You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Monsanto and GMOs Continue to Make Us Sterile While Infertility Business Booms

Christina Sarich
Natural Society / News Analysis
Published: Sunday 2 June 2013
GMOs must come to a halt.
Article image

The average cost of just one in vitro fertilization procedure (IVF) costs $12,400 with doctor’s fees. Now imagine having eight of them, without insurance, and all the side effects that go along with them. Sound like a nightmare? Consider that GMO foods, like soy, are proven to be responsible for higher rates of birth defects, infant mortality, and sterility. Bemuse the fact that 91% of all US soybeans are from GMO seed – and that’s just one crop. You should be more than nonplussed.

GMOs Wreaking Fertility

I’ve taught yoga classes for desperate women who want to conceive more than anything in the world. They have gone through countless medical procedures, rounds of hormones that make their ovaries swell so large they can barely get out of bed, and in vitro fertilization procedures that are costly and don’t always take. I know women who have tried to lower their stress, changed their diets, and had blockages removed from their fallopian tubes. While there are thousands of children who need to be adopted, sometimes a couple, understandably, wants to make their own family. With Monsanto, Dow and other Big Pharma companies churning out genetically modified seed like its candy for babies, it’s no wonder we can’t make any.

When considering the ill effect GMOs have on fertility, how is GMO food any different than the view of ruthless ‘leaders’ of the past - eugenics? A scary thought indeed, but GMOs are completely taking away our right to decide about our own reproductive health. Sickeningly, a GMO scientist says, “it’s awesome” that GMO causes infertility. I’m sure companies like Merck, and the makers of the seven most common fertility drugs comprising a multi-billion dollar industry think it’s ‘awesome’ too.  Their bank accounts are probably equally awesome while real couples, and particularly women, have to deal with the deep sadness of not being able to conceive, while also putting their bodies through yet another kind of global experiment.

GMOs must come to a halt. The most recent March Against Monsanto that has taken place on May 25th of this year, along with the increasing numbers of GMOs bills being introduced, is a great start to making some changes. If you haven’t already, start buying organic and supporting some companies that care a little more than Monsanto and other mega-corporations. Voice your opinion by signing petitions, and vote with your dollar by supporting organic farmers and health-food companies. You can, no, you are making a difference.

Author pic
ABOUT Christina Sarich

Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. She also writes exclusive articles for NationofChange. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

The Modern day face of the

The Modern day face of the disgusting eugenics industry.
You trolls make me sick.

"John Paul Holdren (born March 1, 1944) is the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)[1]"

"In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including compulsory abortion, adding sterilants to drinking water or staple foods, forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[12][23][24]"

Headlines: Israel to send

Headlines: Israel to send African migrants to third country By MAX J. ROSENTHAL | Associated Press – 19 hrs ago

Agree with this article

Agree with this article completely. I would only like to state that the header that states, "GMOs Wreaking Fertility", be changed to something like, "GMOs Wrecking/Wracking Fertility", or else, "GMOs Wreaking Infertilty". The verb "to wreak" is akin to the verb "to create"

Please write letters (plea)

Please write letters (plea) to Mossad to stop MONSANTO GMO.
mossad dot gov dot il

All my comments considered

All my comments considered below, this is a horrible article absent of sources and detailed fact-checked facts. Its probably been "dictated" by a Monsanto employee.

In any case, please read my comments below. GMO's are NOT proven to be safe and any scientist who says they are is a reductionist who does not consider enough information before forming CONCLUSIONS.

I try to stay away from these

I try to stay away from these bits of greenie propaganda, but I just couldn't here.... This article is one of the poorest attempts to "prove" the evil of GMOs. Problem is that the author proves only that she is ignorant of the science.
The comments include a number of attempts to attack a couple of scientists that are trying to provide a good analysis of the dangers of GMO foods...namely there are virtually least the preponderance on the scientific evidence supports GMOs as being as safe as their non GMO brethren.
One of the biggest charges by the anti GMO faction is that there are no studies about contraire...peruse your way here for a list of peer reviewed studies . I won't post other evidence at the moment, but I can pull it up easily and post it as well.
The biggest problems I have with the non GMO argument is that the data presented is for the most part only opinion...the few studies quoted are for the most part non peer reviewed. Of the champions some have little or poor credentials and many of the institutes that sound official are little more than an office...not a true center of research. I am open to new data, but I need to read the data and review the experiment in order to decide the merit of the experiment. Correlations are often offered as proof...correlations provide clues, but are never proof.

