shill.”
            If I could get 50 cents for every time I said “fer pete’s sakes, if you want to avoid gmos and ignore all the science, go ahead, and you can buy certified organic or non-gmo” I’d be rich. Maybe I’m a paid shill for the organic industry, I’ve had to say that so many times! bwaaa haaa haa

          • WHEN will someone ask me to be a paid shill? Every adult is either paid, broke, or spending their own money. Which of these is a guarantee of integrity, honesty or knowledge?

          • Though I don’t agree with your opinion, the link was simply to a picture of Seralini. ‘Twas a joke… “can you tell which is the lumpy white thing with the beady eyes and which is the test rat?”

          • If he falsified the study as you claim, why was scientific fraud the reason the journal gave for retraction? Scientific fraud is the first of 4 reasons to retract a study, yet the reason given was inconclusive” result. Which is not even one.
            Ill tell you while this is a out right lie, one of many used by christou to “debunk” it. In fact when the journals mother company wrote there official letter addressing the retraction, they stayed that no scientific fraud had occurred. Yet you still use this propaganda. That a joke!

          • You’re putting words in my mouth Josh. Let me try to help you out.

            I don’t believe the Seralini study on GMOs causing tumors in rats. I never believed the Putszai study that came before it making the same claim.

            In both cases, I based my conclusion on the fact that no one was able to REPRODUCE either study.

            I have no idea who Christou is.

          • Lol my comment was some how not posted directly under your comment that I was responding to . Which stated Seralin should be fired for commiting fraud in his study. so I am in no way putting words in your mouth.
            Christou was the lead writer of ajro et al that claimed fraud and was also the one you copy pasted in this tread.
            Seralini study didn’t say gmo caused tumors, you may know this if you read it. It was a long term toxicology study that had tumors manifest. He reported this because you are required to. In his conclusion regarding the tumors he stated that more test(carcinogenic studies) need to be conducted to see if they have the same results. He made zero claims that gmo caused the tumors
            Again your basis for our conclusion is logically flawed, no study can reproduce finding if no study was conducted. Youre using the fact that no further studies were conducted to prove it. But its really mote because the study didn’t even claim this because it was a TOXICOLOGICAL study.

          • Oh sure, there are many reasons Seralini should be fired. But you keep trying to split hairs on why his study was retracted, whether it was toxicological or looking for carcinogens. And it doesn’t matter. My point is his study was never reproduced.

          • No you made a claim that he falsified the study. In other words commited fraud. You also made a claim he was profoundly debunked. Then refused to answer how. You then changed your stance to his work couldnt be replicated. I again called you out on that and now you switch it to this. You sprinkled in other nonsense like a study isnt considered scientific unless it has been reproduced.
            The type of study it is is not splitting hairs its extremely important especially when people claim to debunk it because it doesn’t fit the criteria for the number of rats per sex per group, for conducting a carcinogenic study. This is the many premise ajro et al used to say it was flawed. The only problem was not a carcinogenic study. It was studying chronic toxicity and found tumors. They used faulty claims to get it retracted and never once brought up the toxicological data. Strange being that the study was collecting data on.

          • I BELIEVE Seralini did indeed falsify his study, and committed fraud. That is certainly my opinion.

            But it is a fact that his work was debunked, and has not been replicated. I have asked you numerous times if you know of anyone preparing to, planning to, or thinking of replicating his work. I was pretty sure I already knew the answer. No one is. But I thought I’d be open-minded and ask you anyway.

          • Feel free to give one example of fraud. Just one. You do know that the editor of the journal said they found NO fraud or intentional misrepresentation of data. But im sure you have looked into tjis more than them. So enlighten us..
            And I have asked you many times if about proving it was debunked you avoid it everytime. I on the other hand already answered you question and that is I dont know if any are being conducted presently

          • Finally… an easy question.

            Seralini’s a fraud because he set out with an agenda, and made sure his results fit that agenda.

            If you don’t know if anyone is even trying to repeat his study, then fine. We’re finally on common ground.

          • “Finally… an easy question” im glad you admit my other questions are hard. Which you choose to just ignore and hope they go away.
            By make sure his results fit the agenda you mean do a longer study than 90 days.
            Your vague claims of fraud have been profoundly debunked by many independent scientist

          • Lol you said “finally an easy question” which means the others were hard. If you said “finally an intelligent question” you could make this claim and not look like a moron.
            You make crazy unscientific and unsubstantiated claims. I ask simple questions to get you to prove what you claim, which you cant because its a lie. Just because you refuse to answer the question because it will prove you are a liar spreading propaganda doesnt mean the question is inane

          • Got it, so when you said finally an easy question, you ment the others where completely inane. Makes total sense and is completely logical… oh wait its actual inane.
            What is inane about asking someone to proven something they are presenting as absolute fact?
            I know, I know, im asking another inane question

          • Yes, I know, it is very hard for you to follow simple discussion. You can tell by the fact you always do this when you dont want to answer a easy straight forward question.

            What, in your mind, is inane about asking someone to prove things they are presenting as absolute fact?

            You claim my questions are completely inane. Everyone of my question to you is because you present something as absolute fact. Examples are seralini was profoundly debunked, he falsified data and conducted the experiment in a way to get the outcome he wanted. I ask you to be specific about how, or ask you why none of the claims used to debunk were given as a reason to retract it. You refuse to answer, instead throwing out a bunch of red herrings and strawmen.

