Monsanto Fingerprints Found all Over Attack on Organic Food

[PatSeg]

<When a reputable-sounding nonprofit organization released a report attacking the organic food industry in April 2014, the group went to great lengths to tout its independence.

The 30-page report by Academics Review, described as “a non-profit led by independent academic experts in agriculture and food sciences,” found that consumers were being duped into spending more money for organic food because of deceptive marketing practices by the organic industry.

Trade press headlines blared: “Organics exposed!” (Brownfield News) and “Organic Industry Booming by Deceiving Consumers” (Food Safety Tech News), touting the findings by supposedly independent experts.

The findings were “endorsed by an international panel of independent agricultural science, food science, economic and legal experts from respected international institutions,” according to the group’s press release.>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html


This would explain a lot of things I've been reading around here that just didn't smell right. There is much, much more at the link.

[villager]

1. And the surprise here would be....?

Well, none, actually.

[PatSeg]

5. Well

Seems you have to spell it out for some people.

There have been a whole lot of attacks on "organics" lately. The word of the week is apparently "scam".

[villager]

7. They like to keep their faxed-in talking points short n' sweet. nt

[PatSeg]

8. Before they resort to insults and ridicule

[villager]

9. I was just about to add that! They are constitutionally incapable of civil discussion.

One of them even would routinely PM me, in the midst of threads, asking if I was "drunk," etc.

Their inability to ever actually "discuss" any of this is a rather large red flag about the level of quicksand underneath their feet. And their talking points.

[PatSeg]

10. Holy crap

I had no idea they got that bad.

I think many of them are capable of civil discussion, but that does not fit their agenda, which is probably to dissuade, disrupt, distract, and shut down any meaningful debate. Sending rude PMs sounds like a little extracurricular activity probably outside of the approved guidelines.

[villager]

12. The PMing aspect kept getting stranger and stranger....

Sad, actually.

[PatSeg]

13. Perhaps it was PMer

who was drunk.

[PatSeg]

153. Here we go, "Mama Monsanto"

from Funny or Die should lighten everyone's mood! Nothing like a little bit of humor.

[PatSeg]

154. Sorry

It appears you have to watch this one at YouTube, but it is really worth it.

[ancianita]

2. When Cheney said food is a weapon, this now reveals the large corporate dark world he spoke for.

[PatSeg]

4. Like some futuristic dystopia

Food AND water, maybe even oxygen.

[HuckleB]

29. Well....

The hack who wrote the piece in the OP is funded by the organic industry, which tends to be about as honest as Cheney. So, yes, good point. Funny enough, the supporters of organic already posted this piece a few weeks ago, but feel that they must continue to promote this corporate propaganda, apparently.

See this for clarification:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8031071

[womanofthehills]

53. Organic means no glyphosate

I choose not to eat glyphosate. Why would I choose to eat carcinogenic foods?

[Humanist_Activist]

56. You keep making unsupported claims about glyphosate being carcinogenic...

why don't you just stop lying?

[womanofthehills]

60. They are not unsupported - and the lawsuits are coming big time and Monsanto is going to pay

Monsanto can't deny the reality of science -

Monsanto Still Trying to Cover Up Deadly Health Risks of Roundup – The Ring of Fire

Study after study is showing up these days that tell us that Monsanto’s Roundup is causing cancer and other extremely severe neurological defects. Monsanto adamantly denies all of these charges, but they cannot deny the reality of science. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this with attorney Howard Nations.

http://trofire.com/2016/07/10/monsanto-still-trying-cover-deadly-health-risks-roundup-ring-fire/

[PatSeg]

63. Do you remember how republican spin doctors

used to take words like "liberal" and turn it into something very bad? Right-wing media personalities would say "Nancy Pelosi" or "Hillary Clinton" in such a way that it evoked a negative response, though they rarely explained why. Democrats started calling themselves "progressives" because "liberal" became synonymous with "scum".

Well now I see an attempt to do the same thing with the word "organic" - make something most people perceive as positive into a marketing scam. Just repeat it over and over again until it takes hold.