Go ahead and eat your GMO

Go ahead and eat your GMO food. Those who disagree, let them eat what they deem proper food.

Sober words from Entoman.

Sober words from Entoman. Thanks. The part that disappoints me is that when you attempt to bring science into such forums you are shut down, accused of all kinds of falsehoods, and oftentimes blocked or deleted.

When I read the NoC front page I'm on board with many of these progressive issues. When my "friends" support and defend articles like the one above it makes me cringe.

The anti-GM authors on this site (Guiccardi, Cummins etc) are the Rush Limbaughs of the anti-GM movement. Anything they say is considered gospel and anyone who says otherwise is a lying troll on monsanto's payroll. They don't question their news providers-- they just blindly follow.

It is why nobody takes them seriously, except themselves. They need to take a hint from the Tea Party and realize that they don't want to be the radical and insane fringe of the left wing. They are as embarrassing to us lefties as the 6000 year old earth creationist nuts are to the moderate conservative movement.

Yes, this is a pathetic

Yes, this is a pathetic excuse for "news" or even opinion. It makes broad statements with no attribution -- and that drive me crazy. If I'm reading an article on NOC, then I'm probably predisposed to their point of view, but I am NOT predisposed to weak arguments made without solid research and solid backup. You do yourself no favors by printing information which can not be supported by facts.

Monsatno should sue scumbags

Monsatno should sue scumbags like Crisita Sarich into bankruptcy for defamation

Kevin Folta, you are missing

Kevin Folta, you are missing a crucial point in my opinion. While your knowledge and opinions on the subject based upon your studies are interesting, they don't invalidate a simple desire not to consume plants or animals produced with these relatively new technologies. Splicing genes from one species into the DNA of another is not the same thing as producing changes over time through breeding. If it were then breeding could result in the same result which it clearly cannot. I do not have to give a scientific validation for not wanting to consume or purchase these products, or for not trusting the companies who produce those things. I am not a scientist. I view science as an important and beneficial philosophy but not the lens through which I primarily choose to view the world. I have a desire to consume traditional foods. My motivation to do so is spiritual and some would say religious. Scientists tend to see their worldview as the Truth with a zeal approaching that of a religious devote. I shouldn't have to present a study showing harm to justify my food preferences. Why doesn't the government require GMO foods to be labeled so that individuals can chose based upon whatever criteria they find personally important? It is unacceptable that these products are not labelled despite a sizable percentage of the population who want choice. The intentional lack of labeling brings me to mistrust GMO products rather than being merely averse. It is not the place of government bureaucrats, corporate plutocrats or the scientific establishment to decide what the public should think and to consequently withhold simple identification.

Sarah, I agree completely.

Sarah, I agree completely. To wit, however, I believe much science supports your views, even as you state that you are not a scientist. Namely, you are a scientist as you are creating distinctions between the things you would rather consume and those that you would not. Sci, to cut, divide, to categorize, is human to the universal. Also, yes, breeding is far more proven as it is what everyone has been doing naturally since forever. Bless Gregor Mendel, bless Darwin, bless all thinkers.

Hi Sarah, Thanks for the

Hi Sarah, Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I don't think scientists like me support biotech with religious zeal as you assert. See, religious zeal is promoting an idea in the absence of evidence. In reality, it is the anti-biotech religion we should speak of. Scientists, myself included, can and do change our minds when presented with evidence. The article above presents none-- well it does direct us to an Alex Jones website.

"Traditional foods"? you mean the ones that have been genetically altered by breeding and introgression of distant germplasm for the last 50 years? I guess.