            You cant even answer simple question to defend your many claims. Yet you still regurgitate the propaganda from erjo et al. And you wonder why you are called a shill by alot of people….

          • And this has what to do with this current discussion?
            Which is, you made wild claims, to which i ask simple questions to get you to prove what you claim and you say that im asking completely inane questions. In a very week attempt to avoid the question.
            Here you are again trying to use a red herring to get out of answering. I wonder why is that? It becomes pretty clear you refuse to get specific about your claims of fraud and faulty science because it will get picked apart and that hurts the agenda you are pushing.

          • Oh goodie, your back to asking this like I havent asked you over and over to prove what you say. Every claim that you refuse to go into detail about, falls into this category. That should make it easy for you. But just in case it is not here are a few…

            Your wild claim: seralini was profoundly debunked.
            My question: if this were so why was none of the claims made in erjo to debunk him, used as a reason to retract his study? Every most of there claims if true, gives ethical reasons to retract, yet they used zero of them, and went with an unethical reason by it.

            Wild claim: seralani falsified the study.
            My question: where exactly are you claiming he falsified his findings?

            Wild claim:(I believe you said this instead of answering the above) He conducted a study in a way to get the results to fit his agenda?
            This brings up many questions:1) as a independent(free of financial coi) scientist what are you claiming his agenda? 1b) why would someone that has nothing to gain with the failure of gmo have such an agenda? 2? How exactly did he conduct the study to come up with the results to fit this agenda?
            Hint: he conducted a long term toxicological study, that was well within the guidelines to do so. The editor and journal also said he unequivocally did not commit fraud or hide stats from them. This is why your claims are wild and also why you refuse to go into detail.

          • Now we know you never even bothered to read my article Josh. I don’t even mention Seralini in it.

            Warren Lauzon responded to someone’s comment above by pointing out “that the rat tumor “study” you are talking about has been overwhelmingly condemned by nearly all scientists. It has so many flaws that it is a joke in scientific circles.”

            I happen to agree with Warren. But the fact that you’re going on and on about something that wasn’t even in my article proves that you’re just sniping here.

            You sir, are a complete fraud.

          • Another stawman, I never said I was commenting on anything you said in your article. I responded to the many claims you have made in the comment section and your refusal to provide any proof. You want to make the claims of it being debunked and about the ethics of a man with nothing but propaganda. That sir, makes you the complete and utter fraud.
            You claim to be a man of science yet use or provide none, but instead you sling ad hominems while creating strawmen and red herrings. It is clear you are doing this to push an agenda, with makes you completely unethical as well.
            Keep making your completely vague non scientific claims. Then using weak strawmen and red herrings in an attempt to hide the fact that you cant get specific because if you do people will tear your claims to shreds because we have truth on our sides and you only have propaganda. But know this, people see that you are making claims you cant back up with facts.

          • For those of you that hadnt read mischa comment were you claims he was just agreeing with warren ill copy paste it. “Or perhaps HE’s been in a compromising position with a higher-up at his university. I wouldn’t put anything by someone who’d falsify a rat study” As you can see he is very professional with no agenda.
            I asked him to specifically address where seralini falsified data. He instead used strawman and red herrings to try and change the sunject.

          • You’re hilarious Josh. I am sorry that you had to hear it here in the comments section of my article. But Seralini’s has indeed been completely and thoroughly debunked. It was, as you know, flawed right from the start, and as such was retracted from publication.

            You know this, and it bothers you. So what you’re trying to debate me on is HOW exactly his study was debunked, and how his reputation has subsequently suffered.

            You’re certainly welcome to speculate all you’d like on these questions. But they’re questions I won’t join you in wondering about because, frankly, I don’t care.

          • No mischa, his study was not “flawed from the start” or you could answer how EXACTLY it was flawed.
            You can take the claims from erjo et al’s review and claim that it shows they were thoroughly debunked. But the fact is it was writen by people who are not toxicological experts and all had very big conflicts of interest with biotech. There claims have been point for point been proven to be either outright lies or unfactual. Thousands of independent scientist have signed pensions to boycott the journal because of its unethical and unscientific reasons for retracting the study.
            You keep claiming that itbwas retracted because of all the flaws you wont address. Do you even know how easy it is to get the statement from the editor explaining why it was withdrawn? Hint it was not because it “flawed right from the start” . it was because they claimed ” the results presented (while not inaccurate) were inconclusive. This is of course not an acceptable reasoning according to COPE. But fraud is, it is also something you claimed. Here is what they said about this. “Unequivocally, theveditor-in-chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of data.” You areva liar and a fraud and no matter how many times you repeat the same bs propaganda it wont make it true nor will it make it harder to actually research and find out the actual truth.

          • As I have already suggested Josh, go write an article, and get it posted. If any of what you say is true, it would be a good article. Emphasis on “if.”

            As for Seralini’s study being flawed right form the start, he fed GMOs to rats after those GMOs had already been consumed by billions of people over two decades.

            I suppose there was a chance he might have discovered something new. But it turns out he did not.

            And this makes me a liar because…?