[HuckleB]

81. Hogwash.

What happened is that some companies tried use the term to garner halos they don't deserve, as they also demonize other types of food production. It's not even close to the BS you are comparing it to here. It's really sad to see such less than ethical lines of ugliness used to defend the indefensible marketing nonsense pushed by pseudoscience utilizing corporations.

http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/12/the-truth-about-organic-farming/

[womanofthehills]

91. The way John Kerry's heroism was "swiftboated"

[PatSeg]

95. ACA = Obamacare

Affordable Care Act, good. Obamacare, bad.


Newt Gingrich was really good at this stuff too and he was the beginning of the deep divides in Congress.

[HuckleB]

96. People standing up to pseudoscience fictions is not like swift boating at all.

In fact, the pseudoscience pushers are the ones working to swift boat others.

[ancianita]

69. Thanks. So much goes by so fast around here that it's good to get as many reposts as possible.

[HuckleB]

143. If the posts contain good information, yes.

This nonsense was clearly debunked in the original OP. So reposting it is not ethical in any way.

[RapSoDee]

61. True

GMO corporations pervert & poison our food for their own profit - and attack what is healthy.

The DARK act is pure evil. President Obama has not yet signed it into law. Everyone who care about their food, and the food they feed to their children, should sign one of the petitions urging him to veto it.

[PatSeg]

64. Welcome to DU

[RapSoDee]

66. Thank you PatSeg. Glad to be here

I've lurked at DU for a while, and it is telling how regular and systematic are the thinly veiled corporate attacks on organic food. That BS comes right out of the darkside dumpster.

[PatSeg]

70. Some aren't always

"thinly veiled", but they are very persistent and prolific. I could always put people on "ignore" and it is tempting, but so far I've gone ignore-free!

[RapSoDee]

76. Corporate trolls employ routine Republican techniques

Tell a big lie often enough, and you can get some people to believe it. Meanwhile, obfuscate, deceive, and try to change the subject.

[PatSeg]

78. Yes

Brings back memories of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It is a very old technique, but still effective.

[ancianita]

71. We've had decades of useless belief in spite of evidence that petitions are asking-nicely useless.

I stopped doing letters and petitions at least a decade ago. I know some think there's a use to them but it's a loooong trek into the desert for a short drink of water that may or may not be a mirage.

[niyad]

3. NSS

[HuckleB]

6. Monsanto sells organic seeds. It makes plenty of money on the organic industry scam, too.

Last edited Wed Jul 20, 2016, 03:19 PM - Edit history (2)

This propaganda piece is written by a hack funded by the organic industry, making this one bizarro world piece of hypocritical silliness.

Oh, and this was already posted as an OP at DU, and the poster who made this OP responded to that one multiple times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027975742

Why repeat bad propaganda? Hmm.



Interestingly, the organic industry has secretly worked to promote itself via supposedly independent means, etc... in a similar fashion. Hiding itself from public view as much as possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-benbrook.html?_r=0

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/14/foia-emails-reveal-anti-gmo-pro-organic-spin-a-team-led-by-tom-philpott-and-michael-pollan/

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/13/foia-organic-industry-chuck-benbrook-orchestrated-anti-gmo-independent-research-marketing/

The hypocrisy never ends with these scam artists. The question is why anyone would support them. It makes no sense.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Why repost this shit again? What next? Chemtrails controlling our thoughts? Your tinfoil hat is...

on too tight.

[PatSeg]

14. Sorry

Didn't see it the first, but evidently you did, so don't know why you bother rehashing it.

Meanwhile, it is new to me and others.

[HuckleB]

15. It's not new to you, nor to "the others."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027975742

You made plenty of responses there, and your friend above also responded and liked the OP the first time.

[TransitJohn]

17. Ell Oh Ell

[PatSeg]

18. Are you following me about?

I really didn't remember it, but it sounds like you are stalking me. That is really inappropriate.

[HuckleB]

19. I merely knew that this piece had already been posted.

I did a quick search, and noted that you had responded to that OP multiple times.

Your ludicrous personal attack here only serves to show that you will attempt any ugly distraction to keep from taking responsibility for your own behavior. Not only did you repost this industry propaganda, but you pretended that you hadn't seen it before, before making this ludicrous accusation.



That's not ok.

