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

Safety Group Blows Lid on ‘Secret Virus’ Hidden in GMO Crops

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Friday 8 February 2013
As more and more dirty secrets come out from the GMO industry at large, it gives further reason and more support to remove GMOs as a whole from the food supply.
Article image

Yet another disturbing reason has emerged as to why you should be avoiding health-devastating genetically modified organisms, and it may be one of the most concerning yet. We know that GMO consumption has been linked to a host of serious conditions, but one thing we are not so sure about is the recent discovery of a hidden viral gene deep within genetically modified crops.

For years, GMOs have been consumed knowingly and unknowingly around the globe, with Monsanto and the United States government claiming that the altered franken crops are perfectly safe despite very limited (or virtually none in some cases) initial testing and scientists speaking out against the dangers. One such danger that has actually not been spoken about has been revealed in a recent report by a safety watchdog group known as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Another Dirty Secret of Monsanto

In the EFSA report, which can be read online, you can find (within the scientific wording) that researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations. NK603 maize, of course, was also recently linked to the development of mass tumors in rats.

According to Independent Science News, Gene VI also inhibits RNA silencing. As you may know, RNA silencing has been pinpointed as vital for the proper functioning of gene expression when it comes to RNA. Perhaps more topically, it is a defense mechanism against viruses in plants and animals alike. On the contrary, many viruses have developed genes that disable this protective process. Independent Science News reports that the Gene VI is one such gene.

Overall, there is a degree of knowledge on Gene VI. What we do know going by information within the report is that the gene:

  • Helps to assemble virus particles
  • Inhibits the natural defense of the cellular system
  • Produces proteins that are potentially problematic
  • Makes plants susceptible to bacterial pathogens

All of which are very significant effects that should be studied in depth by an independent team of scientists after GMO products are taken off the market pending further research on the entire array of associated diseases. And that does not even include the effects we are unaware of.

This is yet another incident in which Monsanto and other biotech companies are getting away with an offense against the citizens of the world with (most likely) no action taken by the United States government. What we have seen, however, is nations like Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Peru taking a stand against Monsanto in direct opposition to their disregard for public safety. Russia, in fact, banned Monsanto’s GMO corn variety after it was linked to mass tumors in rats.

As more and more dirty secrets come out from the GMO industry at large, it gives further reason and more support to remove GMOs as a whole from the food supply.

Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

I effectively advise that

I effectively advise that to assert I 'm novice right through to weblog and now spare beloved the true website. A lot of prepared Im planing to bookmark to the web site . You decidedly have outmatching well written information . Bless the bind on the part of divvying awaken using us the online presence article . adsadf

This is outragious, we

This is outragious, we deserve to know what we eat and feed out children. All the other countries appoved labeling....USA the most GREEDY country ever!!! No longer the land of the free!

I am aware of the effect

I am aware of the effect Monsanto has had on causing farmers to produce crops that don't generate seeds and the financial stranglehold that causes. What I would like to see is scientific evidence that GMO foods are truly dangerous for consumption--and it may be different from one GMo food to another. I see a lot of knee-jerk "it sounds bad and I hate Monsanto so it must BE bad" opinions. My gut raction is to agree. But my brain says: show me the evidence-based science. For example if modifying a crop to withstand drought could save lives, as long as it's safe to eat, wouldn't that be a good thing?

publichealthgal, I see a lot

I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions, too, but I also conduct investigations. I would recommend starting with investigation into the two major types of GMOs - the overwhelming majority in acreage; BT and Roundup Ready. These are the Monsanto cash crops - some 240 million acres! I think you will find yourself swimming in various types of evidence (for/against) before long. Best wishes.

p.s. When Monsanto says "drought resistant", remember, they're the ones saying that. They've said stuff like that before. ;-) You might also find evidence of good 'drought resistance' in organics over conventional crops.

I do not trust any

I do not trust any corporation to place my food safety over their profit, and Monsanto is at the top of my 'bad' list, but ...

This isn't actually what EFSA meant. There is no virus dangerous to humans. The EFSA explanation may be found on their website here:

There are interesting

There are interesting discussions here about something I have had no background in. It does sound self-defeating to purposely implant something into one's own seed that could conceivably cause it to do worse as a plant (as we speculate on Monsanto motives).