          • So let me get this straight his toxicalogical study of gmo s is flawed from the start because he used gmos and they have been used for “over 2 decades”? Congrats, this is by for the worst use of logic and math(the study was conducted in 12 and round up ready crops only hit the market in 1996. Making yet another unfactual/exaggerated claim). The fact that it has been eaten for 16 years doesnt make it flawed. It does show how flawed our system is to blindly allow crops that have had their dna manipulated using imprecise techniques, that lead to unknown outcomes, to be deemed safe to replace the crop we have eaten for millennia because of 90 day studies conducted by corporate scientist that use unethical methodologies to get a designed outcome.
            To answer your question about how does this make you a liar. I already address were you have routinely lied in our other statements. Your illogical/nonsensical claim for why it was flawed from the start, shows that was a lie as well. But not nearly as bad as your claim in the third paragraph. His study most certainly did “discover something new”, you either have never looked at the data or you are flat out lying about it. Either way that paragraph is laughable. They found massive organ failure in organs such as the liver and kidneys, in all treatment groups feed the gmo corn. They also found that the mortality rate was far higher in the treatment compated to control. They(treatment) also had a wide variety of hormonal issues.
            This of course, is just off the top of my head, anyone can look at the many articles written by scientist and doctors about the specific results. Meaning there is no “if” when it comes to getting articles writen. They already have. Most back up what they say with actual sources as well. Something you cant do because of the whole constant falsehoods in your claims.

          • What I’m saying is Seralini clearly had an agenda to fulfill long before his “study” yielded any results. He had a rabid anti-GMO agenda, just like you.

            You’re obviously an angry person. As I suggested, why not write an article instead of wasting your time here in the comments section? I remind you yet again, I did not discus Seralini in this article to which you’re commenting.

            You seem kind of desperate, and your thinking is disparate.

          • It does show how flawed our system is to blindly allow crops that have had their dna manipulated using imprecise techniques, that lead to unknown outcomes, to be deemed safe

            That describes conventional breeding, not GMO.

            replace the crop we have eaten for millennia

            There are very few if any crops that we eat that have been around for that long without significant change. 1000 years ago there was no broccoli, no orange carrots, no Kiwi fruit, and tons of other foods.

            His study most certainly did “discover something new”, you either have never looked at the data or you are flat out lying about it.

            Yep it did, the most significant finding was “Male rats fed roundup live longer” .

          • Aren’t you capable of doing any research on your own? There are hundreds of sources out there explaining why Seralini was so screwed up.

          • Rich coming from you. You are another one that blindly regurgitates the one study used to claim it was debunked. Like mischa, you make claims, from the erjo et al that are flat out lies. Ill give you this, you atleast got specific with why you claimed it was debunked, whereas mischa is intentionally vague. None the less you still brought nothing but propaganda like the rats used were wrong becuase they get tumors after 90 days.

          • Seralini has recently been in Colorado, along with the flying yogi Jeffrey Smith, to rant in favor of Colorado’s sloppy proposed gmo labeling ballot initiative. These guys just never give up. (perfect examples of narcissism)

      • Think of all the billions of dollars organic activists spend every year attacking the science of genetic engineering. And they’ve never seen fit to throw a few hundred-thousand dollars at reproducing Séralini’s results. It’s as if they know it was a complete scam from start to finish.

    • Huh, why is it you care about weeds becoming resistant to a weed killer you don[t want used in the first place?

      You say GMO’s provide no benefits. Are you calling farmers too dumb to notice?

      Did you know neonicotinoids are coated onto seeds and care not if the seed is GMO? Plenty of non-gmo varieties are coated as such.

      Where’s your data that states neonicotinoids are the main cause of CCD and that EU’s bees have recovered due to the ban or recovered at all?

      What studies linked RR to all those diseases? Seralini, Carmin? Seneff?

      Did you know all species on earth are related?

      Di you know all plants produce pesticides and BT’s jsut not toxic to us, like chocolate or grapes?

    • Good grief; what kind of sham science are you reading?? Every single sentence is hype and exaggeration and quotations of bad studies (like the Seralini rat study). Were you really asleep in your science class after lunch, every year for years, in high school and college? If you were in my critical thinking class, I wouldn’t only flunk you, I’d ask you to leave.

  2. Okay, we have an article from a former organic farmer stating that GMO’s are okay. Hi Mark Donners, GMO’s stands for Genetically Modified Organisms. New genes have been sliced into the genes of corn, or soybeans. That doesn’t make it a poison. Yes, the spray that is used is a bad poison.
    I have read somewhere, that there haven’t been any long term studies to find out if GMO’s are bad for us or not. If the Monsanto’s of the world, would allow a 3rd party, with no ties to either side, to run double-blind studies we might be able to come up with a honest answer that would help the whole world.
    What I feel is happening is this: the sprays used to kill insects and other pests is the problem. Plus, I feel there are other environmental issues that when combined with these chemicals are causing medical problems.
    Why would Monsanto what to change their name if there wasn’t something to hide? Open up the test data for scientists to study. Monsanto doesn’t have to give away their trade secrets.
    The U.N. has reported that the way we currently farm is not good. We need smaller farms growing more food locally than that which is shipped across country.

    • As someone with farming in his blood, I don’t trust anything the UN says. But you’re quite right Richard, to wonder why Monsanto thought about changing its name. I think it boils down to laziness. Rather than fight the Good fight, CEO Hugh Grant wants to try taking the easy way out.

      As for a double blind study… no one is preventing anyone form conducting one on any GMO crops. Indeed, I can’t even begin to imagine how Monsanto, or any biotech corporation, could stop someone from conducting such a study. It’s not like we need their permission. Indeed, have you heard of the Seralini study on rats?

      So, why doesn’t a government in Europe, or the European Union itself, hurry up and conduct such a study if they believe GMOs are dangerous? Again, I think it boils down to laziness.

        • How would such a study be silenced?