You say it is not the place of gov't, corporations, etc to decide what the public should think and I agree. It is the place of science. It should be a scientific decision. Angry mobs of know-nothings should not decide either. Let's let science, independent, unbiased, science help with such decisions.

Do a search engine on the

Do a search engine on the CATO institute, then find out their history, who they bring in to hold speeches, along with who backs the think tank......

No kidding! But CATO did

No kidding! But CATO did offer a stage to Jeffrey Smith and GE Seralini too. The three of us that will be presenting are certainly three left-of-center panelists. I know CATO and who backs their "libertarian think tank". That said, I'm grateful that they are at least inviting independent scientists and not just corporate figureheads.

And I'm glad to talk where they give me a microphone. I've done whole foods co-ops, vegan groups, you name it. It always is a pleasure to interact with those that disagree because they don't understand.

So give a few kudos to CATO. They tried to get the anti-GM folks on board for this but they chose to not show up. It was going to be a really nice experience to hear all views. We'll still show some Genetic Roulette and other anti-GM goodies, so tune in.

kevin, while you have some

kevin, while you have some valid points about the unfortunate lack of science in the article, you are nothing more than an industry troll stuck in an outdated paradigm. You may not be directly connected to monsanto, but your company has its nose in the same stuff. Modify then patent natural resources so that you alone can profit from their sale. Sounds like thats what you want.

Can you see how wrong this is or you are in too much denial about your life and its relation to the outside world. Do you, like most people, not even know whats in your toothpaste and how it really works? Are you just a reductionist? Sounds like you only know about a specialized area of science and are really just focused on how if can fatten your wallet even if your just in the "education" sector of the field.

You probably havent even thought about the inevitable effect of your super plants on the ecosystem AS A WHOLE and how other species that you and monsanto don't own will perish when they are out-gunned by your modified plants in the wild. Why don't YOU learn about some science that matters! Learn about the environment and companion planting. Talk about that a little. Talk about how Monsanto does not deserve to do what its doing. How they created Agent Orange. How they are responsible for recent embargos on US wheat and the loss of millions. In the meantime, STOP TROLLING. Oh, and genetic engineering is A LOT different than cross breeding plants.

I am an academic plant

I am an academic plant physiologist and a liberal. I have met Kevin Folta at a meeting and he, too, is an academic plant physiologist. I am not lining my wallet with Monsanto money. I am not trolling. I have no reason to believe that Kevin is either. We are scientists seeking the truth no matter where it leads us. As a trained scientist, it is my opinion that the "research" that has been embraced by the anti-GMO crowd has been ludicrous. GMOs kill monarch butterflies??? An artefact. GMOs cause cancer??? Statistically meaningless. GMOs cause birth defects in hamsters after three generations??? Well, it's my understanding that hamsters are incredibly inbred organisms, and it's not unexpected that they would start to show birth defects after three generations.
It's amazing how similar the anti-GMO crowd is to the global warming skeptics. Neither care about the opinions of academic scientists. We are all corrupt shills of Monsanto/Exxon. Our only concerns are getting grant money that will make us enormously wealthy (guffaw). Drooling, FOX News-viewing TEA Partiers and anti-GMO protesters have one thing in common...they don't let science influence their ignorance and prejudice.

You are a pathetic excuse for

You are a pathetic excuse for a scientist. You CANT EVEN SPELL "ARTIFACT"!!

Sounds like you and Kevin are reductionists like so many other scientists unfortunately are. You're blind to the bigger picture and how your actions affect others. While you're points about the sensationalism of the accusations of the "Anti-GMO crowd" are justified, you guys are relegated to the particulars of your science only. This leads to your hasty, under researched conclusions. In other words, YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS IS MISSING A LOT OF IMPORTANT FACTORS AND INFORMATION. HMM! Sounds a lot like the story of Thomas Midgley Jr. -AKA- THE INVENTOR OF CFC's.

Anyway, who supports a company/process that is attempting to make people pay for each and every seed they ever plant???