[PatSeg]

24. I did not pretend

I really didn't remember that it was the same article. Meanwhile, I believe I've seen you do this before, so I assumed that was what you were doing this time. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, I am sorry.

As for the rest of your comment, I think it is excessively combative, out of proportion to what is being discussed here. I really feel like I am the one being attacked and in a rather personal manner.

[HuckleB]

25. Oh, please.

You repeat posted this combative, nonsense OP by an industry hack, you spend time falsely attacking other DUers with a poster above, then you accuse me of stalking, and now you want to talk about the combativeness of my post?

Fix your own house.

[BuddhaGirl]

54. Unfortunately it is typical for some here

And they are, as usual, running off to their *own* forum to kvetch.

[PatSeg]

65. I could think of far

better ways to spend one's time, sigh.

Now that is bound to invoke another snarky remark. It really is like playing whack-a-mole, isn't it?

[BuddhaGirl]

100. Indeed! There are way more important

things to worry about, I would think.

[PatSeg]

108. Thanks for the bit of sanity!!!

Now back to the RNC convention. Thank goodness for the fast-forward button!

[HuckleB]

111. You win most ironic post of the day on several counts.

[HuckleB]

101. And yet, every day, you waste time trying to convince others of the same fictions.

Hmm.

[cleanhippie]

26. Showing you caught in a bald-faced lie is not "stalking".

You said it was new to you, and anyone can see that you responded in the previous thread, making it exactly the opposite of new to you.

[Nitram]

147. Busted, patseg. Don't dig yourself into a deeper hole by denying it and deflecting.

Like accusing the person who outed you as stalking you. Have you no shame at all?

[Humanist_Activist]

16. The fact is that Monsanto makes organic seed, why would they attack a part of the market they...

are a part of?

ON EDIT: And don't lie, especially when its easily caught.

[Lithos]

32. Because GM and organic are not mutually exclusive

First, GM and organic foods are two ideas. GM concerns how the seeds themselves are "bred" while organic concerns itself with the conditions of how the crop is raised. A food can be both Genetically modified and organic.

Yet, this story is about Monsanto's attempt to attack the Big-O Organic movement which extends beyond the idea of small-o organic methods to crop yield. Big-O Organic is for transparency in the food chain - letting people know what they are eating. The other part of the "Organic movement" is against the ideas of crop-diversity, humane treatment of animals, local farm to market movement, and the small farmer.

Monsanto is part of the Industrial Agricultural movement which by nature is more focused on profit making thru increased crop yields, standardization, and control. Many of the decisions -all ostensibly made using "good science" - made by this industry, Monsanto included, have resulted in many issues and concerns by people to the entire food chain. Much of the people in the Big-O Organic movement feel there is a better way. Monsanto's attack is not an attack on small-o organic, but the bigger Big-O Organic industry of which they are not a part, despite the red-herring that Monsanto sells small-o organics seeds. .

L-

[Humanist_Activist]

35. The Big O organic industry is not for transparency, but spreading FUD,

its not even any better for the environment than conventional farming methods, they end up using more herbicides that are less effective and less safe than the ones conventional farming companies use. In addition, the "Certified Organic" label in the United States doesn't allow the use of transgenic crops in any capacity to use that label.

The concerns surrounding GMOs have been, at best, overblown, and at worst, completely made up. Generally asserted by people with absolutely no knowledge of biology, genetics, the scientific method, or agriculture.

[Lithos]

110. Meh

I will grant you the US "Certified Organic" label is a joke mostly due to the lobbying effects of various businesses over science, and yet the countries in the rest of the Western World have come to a fair consensus to the value of foods grown Organically. I will also grant you there are many processed foods marketed as healthy because it's labeled Organic are indeed a farce. But, Organic itself is I think a better system and one which the world has recognized as a better alternative to what is best described as Industrialized Agriculture (Big Ag).

I view Organic (Big-O) as something which views the whole food chain in a holistic manner - focusing on the sustainability of food production with full consideration for the the consumer, the manufacturer, the crop/produce, genetic diversity, farmer, the land (soil, water, ecology), and bystanders (fish, insects, birds). In my mind Organic is also more of a local movement - typically related to farm to table with focus on local farmers and farmers markets. Good food has and needs terroir. This isn't FUD.