But for some amazing background on the world of agriculture with the big players today, you'll have to check out these... The 2012 version gives a more comprehensive overall picture - the 2010 version has much more detail building up to it and prior to that point. You may find a relationship to this Monsanto-GMO topic soon enough, as well as agriculture in general.

Why in the world are they spraying? (2012)

What in the world are they spraying? (2010)

You like those colored

You like those colored organic tomatoes, well they have a virus in them to be a certain shade purple or yellow. Introducing new traits to a plant in the lab is done by "infecting" a plant with a virus. How about some long grain brown rice. Viruses there too. This technology is not new, these foods have been eaten since the 1950.

Sadly, this is just another sloppy journalist trying to create drama whilst not informing his readers. Briefly discuss the bio-engineering process, when these techniques started to be used, and a bit on our food history. Then go after GMOs. We need to be informed not info-tained.

Genetically modified foods will be an utter failure. Man cannot control nature. Let's restore our foods back to what they were in the early 1800s. You will have to trade quickness to market, size/shape/color uniformity, and cheapness but in return you will get healthier food. And don't waste your money on Certified Organics. That is a lie bigger than Monsanto.

Jeltez, I appreciate your

Jeltez, I appreciate your sentiments, but man absolutely controls nature, at least in our food. Everything you eat, everything, has been domesticated BY MAN starting 20,000 years ago. Our food does not occur in nature in its improved form. Human-drive plant breeding efforts have brought the great food we have today.

Your first point is well taken, but don't forget that plant genomes are LOADED with viral genes, remnants of genetic exchanges across species and tremendous amounts of transposons. If anyone is worried about Gene VI, then there's a lot more to sweat about!

Transform our food back to early 1800's! I'm sorry , but that's insane. There were no tomatoes, potatoes and most other crops in North America. Corn yields were 10% of what we have today. You didn't have most brassicas and there were few improved fruit varieties. Even the stuff from 50 years ago is horribly inferior (those studies have been done to illustrate the gains from human-driven plant breeding).

I wish you could take my plant domestication class. You'd really like it and learn a lot. Check out the topic on-line and if you have any questions contact me. kf

kevinfolta, I made a business

I made a business out of wild edibles for 20 years. There is quite a bit in the woods that has not been bred. I pick lots of fiddleheads and leeks in the spring - non-bred, non-hybridized, tiny compared to the leeks in the store. Asparagus comes from fiddleheads and two other plants - ostrich ferns (fiddleheads) do not. I haven't seen any breeding of cowparsnips or nettles or wapatoo either.

And when you go to the tropics, just remember all those coconuts and pineapples - they haven't been changed. Banana trees are the same, and in the tropics, mangos. This is the overwhelming reality of these trees.

In regards to your point about the effects of breeding, there appears to be greater plant size, but considerably lower nutrient densities - apparently reflective of breeder's priorities.

(I had to splice links into two lines to get the text to show up)

The Decline in Fruit and Vegetable Nutrient Densities

Declining Fruit and Vegetable Nutrient Composition: What Is the Evidence? (PDF)

Ok MarkGM. Sure, you can

Ok MarkGM. Sure, you can wander the woods and scavenge some fiddleheads and other goodies. Sure, maybe you can afford to feed yourself off of the stuff found in the rainforests of the tropics. You are correct, coconuts have not been bred too much. I'm a professor at a public institution. I don't have the time or income to do such things.

Simiilarly, convince the population of the developed world that they have to abandon their jobs and homes and return to the good ol' days of gathering fiddleheads in order to survive. Good luck with that.

And have nutrient densities gone down? Sure, on a per pound basis. Breeders have selected for size, yield and shipability, not for nutrients.

If you spend the day picking fiddleheads to get a day's worth of nutrients, or I spend 10 min to get the same nutrients from perhaps less nutrient dense produce from the store, which is better? I know, you have time to tick around the woods for food. Me, I have science to do and people to teach. Maybe nutrient density is down, but nutrient amount is up, as well as nutrient variety in conventional foods.