Hi Ahab, actually,

Hi Ahab, actually, 'artefact' is acceptable. Usually British, but sometimes preferred when we're talking about experimental anomolies.

I don't think you know my thought processes.

And every company wants customers to pay for seeds and plants. Plant breeders depend on that.

It is cool that I received THREE emails tonight from people thanking me for being the voice of reason here.

I have a presentation on biotech to finish preparing, so check in at 2pm on Tuesday on or the Genetic Literacy Project. Watch there, twitter in a question or two #gmoforum . Will be glad to answer them.

Well, my point was that his

Well, my point was that his nay-saying was un-scientific to say the least. You guys are so ARROGANT to think that because of a few bits of information you've managed to glean on an entire WORLD of horticulture and biology (much of which is still unknown) that you have the right to SERIOUSLY alter genetic code for profit.

Not only has the implementation of this practice already come into question, it is flat out stupid to assume, as you and IVORYTOWER do, that it is completely safe and fair business practice. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS SAFE. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. Remember CFC's??? We all need to be more responsible.

Glad you are the voice of reason. But reason is not the only science. Don't be a reductionist. Oh, and people can breed plants on their own. They don't need to keep buying seeds and accompanying insecticides to survive.

Anyway, as I'm sure you have an answer for everything in your own little world, please do the rest of us a favor and stop telling people that you know GMO is safe etc. because that just not true. In truth, you might as well be saying you know there is a planet out in the universe populated entirely by pigs and they are coming to invade and conquer.

Ahab, you are just a delight.

Ahab, you are just a delight. I'll be brief. I never said GMOs were safe. A lycannot make such assertions, scientifically. All we can say is that there is no evidence of harm. The same applies to any breeding or culture method. This week we saw 20 people or so contract hepatitis A from organic berries. If those were transgenic products you'd see riots in the streets.

I'd like to keep this scholarly and evidence based. I think your conjecture is a little less than that. Best wishes.

Ahab, No company. I'm a

Ahab, No company. I'm a public, academic scientist. I work for you. That's why I'm here to lend some things to think about.

Humans have been modifying natural resources for 20,000 years and farmers have been profiting from them as long as there has been food trade. Patents? Ab-so-lutely. We need to protect breeders' rights and new plant inventions. Just about every plant or seed you buy enjoys some protection. It is necessary to sustain development of new varieties. Plant breeding is expensive.

I know what's in toothpaste, and other stuff. My wallet is not too fat. It would be a lot fatter if I worked for a Big Ag company, which I could, but I don't. I like deciding my own research tracks.

Wow you are on a Gish Gallop here. I'll try to answer briefly. 1. Most crops are not from N. America, so your arguments about impacts on ecosystems apply equally to all production systems. I can talk about lots of production systems... no problem, companion planting, allelopathy, cover crops, let's go!

monsanto did not "create agent orange". Monsanto was one of many chemical companies that made 2,4-D, a synthetic auxin. The US government mixed 2,4-D and 2,4,5 T with other agents and surfactants and used it as a weapon. That's agent orange.

GE and cross breeding are absolutely quite different. The former is much more precise and safe. We have no idea what genes, transposable genetic elements or other issues are moving when we make crosses. Still pretty good stuff. Thanks! kf

While the writer of this

While the writer of this trash has the ability to voice her opinions it would help her case if she was not lying. There are no studies proving what this writer is claiming. All the food we presently eat was GMO by man using the old fashion and slow cross breeding yet somehow we are all still here and breathing including the writer. The claim of Zyxomma and others is simply a lie. The German study actually attempts to show that testing should be more extensive because of the imagined fears of the study writers.

Precisely. Unless you are

Precisely. Unless you are foraging for twigs and roots there is no "natural" fruit/veg crops endemic to North America (maybe some wild strawberries, blueberries, brassicas, a few others). Everything has been extensively genetically modified by humans- using random mixing of genes, reliance on spontaneous mutations, selection, and crossing species that never would have crossed without humans. Modern strawberry is a good example, tomato too. Transgenic technologies are precise, traceable and proven beneficial. If we take the time to learn about where our food comes from in time and space, adding a gene is pretty much no big deal.