Typically the argument comparing the differences between Big-O organic and Industrial Farming methods comes down to whether or not a given piece of produce is nutritionally the same. Even then the results are at best a tie with a slight nod to Organic farming from the increased diversity and added nutrients which accrue from some plants natural resistance response (phenols, vitamin C). Also animal products such as meat and eggs tends to be better when the animal is not in a stressful environment.

Yet limiting such an argument omits much of the real problems with the Industrial Agriculture method - does it matter that I can develop a much greater yield of tomatoes, but in the wake leave behind a lousy, dead soil; bee colony collapse, unhealthy and sick farm animals, increasing antibiotic resistant pathogens, increased cancers in farm workers, a tainted water supply, food laden with endocrine disruptive chemicals and other pesticides/fungicides, and a food supply which is vulnerable to disruption? Efficiency and money are not worth the damage.

Have you ever read a book called _Deathworld_ by Harry Harrison? This is a story where the life on a planet increasingly becames deadlier the more the colonists tried to subdue it. I've always found it interesting that the original short story was the _Ethical Engineer_ which in some ways suits the story better.

L-

[PatSeg]

114. Very well said

You certainly have a way with words.

Deathworld is available for free for Kindle. I added it to my library. Looks interesting.

[Lithos]

116. It is really a trilogy

But the original book packs the most powerful punch. The other parts of the trilogy are not as effective.

L-

[PatSeg]

117. I see Deathworld I

and Deathworld II. Not sure which one would be the third part.

[Lithos]

120. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathworld

[PatSeg]

142. Thank you!

[Humanist_Activist]

126. None of the claims you made are even factual, much less matching reality...

In reality, organic farming is industrial farming, just with a different set of chemicals and techniques to use, chemicals and techniques that are, overall, less effective, less efficient, and just as destructive. Due to the lack of efficiency of many "organically approved" pesticides, they have to be sprayed more, which increases the amount of them that end up in the environment, not to mention the machines that have to spray them kick out a lot of greenhouse gases, polluting the environment more. The yield is less per acre than conventional farming methods, so to remain competitive, organic farms have to till more land than conventional farms, leading to other issues, such as the destruction of surrounding ecosystems and destruction of biodiversity.

Where is your evidence for this "nod" towards better nutrition, from all the studies I've seen, its at best a tie, and given the negatives associated with organic, whether you buy organic or not is more personal preference and how full your pocketbook is.

[Lithos]

127. Start here

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025038/

There are other studies by Australia, Canada, the UK which corroborate these findings.

[Humanist_Activist]

129. That's one study, what do the meta-analysis say?

http://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/organic-food-science02092015/

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880?pg=2

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/critics-question-how-much-better-organic-really-is.html

http://www.foodinsight.org/the-debate-continues-organic-v-conventional

So far, from what can be told, there's not enough evidence to make the claims you are making about organic foods.

[Lithos]

132. Gosh

Only one third the pesticide residue... Per one link...

In the Pharma industry, they would be launching a major ad campaign advertising the death defying benefits... But in the food industry advert blitz, nope... One third less and it is discounted off hand with no further discussion.

Again, the topic of chemicals in the food chain is spun as insignificant with no discussion to the holistic damage to the environment... Plenty of science outside the US to show the issue is relevant, but strangely downplayed here in media.

[Humanist_Activist]

133. Its downplayed because you are just spouting a word salad of nonsense...

let me guess, the fact that there isn't evidence to support your assertion means the evidence is being suppressed, right?

[HuckleB]

135. An opinion piece from an open-source journal that publishes Seralini & has almost no impact factor?

Hmm.

[Lithos]

137. National institute of health is an open source journal

Interesting

[HuckleB]

138. Wow! You just showed a level of ignorance way beyond what I would have even imagined.

WOW!

You don't even know the journal you pushed, because you don't know the first thing about any of this. Wow. Just wow.

[Lithos]

140. Do not recall PLOS-ONE

Especially in this thread... I posted NIH threads..

But again, not seeing any contribution here other than another logical fallacy.