If you give each of us 30 min to deliver nutrient density I'll beat you every time. You can go to the woods and root around for a sprout here and there, or I can go select from the best and most diverse plant products humans have ever known- right at the grocery store.

I'll check your links and get back to you here. Thanks.

KevinFolta, I was not

I was not attempting to feed the world with wild edibles. I was simply writing to offset the idea that the plant world is all bred by humans, if someone were going to think that as a result of your post. "Breeding" is also general enough to refer to really wide variety of practices, wherever humans have been involved - not a linear pursuit.

As for what Davis has to say on nutrient density, it can be quite extreme in some cases - in the area of up to 80% declines in specific mineral densities, most likely by a couple of major causes, 1) soil depletion, and 2) dilution effect.

Organic arguments with studies related to nutrient density...

interesting that posters with

interesting that posters with a bio background highlight the alarmist tone of the article and it's well known that virus genome embedded within organisms' DNA is common and usually innocuous.....and those uneducated show a typical response....I support due diligence regarding GMO foods is needed and I support testing similar to new pharmaceuticals b4 release to the public

All prior commenters have

All prior commenters have points. This article has both strengths (facts and links to more facts) and weaknesses (hype about Gene VI allegedly being 'hidden' and 'recently' discovered). To appreciate both the strengths and weaknesses of this article, you can (as I did) check out both the linked references - the EFSA report and the Independent Science News article.

The EFSA report is relatively narrow and technical: based on search of existing literature it finds little danger of direct threat from Gene VI to human health but definite possibilities of damage to the very plants whose performance Gene-VI-containing transgenics are supposed to enhance. The INS article nicely clarifies the overall topic and the context of the EFSA article. Both the EFSA report and the INS article make it clear that Gene VI has not been recently discovered nor is it particularly hidden. For ordinary USA food consumers the gene is 'hidden' mainly in the sense that the very existence of anything transgenic in their food is being kept 'hidden'.

I do share the article's underlying concern. The basic issue posed by GMO crops is one of where best to draw the line between innovative pro-action and prudential pre-caution. The scary thing about transgenics is not that they are studied or produced, but that they are being released into the global environment, with uncontrollable impacts, foreseeable or otherwise. In effect, like seeds from transgenic plants, precaution is being thrown to the winds. The process is totally opposite to NASA's precaution with lunar astronauts. All scientific indications were that moon microbes didn't exist at all, and anyhow couldn't survive, let alone do harm, on earth; even so, returning astronauts were quarantined for days until they and their spacecraft could be checked out as moon-microbe-free.

kevinfolta is correct.

kevinfolta is correct. Overyhype and deliberate misinterpretation by someone obviously unqualified to read and interpret the study is certainly not helpful. I wonder if any other of the commenters even clicked on the link to read t he study report. I doubt that many of those who did have the necessary education to understand. I am a biology teacher and I had to read quite carefully and closely to see how Gucciardi has overstated the case for a problem even existing.

Surprising comment, coming

Surprising comment, coming from a biology teacher. Or are you more of a biotech teacher? One of Kevin Folta's colleagues perhaps? A question to both of you: Do you eat GM food? Of course, you can't really be sure unless you only eat certified organic food, which Monsanto et al are doing their best to make illegal from what I've heard. When that happens labelling won't be necessary any more! All food will then be Frankenfood.
I'm so glad I don't live in America! But I feel compassion for those who do and are subjected to this corporate terrorism, having to eat stuff but not being allowed to know what's in it.
Bon appetit, Jes and Kevin!

I'm with Jes! If you

I'm with Jes! If you actually READ the original report, then read this garbage article, you'll find that the two have nothing to do with each other! To those of us with a clue, you all look bad. I'd love to help you fix that. I'm not here to just point fingers at all. I'm glad to help and provide legitimate interpretation of that original report.

As I mentioned before, the authors of that work are not happy at the way their findings have been misinterpreted by the anti-scientists. It is articles like this that perpetuate the misinformation. People that fight real science are either stupid or liars. You don't want to be in either camp. Science always wins.

kevinfolta, Re: "Science

Re: "Science always wins"

The straight definition of science is great.