This message is for Kevin

This message is for Kevin Folta:

Your way out of your league, brother. The information about the issues with GMO products on food shelves is overwhelmingly hitting a tipping point. US Grocers nationwide are very rapidly replacing any GMO ingredients from any shelf products they can as quickly as they can. They're even importing from Europe food that contains no GMO's in the interim.

Moreover, the staffs working for Monsanto in both the US and over seas have 100% organic kitchens. The scientists insist upon it to work there. Hello, Kevin, crawl out from under your hard headed rock and get a whiff of what is really happening. And oh, I'm sure you're not a paid "troll" of the Monsanto group.... well, not exactly sure... you wan'na fess up to anything?

Signed: Patriot of the American People's Party.

APP person, why are you

APP person, why are you lying? You are just making yourself look like an idiot. You have no proof on anything you are claiming just like the entire crowd of Luddites marching around.

Hi Dibbles. Yes, a paid

Hi Dibbles. Yes, a paid troll for Big Ag. It is a common place of retreat for those that can't speak the science-- simply verbally dismiss the words of an informed, experienced public academic scientist because they don't mesh with the vacant anti-GMO mantra. Out of my league? 25 years studying this topic. Was going to debate your anti-biotech leaders on Tuesday until they pulled out. It was a debate at CATO, Smith and Seralini bailed when I got on the ticket. I know my stuff-- would not have ended well for them, so they pulled out.

My username is my real name and every cent I've received in my scientific career is public record, so you can look that up if you'd like. No monsanto. When you say that it automatically says that you are willing to promote false information. See how that discredits you? Not such a good strategy.

By the way, a monsanto guy did buy me lunch once in 2005. I just had a salad, but it had feta cheese and beets in it, so not my favorite.

The post above has no basis in hard evidence and is made purely to scare and misinform. Period. I'm glad you accept it as a compelling piece of anti-GM's best science. I urge you to please distribute this one far and wide. It convinces true believers and sends those in the middle over to science. Best wishes and happy Sunday, and I'm always glad to answer questions in this important are of science.

Kevin: Monsanto controls the


Monsanto controls the science. They've patented the science. Our own FDA, due to the efforts of a revolving door "administrator on loan from Monsanto", neither the FDA nor the USDA can do independent research on the health effects of these recombo miasmas. Why the millions spent by Monsanto on the PROP 37 in Cali. What? These are the good guys? How's the Cotton GMO working out in India? Science ethics suggests one avoids shooting first before they have all the information. You defend a company in the "Quick Stop" business of expanding with hubris a field that warrants serious, independent controls and regulation. As a result, your platform is much like the learned character's tower in Chaucer's Tale..... working in a silo of one's own domain high above the real fray.

Consumer have the ultimate voice. They're not happy with being kept ignorant by powerful industrialists. Caveat Emptor.

No side effects? C'mon. No research on the "inputs" costs vs. the "output" gains? C'mon. Glyphosate's a ruse? C'mon. The European Union, the Asian countries of China, Japan, and South Korea are full of malarkey? C'mon.

Monsanto has made nefarious efforts to discredit the independent research out of France. Russia's on board. Game over baby. Tank city.

Signed: Tea Leave Intuitionist.

Dibs, you've made up your

Dibs, you've made up your mind so I'll just make a quick point for passers by... Monsanto does not "control the science", I guess as much as Al Gore controls all of the fake climate data showing the earth is getting warmer. Why kill prop 37? Bad legislation. Flawed. Awful. India? Suicides are an awful problem there, but started intensifying 7 years before Mon seed ever was available and most are not farmers-- a lot of young women. Very sad. Farmers rely on monsoons, so if no rain, no crop. Monsanto, conventional organic, no water, no crop. EU-- scientists are frustrated. Government officials are led by angry mobs, not scientists. All European agencies favor GM crops.

Seralini (French guy you refer to) is not 'independent research". Works at an anti-GMO institution and is funded by Greenpeace. The French scientific organizations have come out against him as has the European Food Safety Association and other scientific organizations.