          No one “silenced” the Seralini or Putszai studies that claimed to show GMOs caused tumors in lab rats. The studies both came out and were roundly debunked because they were both flawed.

          You really live in a world of conspiracy, don’t you Josh?

          • Profoundly debunked? Laughable. Seralini was “debunked” by scientist with massive undisclosed COI with biotech. They wrote reviews of how unscientific his study was, using lies about the methodology because if such things as the rats species and the number of rats. NONE of the things used to “debunk” his work was the reason why it was removed. Why is that Micha? Why if it was so scientifically flawed did they use “inconclusive” as the only reason to retract it? Being inconclusive, as im sure you know, is not a ethical reason to retract a study, according to COPE, yet ever single thing the “debunkers” claim is, yet not one was used!
            Not everything is a conspiracy micha, but some things are. This is clearly one of those.

          • Let’s cut to the heart of the matter Josh. Name a single lie that was told about Seralini’s methodology?

            And don’t you think that if there was any basis whatsoever to Seralini’s claims, there would have been lawsuits by now?

            But I don’t mean to confuse matters here. Returning to my request, please point to a single lie that was told about Seralini’s methodology.

          • Reread my post as I listed 2. Are you done avoiding my question or will you answer it now?
            Why, if it was as the debunkers, with massive COI, claim, NONE of there claims were used as a reason to retract? Scientific fraud, unreliable information do to miscalculation or flawed methodology are all acceptable under COPE guildlines. Yet they never used one of the Paul Christou,lead arjo et al lead review, claims. Why is that if it was profoundly debunked?

          • Red herring once again. I will give you this you are persistent at using condescending red herring to try and make it seem likebwe dont understand basic things. Then defend the red herring, leaving you to not answer the question you are asked.
            Are you ever going to answer my simple question?
            You claimed it was profoundly debunk, yet you later edited it to roundly debunked so you dont look like an out right biotech shill. You even posted a comment with the review listing all the things said to profoundly debunk it. Yet none of these things were used to retract it, when every claim they made met the COPE qualification to retract.
            If it was indeed, profoundly debunked, why was one of the claims to debunk it not used to retract it? No more red herring and answer the simple question.

          • Again with the red herring. You lied about it being profoundly debunked and now you are trying to talk your way around it. There is a monumental difference between profoundly debunked and there not being any further studies conducted at this point.
            Btw, its ONLY been 2 years since the study was published, it was a 2 year study. How exactly do you expect their to be studies ALREADY conducted? Much less make it past the peer review process, something that needs to be done for you to call it a “real” study.

          • I dont know but are you reallysomehow suggesting this would prove his results CANT be reproduced?
            You have pretty much refused to answer how it was debunked by arjo et al, if none of there claims were the reason it was retracted. Now you are saying that its flawed because no one has attempted to replicate his study yet.
            Your logic is hilarious
            Why would someone, after seeing how seralini was treated after he published his finding, want to dedicate 2 years of there life to conduct a study that they will mostlikely have to fund themselves. Just to be attacked by biotech insiders, posing as experts, while knowing that at this point the study would never be allowed into a peer reviewed journal because the biotech industry has infiltrated the process.

          • Anyone with money who’s opposed to GMOs – any nation that’s opposed to GMOs – can get busy anytime they want and reproduce Seralini’s and Putzsai’s studies.

            We’re waiting.

          • Again your logic is flawed. The absence of studies in no way proves his study is flawed. Neither does reviews that need strawmen to show its flawed.

            We are still waiting for a scientific or ethical reason to withdraw. Or for that matterone to debunk it.

            The fundamental principles you are missing is the onus is supposed to be on the company that wants to genetically engineer food, to show its safe before they are allowed to put it in the food supply. 90 day trails on rats that live 12 times that, are not a scientific way to show no chronic toxicity or carcinogenic reactions. Its criminal for them to be able to use that short of a test to show no long term effects. In other words, they should have been required to do ling term test before it was deemed safe. Which could then be scutinized and if the data is up to par, could be used to debunk seralini. Yet we dont see biotech doing this.
            Why do you think that might be?

          • Never before has the onus been on the developers of new-production technologies to prove that their seed did not lead to health consequences decades later. This is simply an absurd requirement being foisted upon the science of genetic engineering because people like you hate GMO corporations.

            For all I know you might even have good reason for hating GMO corporations. But you can’t change the rules midstream like that.

          • Please don’t compare cross breading with Genetically modification, they are worlds apart. one is about developing various hybrids of corn, or other within species enhancement to improve naturally-occuring traits. the other is about using a bacteria or virus to artificially insert an entirely foreign DNA into a plant’s genes. This has proven to not be specific, precise nor predictable as the the likes of Monsanto claim. In 1999 a study published in the international journal of biological science found that inserting a gene into another organism’s DNA 1) causes thousands of activations, not just the one trait the researcher is looking for, 2) activates non-targeted (and sometimes toxic) genes; 3) affects idle genes, with entirely unknown effects; 4) lowers the plant’s nutrient content (since the plant’s energy is consumed with producing unnecessary proteins activated by the insertion).
            So yes technologies that do this, should indeed have to show they are safe.

          • Btw, you are out right lying claiming that seralini study claimed it proved that gmo cause tumors in rats. It was not a carcinogenic study but instead a chronic toxicological study. They saw tumor growth and reported it, as that is what you must do when tumors manifest in toxicological studies. They even worded their conclusion carefully and said their needs to be long term carcinogenic studies, with needs more rats per group then a toxicological study does.
            This study, however, did show chronic toxicological effects from the treatment groups. Such as severe organ damage, to many vital organs, including the liver and kidneys. It also showed hormal disruption and an increased mortality rate in every treatment group.