Science is a tool wielded by political and financial interests as much as it is anything else in our world. I think it would be great if science could be on top of its manipulators, but that it seldom is. Look for the report showing a majority of EPA scientists changing their results to suit their employers. And then go from one agency right on to the next and find more and more of this type of behavior. I'm not calling that "science"; I'm saying this is what commonly happens to it. On related lines, lest anyone believe the official story by NIST engineers about the collapse of WTC 7. No one in their right mind would dare to defend such a thing. Or of the FDA's position that BPA has not been a significant risk, or so many FDA policies, such as in this case, the policy of "substantial equivalence" on GMOs, as written by Monsanto executive Michael Taylor. The FDA expresses no concerns about GMOs. We can't get Monsanto seed to test independently - they guard every seed. What can any scientist do under these circumstances?

Science provides superior support for a position, for what it is able to test, and when given a chance.

I don't know Mark. I do

I don't know Mark. I do appreciate your thoughts, but here's my two cents.

Political interests said that the earth was in the center of the universe. Science won. Political interests said that the earth is flat, science wins.

Today political interests say the earth is 6000 years old and that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs. Science will easily win that stupid discussion.

Political interests say that stem cells are not a legitimate medical approach and that the technology should be abandoned. Science will win there too, and does more and more every month.

Political interests say that the earth is not getting warmer, and if it is, then it must be due to the sun or factors humans can't control. Science says otherwise, and scientists agree.

You are clearly not a scientist. That's okay, few of us are. Science is not an easy thing to manipulate because it is what it is. It is a physical truth, it cannot be manipulated by humans. Sure, maybe some lab somewhere (like Seralini's) can publish a report here and there with a given bias, but the field sorts it out fast.

The world is full of scientists, like me, looking for a huge story and massive way to expand their programs. I'd LOVE to blow the lid off of GMOs and demonstrate harm. I'd get a Nobel Prize, the cover of Nature and Science. It just isn't here. If it was, we'd find it. That's what we do.

And the argument that seeds aren't available is bullshit. 97% of acreage is transgenic. Go pick some. All of the anti-GM folks get on their knees and open wide for Seralini's garbage work-- using corn that you say nobody can get! Somehow they got it... or did they? Maybe you're right and it can't be obtained, meaning that study is fake. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. If you reply, please answer this first.

Plus, if you really want your own GMO seeds to play with, anyone can get them from U Missouri, U Nebraska, UC Davis or other places. When push comes to shove, nobody really wants them to do studies, they just want to whine about not having them. If real studies are preformed the results will likely not match what anti-GM folks want, so just pretend they can't get the seeds. That's the easy way out.

Sorry for the rant, but as a scientist it is offensive to see the discipline subverted and misrepresented to bolster a bogus argument.

KevinFolta, You wrote... "You

You wrote... "You are clearly not a scientist. That's okay, few of us are."... "The world is full of scientists, like me, looking for a huge story and massive way to expand their programs. I'd LOVE to blow the lid off of GMOs and demonstrate harm. I'd get a Nobel Prize, the cover of Nature and Science. It just isn't here. If it was, we'd find it. That's what we do. "...

That is just all ego - end to end. These statements have nothing to do with science - they speak of an ego first, science second. Many scientists (by profession) are arrogant, which is the exact opposite of scientific-mindedness.

You go on further to say that GMO seeds are available to anyone who wants them, but I said "Monsanto GMO seed", which you did not say. Any farmer, or anybody else, has to be approved as a Monsanto customer, and they have to abide by an agreement as to exactly how they will be used, and where, and Monsanto "seed police" investigate 5000 farms a year on average looking for patent infringments, hundreds of which have been prosecuted for cases of Monsanto DNA appearing outside the allowable area. I take it you don't know anything about Monsanto seed patents and rules of use.

If you believe that eating

If you believe that eating organic protects you from GMOs, you are very wrong. There aren't any foods that have not been genetically modified. If by some strange twist you have seeds from 150 years ago and can propagate them in a isolated environment, then you can be sure that you are eating GMO free food.

Kevin Folta has been

Kevin Folta has been sufficiently "owned" at NOC, so much so, I'm surprised he hasn't changed his username based on many of the threads he was made to look a fool.