Yes. Game over. Science always wins. Information always beats fear. Cheerio.

We've all heard about

We've all heard about increased Cancers from brain to colon that are being reported by our families, friends, neighbors. From Diabetes and Obesity issues . Increases in Diabetics and/or Obese children at a younger age than ever before are being reported. There are definite health risks due to Processed foods we ingest which incude GMO, aspartane, flouride, msg to maltra dextrin, neonicotinoids, atrazine, BT corn syrup .... chemical additives that affect our immune systems. Our DNA reacts differently than the next person, so somewhere in your DNA chain, you could be affected by this immune weakening, making you more prone to a 'specific' disease.

When Corporations | Government control manipultes the systems for their benefit and not for OUR Protection, then we as consumers must be Very, VERY wary. When reading an Canadian Insulin/Aparatus Corp ANNUAL Report, it literally had their projected Growth pointing to the increase in American Diabetics. So we have become the built-in Consumer: ingesting the Processed/GMO Engineered products into our systems, and then utilitizing the necessary drugs and aparatus to combat that disease. Ensuring an 'unethical' - 'bottom line' sustainability and profit motive for Corporate & 'INVESTED' Governments. WITH even their Board of Directors crossing industry fields - perpetuating the enslavement of the people. Who is at the Top of the American Cancr Society and what are their TIES to the corporate sector? Do you really think we haven't found a CURE? And that they haven't ensured its ultimate OWNERSHIP.

This problem is bigger than just Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer 10... pesticide companies that produce pesticides and control gmo seeds, it' the other Giant Corporations that control and manipulate Processed Foods, Processed Drugs, Chemo-therapy radiation that painfully kills you. When did placing corporate shills into our Federal Agencies become the norm. Why aren't we putting our top Doctors & Scientists there ... like Dr. Stanislaw Burynski? or others who look for cures and want to protect us and not profit by it

When did it become acceptable to have Drug ads on TV ad state Symptoms like: suicide, death, sterility, diareha, erections lasting 4 hrs? Why doesn't our Congressional ETHICS committee restrict: Corporate Lobby money for campaign contributions, investments before an IPO, add or insert a line or paragraph into a Bill that has nothing to do with the Intent of the Bill. Why aren't we retricting the 6 degree revolving doors between Corp/Gov/Think Tanks -- making any rules or changes to our protections or misconstrueing the truth. Why isn't GENERATION LAW : protecting the water, the land, the air for generations to come the FIRST step that ALL corporations must pass!

When will the BUCK stop with us individually, with our Congress, with these Corporate Giants. Where is our David to slay the Golliath? For now, it must start in your kitchen -- what's in your Cabinets/Frig; what's in your Garden/Farm; stop spraying weed or bug control products that hurt the environment. Communicate and make the changes with your children, with your friends and family, with your LOCAL community. Because, right now ... we are all the David we are seeking.

Listen to & Protect the BEE's & the gender changing fish/frogs -- they are our Final Warning.

We all can and should do our

We all can and should do our part. If we don't watch out for ourselves, no one else will!

Why do we pay more for food

Why do we pay more for food without additives and GMO's than for food without them? If government subsidies for the former and for the oil companies were removed how would the cost of organics compare?

Moms Across America are

Moms Across America are finding out about GM soy and the connection to miscarriages, birth defects and infertility. WE KNOW and we are SHARING. We have seen Dr. Huber's report on Elizabeth Dougherty and Howard Vliger's talk that shows famer's reporting that hog fed GM soy had 33% miscarriages. When fe non GM soy they had 3% miscarriages. When put back on GM soy they have 33% miscarriages. Monsanto needs to recognize their responsibility in this NOW. Go to to support moms finding out about GMOs. We buy 85% of the food. It's up to us.

Very nice Zen. More bogus

Very nice Zen. More bogus data from the junk science machine of Huber-Vlieger. Just like your "stunning" corn data (that another Mom admitted "we never said they were real" (I have the screen shot if you'd like it), these data have no source except for an activist's claim. No science, no hard data, no desire to replicate.