          • Well, for starters, I never claimed it was a carcinogenic study. The big question is, why hasn’t Seralini’s study been reproduced about a hundred times yet, by sympathetic scientists?

          • I noticed you edited your other comment to day roundly debunked insteat of profoundly. Nicely done.
            You are claiming they are profoundly debunked and in other comments used a a review ofbthe paper to show it was debunked, that review was sayingbthe methodology was wrong and based that off of the study being a carcinogenic. You also brought up up seralini in a way to suggest it only showed a connection to gmo and tumors. Without addressing the main finding.

          • You don’t understand the overriding factor here Josh…

            No one has reproduced Seralini’s study. No one.

            No one anywhere in the world, not even in France where the government roundly rejects Monsanto and GMOs for political reasons, and where the government could literally fund anything it wants.

            (I have no idea what you’re referring to when you say I edited my comment. Whether Seralini has bee roundly or profoundly debunked, it amounts to the same thing.)

          • So again, you are changing your story from it was profoundly debunked to it no study has been CONDUCTED yet. You do know that in order for a study to be replicated one first needs to be CONDUCTED, right? I ask because you are using the lack of replicated studies as proof that it is flawed, when zero studies have been done.
            NO goverment will ever pay to conduct studies that would show monsanto in a bad light. That has never and will never happen. They are to powerful and interwoven in in the first world governments.
            You know exactly what im talking about with the editing. You made a claim of them being profoundly debunked. To which I said it was laughable to claim it was any were near debunked much less “profoundly”. I look back and profoundly was changed to roundly. The two do not mean nearly the same in the context of your comment. Profoundly implied unquestionably in the context of it were roundly doesnt

          • A lot of governments would happily pay for someone to replicate Seralini’s study. But they know it can’t be done.

            Seralinis study, along with Putzsai’s, have been thoroughly, completely, profoundly and roundly DEBUNKED.

            And until you can prove otherwise, you haven’t got a leg to stand on.

          • Oh goodie, since no studies have been conducted yet we have no leg to stand on.

            The claims made by christou and gang are unscientific or out right lies. Predicated mostly on the fact that he didnt have enough rats to conclude it was cancerous. Which he didnt conclude that and said more studies were needed. The study was a toxicological study and the rats per sex, per group met the criteria for this type of study. He also made the claim that these rats were prone to spontaneous tumor growth and were not used to conduct long term studies. Which is a blatant lie. NOTHING they claimed debunked it otherwise it would have been used as a reason for retraction and the few thousand scientist that are openly boycotting the journal would not be doing so.

            Making false claims is not debunking, making you the one that has no leg to stand on.

          • You’re demanding studies on GMO foods that were never performed on any other foods, even those grown from seeds developed from nuclear and chemical mutagenesis, which are allowed in organic production by the way.

          • This is both a strawman and a red herring to not address anything I just posted. I posted exactly why the study was not debunked and this is your comment? Laughable.. and you claim others refuse to debate you. You dont do anything resembling debate. You make unsubstantiated claims get called out on it then produce one of a few logical fallacies like red herrings, strawman or well disguised ad hominem, all the while refusing to answer simple questions about the claims you make.

          • The same one you refuse to address all throughout this thread. If it was indeed debunked by christou’s group in ajro et al, why were none of the claims they made used as a reason to retract the study? Everything he said fit COPE guidlines for retraction yet none were used. Instead “inconclusive” was given which is not a viable reason.

          • I have no idea about Christou or his group.

            But I can tell you – regardless of whether Seralini’s study was retracted – that a study that is not reproduced does not even begin to qualify as a scientific study.

            So, sorry about that Josh.

          • You copy pasted from christou’s study that “debunked” yet you don’t even know who he is?
            So in your world until a study has been reproduced it doesn’t qualify as a scientific study. lol
            Now do you want to actually defund your claim for it being debunked now, or are you going to continue to not address my simple question?

          • No goverment has ever funded long term toxicological or carcinogenic studies into gmo. So claiming “many you happily pay to conduct one” is not based in reality.

            If they were proundly and thoroughly debunked quit avoiding my question.

          • I just stated no government has, so yes I know they have not. Someone had to fund seralini or the other long term independent studies though. Making your statement unfactual.
            It also proves your claim of many government s would love to fund one, in not factual either.

          • I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your comments are terribly confusing Josh, likely because you yourself are a terribly confused person.

            You clearly have a bone to pick with the science of genetic engineering. Besides the fact that you probably believe that means you also have a bone to pick with me on a personal level because I support GMOs, do you have anything to offer by way of a comment that pertains to the article I wrote?

          • Let me put it this way, you made a claim about no one has ever funded long term studies into gmo. You then condescendingly asked if I knew this. This is untrue as someone had to fund Seralini long term study. If you would said no government has that would be true but then you would have just repeated what I was saying in response to your claim of “many governments would love to fund one”

            Yes I do have a bone to pick with the science behind claiming genetic engineering. Again, it was found that inserting a gene into another organism’s DNA 1) causes thousands of activations, not just the one trait the researcher is looking for, 2) activates non-targeted (and sometimes toxic) genes; 3) affects idle genes, with entirely unknown effects; 4) lowers the plant’s nutrient content (since the plant’s energy is consumed with producing unnecessary proteins activated by the insertion). Yet they are deemed safe because of 90 day toxicological or carcinogenic studies. This is not scientifically sound at all.