[HuckleB]

141. And then you double down, and mention a completely different source than the one you used.

You have no idea how any of this works. Your quick Google search didn't help you, nor will another one.

Thank you for your confession. Still,

[Lithos]

145. I still wait for your contribution

...

[HuckleB]

146. You still don't even know how to respond.

It's clear that you don't understand some very basic pieces of the puzzle. It's time that you stop pretending. I mean, you actually don't know the journal in question.

[PatSeg]

67. Interesting overview

Well said.

[womanofthehills]

88. Because the growing organic market does not use Roundup

Simple.

[HuckleB]

97. You don't know why that doesn't even make sense, do you?

[Humanist_Activist]

124. Of course it doesn't, instead it uses much more toxic chemicals, such as Copper Sulfate. n/t

[LanternWaste]

20. It is indeed, conspiratorial thinking to believe a market force would look to its own profit

It is indeed, conspiratorial thinking to believe a market force would look to its own profit over that of other interests, regardless of the choice of pretty fashion-accessories for your head you eventually decide on.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Oh, it goes far beyond that, the premise here is that the entire scientific establishment is owned..

by the big agricultural companies, even though there are a shit load of independent scientists, universities, etc. that have been examining and researching GMOs for 20+ years. Apparently, none of them count. Instead we have a small cadre of rogue "scientists" and "doctors" who are claiming GMOs cause everything from Autism to Cancer, while they also peddle supplements and homeopathy on their own websites and throw their lots in with anti-vaxxers, alt-med practitioners, etc.

Not to mention that Monsanto makes organic seeds! What market forces would compel them to attack the market they are a part of, to hurt their own profits?

[MohRokTah]

30. .

The truth is, "Organic" is a scam of the highest order and it empties the pockets of their marks.

[HuckleB]

31. It's strange to see the pride shown by the marks.

"Look at me! I got scammed!"

[Lithos]

33. bah...

Organic milk is free from the hormones which are part of the reasons why girls are reaching puberty 3-4 years earlier than just 40 years ago.

L-

[tecelote]

37. +1!

[Major Nikon]

38. Nonsense

[PatSeg]

72. Tastes better too

Some people who are allergic to milk find they can drink organic milk. Food allergies often have more to do with fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, and chemical additives.

[HuckleB]

113. Citations showing a consensus of science supporting this claim needed.

[Lithos]

115. Not sure which citations you need

There is a very well documented situation where girls are reaching puberty at an earlier age. Sometimes as young as age 8.

Most of the recent sharp rise is caused by obesity caused by the combination of carb rich foods and lack of exercise, especially over the last 20 years.

But, the trend has existed longer than 20 years and seems to be caused by other factors with focus on the increase of pseudo-estrogen and other endocrine disruptive chemicals into the food/water supply.

See for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3065309/

[HuckleB]

118. So your assuming a cause when you have no evidence to support your assumed cause.

Got it.

[Lithos]

119. LOL

I'm assuming a cause based on evidence... I just recognize it's not just a single causation.

L-

[HuckleB]

121. No you're not.

Not even close.

[Lithos]

122. How so?

Citations please...

[HuckleB]

123. You made a claim. You have no support for it.

No one has done studies on your baseless claim.

Thank you for showing everyone this reality.

[Lithos]

125. This was what I provided:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3065309/

National Institute of Health (NIH) - a Governmental organization.

It casually used such phrases and citations as this:

Some of the environmental chemicals may impair neuroendocrine functions through their effect on the central nervous system and the hypothalamic-hypophyseal-gonadal (HHG) axis. These include pesticides such as thiram, molinate, metam sodium, chlordimeform, amitraz, triazoles, dichloroacetic acid, atrazine, propazine, simazine, methanol and linuron (1). It has been shown in a study on rats that atrazine causes delayed puberty by suppressing luteinizing hormone (LH) and prolactin levels (23,24,25). In rats prenatally exposed to BPA, an increase in estrogen feedback as well as development of precocious puberty via inhibition of tyrosine hydroxylase activity in rostral preoptic periventricular neurons have been observed (26). Howdeshell et al (27) also noted precocious puberty in rats prenatally exposed to BPA.