It was truly telling how when I offered to pay for a replicate of the data from Vlieger/Huber etc how everyone was on board (calling my bluff) but when they realized it was real they pulled out of the study. What are you all afraid of? I know, real science ends your fear campaign and the website dries up and you'll have to go back to blaming the world's ills on vaccines. Sheesh.

And you can't delete my comments from NoC.

Anyone interested in the Stunning Corn Story and the offer to independently replicate results should read here...

Try again...

Try again...

We're finding resources to test the bogus claims by the anti-biotech interests and do it transparently and with their involvement in experimental design and experimental execution. So far, nobody is taking us up on our offers. Says a lot.

Oh, and there are no GMO

Oh, and there are no GMO strawberries. As always, the photo is meant to build fear, not reflect science. GMOs aren't even made with a syringe. Total shock, no science.

Once again, the implosion of

Once again, the implosion of the anti-GM movement. Crazy articles, based on no evidence other than aging, poor-quality research never replicated. Worse, real reasons for declines in fertility are not given proper attention.

The science between the GMO-fertility link is some of its worst. There are 3-4 papers that make wild claims that overstep the data. What happens to the cells in a dish does not translate to the human body.

Keep up the kooky posts. It keeps the loyal anti-GMOers spouting insanity and pushes those undecided more toward science and reason.

And at the Tuesday CATO GMO talk you can use #gmoforum to ask questions via twitter. Glad to answer them.

Since you claim to know so

Since you claim to know so much, I would be interested in knowing the causes of the decline in human fertility, at least in the overfed West. Seriously, do you have any theories?

MY Bottom Line is that I

MY Bottom Line is that I don't want f*cking corporations to EXPERIMENT on my body with their risky chemical experiments...

I'd be fine with an ABSOLUTE legal requirement to label any "food" that contains GMO or any other kind of experimental, unnatural additives or techniques and let ME decide whether to pollute my body -- the one that was evolved over millions of years by Mother Nature to safely ingest only certain, natural substances.

To me this is a Free Speech issue -- we have the essential right to know what sort of poisons corporations are shoving at us while brainwashing us with their propaganda!

Who do you work for? The

Who do you work for? The evidence is mounting. Indeed, a box of mac and cheese imported to the UK from the US contains Kraft's own warning that children's activity and attention can be affected by their GMO contents. Science is growing. Over 50 countries either have banned GMO or require labeling. They aren't doing it because they hate America.

Ken, Try telling almost every

Ken, Try telling almost every Mom I know that has had a miscarriage...who has struggled for years to have children...who has wept over the loss of the family she always dreamed of...that GMOs are safe. If a Mom smells even a whiff of danger to her unborn child she will avoid GMOs, and rightfully so. I know several Moms who could not get pregnant and went GMO free and organic and were able to conceive with a few months. The opinion of GE scientists is not what matters to moms. What matter is what we SEE, right on front of us...and that is that our kids get better off GMOs. Our friends conceive babies after they go off GMOs. That's reality for us.

The importance of having

The importance of having credibility cannot be overstated. Conceptually I can see how GMO foods might impact fertility but we cannot trade credibility for winning a short-term argument. Not evrything that is logical ends up being the scientific truth.
The question is: Is there credible evidence that GMO foods impact fertility? If the answer is no, then this isn't worth pursuing. It only provides ammunition for the foes of the anti-GMO movement.

Ken, you are correct. The

Ken, you are correct. The anti-biotech folks have to really focus up on real issues. Things like glyphosate resistance in weeds and water ecology effects of glyphosate are points to really discuss, as these are real problems that need solutions.

Articles like this one seriously erode the minuscule credibility the movement has. The central feeling is that they are gravitating into chemtrail/chupacabra/new world order territory. It just whips the true believers into a frenzy and pushes those that don't know toward science. That's good for all of us, so I don't mind seeing the flames fanned.