            I don’t have a bone to pick with you personally, I do have a bone to pick with the industry propaganda you post. That is was I attack your arguments and not you.

            “do you have anything to offer by way of a comment that pertains to the article I wrote?” everything I wrote was in direct response to something you wrote in the previous comment, so it clearly pertains to the conversation. In fact you are routinely using red herring to try and draw the conversation away from you proving one of your claims. Whereas I have never do so.

          • No, what I said was that no one has ever done long-term feeding studies on crops grown from other breeding technologies. Take chemical and nuclear mutagenesis for instance. Once these crops underwent successful field trials, they were distributed to farmers, and no one questioned the long-term safety of consuming them. Nor should they have.

          • “No one has ever funded long term toxicological or carcinogenic studies into GMOs” this was the start of what you said. This is a bold faced lie. Unless studies like seralini can be conducted without funding.
            As far as mutagenic seeds, any seed that uses this technique should be studied as well. It is criminal that these are considered organic.
            Scientists most definitely questioned the safety of this. Where do you come up with this crap?

          • The USDA did not force anything on the organic industry. America’s National Organic Program was written, edited and finalized by organic stakeholders. And none of these organic stakeholders ever mentioned any reservations about these other advanced breeding techniques. They embraced them in fact. And there were never any long-term feeding studies done.

          • I love how you just skip all the parts were I address thinks like your constant lies and only adress one part. You do so by creating a straw man. I never said the usda forces anything on the organic community. I said it was criminal that they alliw these seeds to be considered organic. And dont give me that bull about organic activist wanted them allowed. Its allowed because the companies that create them lobbied to get them included in organics.

    • I have read somewhere, that there haven’t been any long term studies to find out if GMO’s are bad for us or not.

      They do not like links here.

      Google “Genera GMO studies”
      There are 2,000 peer reviewed studies.

      I am still waiting for a study that shows that GMOs are not safe.

        • Where are the anti-GMO people on canola oil?
          It came from rapeseed oil which was not for human consumption and was never tested until much later and then not extensively. I bet most of the anti-GMO people have some canola oil in their kitchens.

          Franken Oil?

          • The official word within organic circles is that all canola is B-A-D… evil in fact. Sure, you can buy certified-organic canola oil. But on the whole canola is rejected by organic activists.

          • I garden organically and people freak out when I tell them you can not grow an organic vegetable with out chemicals.

            My neighbor asked me if my corn was GMO, she was worried she might get sick. sigh

            This is what informed people have to deal with.

            Have a great day.

          • This is what happens when we fund organic activists with our taxes.

            People are allowed to believe whatever they want. But when my taxes underwrite the promulgation of such beliefs, I become very upset.

            Most informed people are unaware of the fact that we still subsidize the multibillion dollar organic movement.

      • Did you miss the long term part or do you think 90 studies conducted on an animal that has an average live span 12 times that long term?

          • Oh I get it, since no one has tried replicating it, yet, it means its replicable. I was unaware the scientific method worked by taking a bunch of studies with questionable methodologies and day that was evidence, but if a study goes against that corporate science its simply unreasonable because no one has tried. I mean its not like its been a short period of time or that if you show gmo’s in a bad light, in a study, you will get hit by a massive campaign to get the study thrown out and make you effectively jobless.. oh wait….

          • So you are talking about the rat study?
            You think that study is valid?
            Wow. Just wow.

            There are hundreds of independently funded, peer reviewed studies going back to the 1980s that you have conveniently ignored in favor of a study that has been widely criticized as completely flawed?

            Make me jobless?
            What are you babbling about?
            Are you one of those anti-GMO Luddites that thinks that every person that believes in the scientific method works for some evil corporation?

            Your arguments are tired and lack logic and reason.

    • Aidan. You talk a good talk about “freedom to choose” and the “right to know.” But the fact is you’re denying farmers THEIR right to choose. It’s up to American farmers whether or not they grow this new crop, and no one else. Mind your own beeswax.

      • Let the readers take a look at a clip from the weeks Dr. Oz show
        and make up their own minds.

        Monsanto’s 1st generation of GMO’s created this ‘super weed’ condition which is causing American farmers millions to eradicate and now what is the proposed answer ~ Dow to up the chemical ante with a glyphosate 2,4-D combo which is more toxic and has been connected to brain disease including Parkinson’s.

        • There is no such thing as a superweed Aidan. We have had this conversation before.

          A weed can become resistant to a certain herbicide, but can easily be killed with another herbicide, or tillage. Nothing makes weeds invincible, as any farmer can tell you.

          Besides, the majority of GMOs do not require herbicide. You and Dr. Oz (hint… not a farmer) are hung up on Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready crops because you don’t like Monsanto.

          • I was not aware that ABC News represented American farmers.

            We now know two things: 1) You have no idea how herbicide-resistance works, and 2) the people who produced this report 5 years ago were talking about Roundup-resistance in pigweed, and no other type of herbicide resistance.

            As I said in my comment, a weed can become tolerant to a certain herbicide (i.e. one herbicide), but can still be eliminated with another herbicide.

            Do you bother to read people’s comments before responding Aidan? There’s no such thing as a superweed.

          • St. Louis Post Dispatch July 13, 2014

            Midwestern farmers wage war against ‘superweeds’

            The survivors are so-called superweeds, a catchy term for what’s technically known as an herbicide-resistant weed. They’ve been around for decades, really. But they’re getting a lot of attention these days, with farmers increasingly running into aggressive varieties that can’t be killed by the herbicide that revolutionized modern farming.