He has every right to speak his mind, but makes you wonder why he dedicates so much time defending Monsanto....
Common Sense dictates thorough testing should be done BEFORE farmers are forced to shut down and mother nature is altered/harmed. It's crazy sad how the burden of proof is now on the masses to prove GMOs are unhealthy.

Ogblofeld, I've never once

Ogblofeld, I've never once defended Monsanto. Not once. I will absolutely defend SCIENCE. I don't care if it is anti-GMO kooks, anti-climate change nuts, anti-evolution loons or any other dogmatic non-critical thinkers that lack the training and expertise to understand science-- all the same to me.

I defend science. If you act and think scientifically and make comments within the framework of the literature then I'll back you up too.

So no need to change my user name. I've never been "owned" not once, only to those that parrot the nonsense they are spoon fed by other know-nothings. I'm here, will present the voice of science and potentially make a few people think beyond the bankrupt and baseless dogma that you espouse.

I'm always here to answer your specific questions. My username is my real name and I'll always keep it that way. It has helped many find me and to learn more about this topic. Take care.

No wonder Monsanto

No wonder Monsanto overzealously fights against TRUTH in labelling -- no one in their right mind would eat their deadly garbage.



Here's the problem. We have

Here's the problem. We have fewer farmers year after year. The corporations, namely Monsanto is taking over. GMO is right up their alley so they can monopolize the food supply. This is greed and a power play. People's health be damned. They want to decrease the world population anyway.

Agreed. it should be tested

Agreed. it should be tested on the exec's and employees of the biologic firms producing the modified foods for 5 - 10 years. But let's not forget to include the "regulators" in the study. But we know that won't happen. They know better than to eat the stuff they make or approve.

The paper concluded there was no risk assessed because there was no result from their comparison to the data they assembled to indicate toxic or allergic possibilities.

OK, they did not find anything from the data they put together for the comparison. Does that guarantee it's safety to you? If so, chow down on the GMO foods.

I will be interested to see how that plays out for you in 1o years.

I don't buy that kind of "science".

It's like saying we studied the components of a gun and its ammunition and found no risk of contracting leukemia from handling them. Does that make them "safe"?

This article doesn't fully

This article doesn't fully study that only concentrated amounts cause cancer. Just like too much sun causes cancer, you have to weigh all the checks and balances.

The US government is a

The US government is a corporatocracy. It is owned lock, stock and barrel by the corporations.

Ya sure Mr Mohamad Smiley,

Ya sure Mr Mohamad Smiley, oopps, I mean Bob Smiley.

Screw up? More like

Screw up? More like deliberate misinformation. It's Gucciardi's MO.

From the authors of the study:

"In the light of recent advances in the understanding of how this gene behaves when it occurs within a virus, we did a comprehensive risk assessment of the part of the Cauliflower mosaic virus used as a gene switch. We were looking at how the presence of part of this viral gene may affect the physiology of the GM plants. We studied the variants of the gene switch that are introduced in GM plants and the conditions under which this gene segment could be turned on to produce a viral protein fragment, in detail. No risks to human health were identified when this gene was present in GM plants.”

Thank you Bernie! We all can

Thank you Bernie! We all can feel better about consuming unknown ingredients hidden in foods because somebody did a study about how some kind of gene operates within a virus in cauliflower and couldn't detect any "variants" of the gene switch controlling the production of a viral fragment.

Hip hip horroray! Frankenfoods are here to stay...and good for everyone too!!

There isn't anything stated in your cited paragraph that relates to the article and "Gene IV." Seems to me that your assessment is attempting to assert unrelated disinformation...and as such, misinform.

What I cited speaks directly

What I cited speaks directly to the article. The article is about a study that doesn't say what Gucciardi says it does . The authors of that study issued a public statement saying what the anti-GMO activists claim about their study is wrong.

The virus is not "unknown." That is a total lie. It is known and is a naturally occurring one. It's even in organic food. Here's more from study's authors:

"It has been known for some years that a DNA sequence used to turn genes on and off (a gene switch) in some GM plants also forms the tail end of a virus gene in the Cauliflower mosaic virus. This naturally occurring plant virus is ubiquitous in plants and derived foods, both GM and non-GM, and does not pose safety concerns to human and animal health.”