Arachne646. Agreed! I went

Arachne646. Agreed! I went to the embedded link about the GMO
scientist who thinks that's "awesome" and the link took me to the Alex Jones site! I hate Monsanto too, but this article isn't even close to the standards I'm used to seeing from Nation of Change! If we're going to win this battle with the public we've got to have well-researched facts to do it. It doesn't take much for people to blow something off as "conspiracy theory". This is far too important an issue, and there is far too much concrete evidence on Monsanto's actual plans to dominate the food supply for profit to give them extra "fodder" for dismissing us. Better research please!

I can recall when soybeans

I can recall when soybeans were being touted as "the food of the future" (stemming from them being a big counterculture thing during the 70s and a longtime favorite of food faddists). After all, they are nutritious, can be sustainably grown, and are a quite profitable product for the farmer. Not to mention that hundreds of different products can be--are are--made from soy.

Not until relatively recently was it discovered that the number of plant estrogens in soy beans can lead to serious health problems, especially if consumed in large amounts. There may be others concerns with which I am not familiar--certainly the GMO factor throws a number of unknowns into the mix.

Monsanto has certainly capitalized on the soy boom, but they did not start it. A sad era during which it was believed that anything "natural" (particularly plant foods) must be healthy must accept its share of blame.

All unfermented soy products

All unfermented soy products are problematic, GMO factor makes it worse.

It would be interesting if

It would be interesting if you could give us a link to the hamster research. When you write an article with language like: "GMO foods, like soy, are proven to be responsible for higher rates of birth defects, infant mortality, and sterility." And you do not provide scientific evidence for this, such as, talking about these hamsters and their feeding study, a control group that was eating a similar diet of, for example, non-GMO soybeans, and their development and reproduction was studied, how would we know these hamsters did not have birth defects, infant mortality, and sterility from care, environment, or a myriad of other factors unrelated to GMO's?

I am no fan of Monsanto, and GMO's are economic poison for family farmers in developed or undeveloped countries. Whether they are poison in other ways must be determined scientifically, and not by research funded, endowed, and motivated by the corporations which will benefit from the patents on the organisms which will result. I am a Christian, a layperson with a Community College Nursing education, and a Canadian.

Arachne, my little spider

Arachne, my little spider baby, controlled studies were conducted in France. You can see the scientists who did the study, and the mice who ate GMO-only and developed tumors the size of bird eggs in Jeffrey Smith's excellent documentary, "Genetic Roulette," or in the book of the same title.

Zyxomma, I know you didn't

Zyxomma, I know you didn't read the study you refer to. Seralini et al., 2012 shows groteque pictures of tortured animals kept ill with tumors beyond ethical animal treatment limits. But let me draw your attention to one thing... Figure three... the three lumpy rats. What's missing? Hmmm. A CONTROL!!! What about the rat that didn't get glyphosate or transgenic corn?

Well, if you look at Table 2, they got the same cancers too. How convenient that it was left out from the picture. At the least, sloppy science, at the worst intentionally omitted. Either way, fooled you!

I'm always glad to walk you through a scientific report or discuss critically what such papers really say. I use them in my classes when I teach how to critique a scientific paper. Most students look at that Seralini work and come up with pages of errors and solid critiques. Join us anytime by Skype. Glad to have you along. We'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think it is such a commendable scientific study.

Dear Mr. Folta, of Florida,

Dear Mr. Folta, of Florida, nice to see your writtings, interesting to see how the mind works of an individul I question, do you work for the government ? Or are you "sponsored" by Monsanto ? Countrys worldwide are banning GMO's, perhaps you have not heard ? Perhaps their scientists are just a little stupid ? Countrys have burned GMO crops throughout the world, outlawed their import, perhaps their scientists are a litte, umm, off ? Are you a scientist ? The evidence is in, the discussion is over, protests in America, and worldwide are happening daily, have you not heard ? I know you think your smarter then most everybody else, scientists around the world, but on this issue, your pushing a stone uphill, and your dead wrong. GMOs kill, do your homework and don't lecture me with your fancy double-talk, anyways, have a nice evening there in Florida.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...