            Weed experts say half the nation’s farmland is dealing with the problem in one form or another. Missouri and Illinois farmers already have encountered half a dozen different species immune to glyphosate. The first came a dozen years ago when resistant mare’s-tail was found in a Missouri field.

            While weed-challenged farmers may be eager to get their hands on these new tools, Shade and others worry over what they see as a chemical arms race — using ever stronger chemicals — that threatens the nation’s food supply.

            “They’re just going to have to keep bringing out bigger guns,” Shade said. “It’s a pretty scary path to think about.”


          • Different herbicides do not necessarily qualify as “bigger guns.”

            And don’t you support the organic industry Aidan? You should welcome the day when Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide will be rendered useless by glyphosate-resistant weeds.

          • I know Mischa your job in this pro biotech ‘dialogue’ is to promote the idea that ‘organic is not so good, not that much better’ which you and I know is untrue on many levels.

            Now the EPA is positioned to approve Dows ‘Enlist’ a product that just combines two ‘old” chemicals: glyphosate and 2,4-D, an idea any sixth grader could have proposed to kill the super weeds on his fathers farm for a science fair – no vision, no innovation, just upping the chemical arms race to kill GMO resistant weeds with no thought to health, problems of drift or the further corruption of the nations water supply.

          • Where did I say organic is not so good? Nice try.

            Organic is fantastic. The problem is that organic farmers don’t run the organic industry anymore, and have been replaced by urban, anti-GMO activists… activists like you who don’t know the first ting about farming.

          • I live in one of the oldest farming communities in the nation. Both sets of grandparents were farmers the one very important gift they gave me was common sense and the ability to know when someone is throwing the manure around.

            One question – if you think organic is “fantastic” as
            you said: why are you a regular contributor to
            Jon Entines PRO GMO Genetic Literacy Project?


          • If you’re from one of the oldest farming communities in America, then you should have no problem talking with friends and neighbors to confirm what I have said again and again in articles here and on Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project: that it’s time for organic activists to listen to organic farmers and stop trying to ban GMOs.

            And while you’re at it Aidan, ask farmers if there’s such thing as a “superweed.”

          • You are totally disconected from reality, Misha.

            The reason the GMO pesticide industry needs seeds engineered to withstand glyphosate 2,4-D combo is because the super weeds have become immune to the poisonous Roundup/glyphosate currently being used to grow GMOs.

            One of the issues with this new combination is that the manufacturing process produces dioxin.

            Next you’ll be telling us dioxin is harmless.

            No wonder you are seen a a looped out fringe player, your so disconected from reality and the truth that you’ve completely lost your tether.

            You are a corrupt JOKE.

          • I’m afraid you don’t know anything about farming Ted. You’re probably a good person; well meaning and fun to hang around with. But you’re really out on a limb in this discussion with little to offer.

          • Not if the answer to killing the glyphosate resistant weeds is to create even worse herbicides.
            Einstein said you can never fix a problem by using the same thinking that got you into the problem in the first place. That is exactly whats happening here

          • Herbicide makers don’t use the same thinking when they come up with different herbicides. Herbicides – whether organic or conventional – have different chemistries and act on different pathways in weeds.

            The biggest problem when it comes to weed control is tillage. Now THAT qualifies as using the same thinking.

            We’ve been using tillage for weed control for thousands of years, and it requires ten-times more fuel per-acre than herbicides.

            How is that sustainable in your mind Josh?

          • So we get “super weeds” or herbicide resistant weeds that are harder to kill and they come up with the bright idea of using even more deadly chemicals than the one’s that created the the problem, and when nature inevitably adapts to these chemical, we they will say we need different herbicides(meaning more toxic yet). But somehow this isnt using the same thinking?

          • Only in your mind are farmers using “more deadly chemicals” Josh. 2,4-D is different from glyphosate, not more deadly.
            And don’t forget, farmers can still use tillage. There is no such thing as tillage-resistant weeds.

          • Yes, micha, every one knows that different hebicides use synthetic chemicals. Thanks for once again pointing out the obvious in a condescending mannor. That in know way proves 2 4-d is not more toxic than glyphosate. Like you are stating like its certainty.

          • Here’s what you’re missing Josh. Even if 2,4-D was by some measure more dangerous than glyphosate, after a farmer sprays his glyphosate-resistant weeds with 2,4-D, they will die and he can go right back to using glyphosate, which according to you is safer. So problem solved!

          • No, IF that did indeed kill the weeds and make glyphosate able to kill the weeds, which if they are now resistant to it there is no reasin to think so, yet you claim itbas fact, you would still be spraying highly toxic chemicals. How would this solve anything?
            Yet another red herring to avoid the real topic, which was you playing off these chemical as safe.

          • Farmers have been using 2,4-D for more than 50 years. nothing new there.

            GMO Roundup-Ready crops allowed farmers to abandon 2,4-D and use glyphosate instead.

            Now that some weeds are developing a resistance to glyphosate, farmers can go back and use a bit of 2,4-D to kill these glyphosate-resistant weeds.

            Once they’re dead, these weeds will no longer reproduce, and their glyphosate-resistance will die with them.

            Problem solved.