In fact, here is a FAQ that EFSA had to draw up to counter the nonsense that people like Gucciardi are peddling.

Finally, using the term "Frankenfood" just shoots to hell any credibility you might have had in this discussion.



I am a strong advocate for

I am a strong advocate for the elimination of GMO foods, but I find Anthony Gucciardi's articles a bit over the top, both in content and style. A less breathless style would be more convincing.

It is appropriate writing

It is appropriate writing style for a 24 year old don't you think? I displays a style not so different from the associative courtship rituals of his peer group.

Thank you for your research.

Thank you for your research. Instinct tells us to avoid this stuff if only because we really don't know. In 1996 I attended the World Future Society annual symposium, where they (probably representatives from Monsanto) were singing the praises of GMO "to feed a hungry planet." No, I thought, this has to be about money. Industry does not care about who's hungry and who's not.

The presenter deflected any uncomfortable questions, including mine. I was suspicious even back then. We are not going to destroy ourselves with nukes--they are loud and get a lot of attention. It's going to be the quiet little GMO that generates billions for industry, humans be damned.

Of course, another stellar

Of course, another stellar screw up by NoC and Anthony Gucciardi. There is so much desire to spread disinformation and cause alarm, when absolutely none is warranted. The above study was purely computational. There is no evidence whatsoever that Gene VI is expressed or does anything in a transgenic plant background. The authors of the paper are appalled by how their simple analysis of the 35S promoter has been stolen by non-scientsts and morphed into something it is not.

There is no secret virus. It is more lies propagated to generate fear about a sound technology.

And this column still holds onto the rats-cancer work that has been long discredited by the scientific community. Typical for NoC. Too bad, because NoC hits the nail on the head with many social and scientific issues. The anti-scientific stance on transgenic crops puts them squarely in line with global warming and evolution deniers.



Awesome. "Shill". That's

Awesome. "Shill". That's the best you've got? Prove it. My username is my name and my funding record is public. Sorry, not a shill, a scientist that defends science. Earlier today I was called a shill for George Soros because I reported on a new study showing human effects on climate change.

It is such a cop out. Bring a little evidence next time you point a finger.

Replying to KevinFolta: Your

Replying to KevinFolta:
Your claim that "absolutely none is warranted" is itself reason for alarm.
Corporate capitalists provably prioritize profit over public good.
The banking cartel gave us the Fed and derivatives, indenturing the USA.
Big oil insured our dependence, and long disputed peak oil and global warming.
Big pharma did nothing to quell overuse of antibiotics, and scientists now point to our vulnerability to mutations resistant to them. Big pharma is also famous for launching medications later discovered to have lethal side effects.
Big retail (Walmart et al) gave us a flood of imported products, exporting manufacturing jobs and creating a slave-labor class of minimum-wage, 3/4-time employees without benefits.
Processed-food giants including those in the fast food industry have given us a litany of lethal chemicals once argued absolutely safe, and we now have an epidemic of lethal obesity in consequence of their dietary "enhancements".
Big tobacco "scientists" long contended there was absolutely no cause for alarm.
Big "trickle down" assured in 1980 that all would soon be well. It's still getting worse.
Monsanto's objective is enormous profit from global dependence on its GMOs and chemicals. That alone is basis for alarm at least as great as the one we had no chance to sound when scientists developed the nuclear bomb, and in that instance the scientists were not employees of a capitalist corporation pursuing huge profits.
To compound the dangers of monoculture with GMO and chemicals controlled by a single capitalist corporation is insane. I would be unalterably opposed even if there were not yet a scintilla of scientific evidence of any harmful consequence. And there sure as hell already is.
Science is not pure, holy and infallible. It is unsure where it goes and it is corruptible. A considerable body of it indicates that excessive exploitation of -- and interference with -- the natural world, is catastrophically unsustainable.

Hey Greg, not going to argue

Hey Greg, not going to argue with you one bit on most of this. No problem. What you say is entirely consistent with the NoC postings and feelings I share 100%! Wal-Mart, Monsanto, Big Oil... screw 'em. No problem.

And yes, a single company in control bothers me too-- but the rules that exist allow that to happen. Guys like me can't compete in that space because do-gooders won't let me. Barriers are too high. Big MON loves that.

So I'm with you on 90% of your statements above. The problem comes from articles like this that misinform or lie about what a scientific report really says. There is no "secret virus". That's crap. They are trying to motivate readers with fear, not facts.

And science is a tool to find the truth. It might be corruptible in the short term, but today that short-term is not very long. There are too many people (like me) that make a living investigating where others don't and testing new ideas. I'd love to blow the lid of a GMO=danger story. It just isn't there.

finally thank you, Kevin what

thank you, Kevin
what has taken you so effing long to express agreement with statements of the ills of Monsanto?

Regarding your again-repeated contention that anti-biotech interests are why you can't compete with Monsanto in the field of research on bio-engineering of food plant species: Are you 100% sure of that? Do you really think that in an unregulated atmosphere that you would be able to effectively compete with Monsanto?

Is it really the written rules that give them such preferential status, or is the unwritten rules of the politics of war and world resource piracy? Before GMOs, they covered the earth with other things useful to those interests, did they not?

Thanks Greg, it's all about

Thanks Greg, it's all about profit over people for the major corporations. Period. Their tentacles spread deep into the fabric of our government, corrupting and polluting everything they touch. They couldn't care less about the public welfare (and neither does our corrupted government). Remember, never believe anything until it's officially denied.

greghilbert: Great post!

greghilbert: Great post!

"There is no evidence

"There is no evidence whatsoever that Gene VI is expressed or does anything in a transgenic plant background. "

There's no evidence it doesn't either, which is the point: It's risking the health of MILLIONS of people so Monsanto can make a profit.

This is why this CRAP needs to be banned NOW! Do you work for Monsanto?

The criminally-irresponsible contamination of OUR food supply with these frankenfoods has BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. Yet another reason I vote Green Party.

Scientifically, there is no

Scientifically, there is no risk. None. There is no epidemiological evidence or molecular evidence that points to harm. None. When there is, I'll be happy to criticize it. Until then...

(and for what its worth, the Green Party is spot on... except when they show us that they also are willing to make decisions without evidence it puts them right in bed with Republicans)

I agree that we should not

I agree that we should not make our decisions based on fear. So what's so scary about labeling foods and giving people a choice? Monsanto and others are free to advertise all they want. If they make the case, okay, people can eat GMO foods.

But I choose not to eat these things, and that would seem to be my right. I was delighted when a new Whole Foods market opened near me. The store has a GMO-free section. I think that's coming in many stores.

You really do have to ask yourself why all the new diseases. Autism on the rise, now statistically an epidemic; ADHD not heard of in my day; obesity not related to gluttony; more cancer regardless of longer survival periods.

I have to imagine these diseases could strike Monsanto execs too, so forget about the momey for a moment, remember to tie your shoelaces, and proceed with caution. It isn't going to help to feed a hungry planet with defective foods. Mother Nature produced perfect foods for us to eat, so leave them alone. You do not own the foods that other people consume. That's the way I see it.

Saturn, Autism diagnosis

Saturn, Autism diagnosis tracks perfectly with the market share of organic food. Absolutely perfectly.

Maybe rethink that argument.

And "Mother Nature" gave humans a bunch of weeds that you could scrounge around for all day if you lived long enough to do it. HUMANS bred, selected and cultivated plants. Mother Nature didn't give you "perfect" foods. If you believe that then enjoy your teosinte.

From an assumption that

From an assumption that agriculture is what made possible to increasing human populations beyond the capacity of the earth's ecosystems to buffer the stresses from humans, I would conclude that you consider that outcome to have been a good thing.

A view that would strike me as being more similar to a theological position than to one based on scientific rigor. The same goes for the notion that more humans living longer is a good thing.

But you really not mean to infer that scientific evidence exists that people of hunter-gatherer times had shorter lifespans than we of modern times due to having less-"perfect" foods, did you? I would love to see a credible study that isolated that factor from the other pressures on human survival in those days.

Here is a solution to all GMO

Here is a solution to all GMO products: it should be tested on the officers/board members of the pushing industry for at least 5 years before being introduced to the public. FDA and independent science labs should oversee the testing in public.

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...