          • I added a comment but it looks like it didnt send so ill redress this. First off the new herbicide will kill crop a long withbthe weeds. So they will need to make more seeds resistant to it like they did with round up ready. That being said your claim of using another highly toxic herbicide to in the hopes to kill the super weeds that the other highly toxic herbicide created, so that we can hopefully go back to using the first highly toxic herbicide does not fix the problem. First of it still douse the crop with highly toxic synthetic herbicide and it only puts a bandade on the core of the problem. Which is nature is smarter than greedy men and it always shows it will adapt to your synthetic compounds, no matter if its antibiotics or herbicides, it has proven it will adapt to resist the synthetics. Trying to fight “super weeds” or “super bacteria” by using the same technique s that created the problem is what the Einstein quote was about, its just asine and not a”problem solver” as you continuely claim

          • First off the new herbicide will kill crop a long withbthe weeds

            What would make you think that, plenty of crops are tolerant to certain herbicides naturally, Corn is resistant to Atrazine, wheat is resistant to 2-4-D, peanuts are resistant to Aim.

            Super weeds in corn can be killed with Atrazine or Dicamba, or just use more tillage.

            Which is nature is smarter than greedy men and it always shows it will adapt to your synthetic compounds,

            Not really, we have been winning the war with Mother Nature for over 10000 years now. Mother nature adapts to all Farming methods, conventional Organic and GMO.

          • There is no such thing as tillage-resistant weeds.

            Ummmm, but there is, and even weeds that are resistant to hand weeding

          • Come on micha, what people call super weeds are what you call herbicide resistant weeds. So they do indeed exist.

          • You probably had measles when you were a kid. Right Josh? You are now resistant to measles, but you are not superhuman.

            Developing resistance to measles did nothing for you except make you resistant to measles.


            Organic activists claim that glyphosate-resistant weeds are more difficult to kill than regular weeds, when in actuality they will succumb to other herbicides or tillage just fine.

            As such, there is no such thing as a superweed.

          • Good to know, I will disregard all the farmers speaking of their first hand experience and the fact that, as we speak, they are processing ever more toxic herbicides to be able to attack these “normal” weeds. Just because of your red herring you used

        • Here’s a tip, if you have to resort to using Dr. Oz as a reference to support your point, stop. Just stop. There’s an exceptionally good chance that your claim is inaccurate (at best).

  3. I can’t speak for Mark but If Mark doesn’t want to debate you it would likely be that you are not worth the time.

    You are a fringe player rejected as unfit to serve in the legislature with a resume so thin you could shave with it.

    Mark has important work to do, working for the best of Americas organic farmers. You might have to come to him for a debate, but then only Mark can speak to any of this.

      • Mark and his organization are interested in exposing the fraudulent practices in the organic industry.

        You have proven yourself to be a fringe player with a false and corrupt message.

        Mark and others have a responsibility to point out the fraud and fraudsters when they see them. Your history is so rich and your resume is so thin, but then you keep pumping out your disinformation.

        Mark was doing a service to anyone who might actually wonder if your crap was for real. Now they have the TRUE story and from now on it is buyer beware.


          • I can’t speak for Mark, but his organization is well respected for the job they do policing and calling out corrupt corporate players in the organic food industry.

            There are some problems with all areas of food production but the petty issue you raise pales in comparison to the posounous pesticide laden GMOs being purposely hidden in the food we feed our families and children.

            By the way, Misha, Marks has no plans to debate you because of the simple fact that your so far out of the mainstream and totally off the radar for most ethical organic farmers.

            To put it more simply, you are a corrupt JOKE.

          • The only way to prevent half of all certified-organic foods from testing positive for prohibited pesticide residue is to start organic field testing. It will cost one-tenth what the current system of record-keeping and record-checking costs. Why not ask Mark Kastel why he and his “well respected” Cornucopia Institute are opposed to this?

          • You ask him, Misha

            I can’t speak for him but my guess he sees you kind of like an irritating buzzing fly. If he was a violet person he might swat you, but he’s not violent but very peaceful, so he will likely ignore you because your not a very big deal;

            You are JOKE, Misha.

            Really, your nothing but an ineffective propaganda and disinformation tool for people who see you as a sorry tool they can use until it is no longer convenient for them..

  4. Excellent article. 100% of the people against GMO lives in cities far away from farms and understand agriculture as good as water conservation and trash management. They contribute for all water misusage and produce thousands of cubic feet of garbage everyday. And now they are trying to rule how farmes should grow their crops. Does it make sense? If they don´t want GMO, just don´t buy it! But forget to buy also cotton t-shirts, rubber tires for your car, any kind of soybean or canola oil to fry your donnuts, tomatoes for your salad and most paper produced. All these are already GMO. Didn´t you know? Welcome to reality. If you wanna play organic, please do it as a pro before trying to surf the No-GMO wave. What about rethink how could you contribute better to your own neighbourhood?

  5. Actually, the journal did not retract it for the science being junk. They did it because it was inconclusive, which in the conclusion it stated more studies need to be done. Being inconclusive is not an allowed reason to retract a study according to COPE, an organization they belong to.
    This all happened after a ex biotech employee, with current COI became a biotech editor. The review of the study that came to the conclusions you stated was lead by a scientist that is an editor of another journal, that it was published in. He has a few biotech patents to his name, which he conveniently forgets to disclose while giving his “expert” opinion. In other words this is a clear case of silencing science.

  6. Mischa, excellent article. I like the fact that you have an organic background and you have an open mind to science, logic, reason, and on-the-ground farming realities. Thank you for your articles and comments. On behalf of farmers everywhere, you are appreciated.


What do you think? Leave a comment!