Some of the EDs affect puberty by inhibiting the synthesis of endogenous hormones such as testosterone, 17 beta-estradiol and adrenal steroids via competitive inhibition of P450 steroidogenic enzymes (C17,20-lyase, aromatase) (1). Delayed puberty has been reported by exposure to imidazole group fungicides, ketoconazole and fadrozole in the peripubertal period (28). Another pesticide, prochloraz, suppresses estrogen and androgen synthesis via inhibition of aromatase and 17,20-lyase (29,30).

and here

Studies in Humans

Studies have shown that several environmental chemical pollutants including DDT/ dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), PCBs, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB),

hexachlorobenzene, endosulfan, dioxins, heavy metals and phthalates affect puberty in humans (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

it summarized here:

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is worth noting that for EDs, to cause impairment of endocrine functions, time of exposure is as important as dose, duration and age at exposure. Moreover, a single chemical substance may result in multiple endocrine system dysfunctions via several mechanisms. To date, various EDs have been shown to exert unwanted effects on pubertal development. It is possible that there are numerous other chemicals with potential harmful effects on pubertal development. Future population-based studies are warranted for further investigation.

Other studies referenced to the side include this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226071

Onset and development of puberty is regulated by the neuroendocrine system. Population-based studies worldwide have observed secular trends towards earlier puberty development. These changes are apparently caused by environmental factors such as improved socio-economic status, improved health care and nutrition. However, they may also partly result from endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment. Epidemiological studies have investigated the relationship between pubertal development and exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyls, polybrominated biphenyls, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane, phthalate esters, furans and the pesticide endosulfan). Associations with both perinatal and postnatal exposure have been reported. Studies in experimental animals support some of these findings and point to differential endocrine regulatory mechanisms linked to pubertal development acting in the perinatal and the pre-pubertal period. Pubertal development is naturally associated with growth and body composition. There is increasing evidence for a link between prenatal development and pubertal onset. In girls born small for gestational age (SGA), pubertal onset and age at menarche often are advanced, especially if there has been an extensive catch-up growth during the first months of life. In utero growth retardation may have multiple causes including exposure to xenobiotic substances as was suggested for some endocrine-disrupting chemicals. An abnormal perinatal environment of children born SGA may alter the endocrine status and the sensitivity of the receptors for endocrine and metabolic signalling that may have effects on maturation of brain and gonads. However, the causal pathways and the molecular mechanisms that may link the pubertal growth pattern of children born SGA, pubertal development and endocrine-disrupting chemicals need further study.

yes, there are some studies which have not been done yet - but in vitrio studies in animals is generally regarded as significantly major in indicating an effect in humans.

So, my statement that there are multiple causations from fatter kids to more chemicals is born out by studies (which I provided).

[HuckleB]

128. You really don't get it, do you?

These links do not come close to showing that your claim has any validity.

And I asked for a consensus of science, but all you offer is some small portion of what would be a start to support your claims, if something magical happened down the road.

You apparently don't get how this works.

[Lithos]

130. Would say the same to you

The links show a significant basis of scientific support in very strong language. The only disagreements I am seeing are those with short term economical concerns who wish to avoid deeper discussions, which are the same tactics the tobacco industry did for many years.

L-

[HuckleB]

131. Of course you would.

You actually think you have some point or another, despite the fact that you would fail the most basic science class with this nonsense.

[Lithos]

134. Lol

nice ad hominem... All I have seen from you is repeated use of the logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance. No claims, just attempts to prove my evidence wrong thru bluster which then somehow makes your point correct.

[HuckleB]

136. It's reality. You made claims, sans evidence.

Pretending that others should offer evidence because you can't support your claims is bizarro world silliness.

[PatSeg]

148. Well, don't forget

the use of ridicule and derision. There is a lot of psychological button-pushing that goes on in these debates. Your stamina is to be commended!!!

[HuckleB]

149. So asking for the guy to justify his claims is ridicule and derision?

He chose to obfuscate and play games. That's his choice. Your ugly personal attack here is simply ludicrous.

Ethics matter, and it's time for you to figure that out.

[Lithos]

150. Actually been asking you to do the same

haven't seen anything but the derision and ridicule. At this point your comments remind me of the Monty Python Argument clinic where the response is always a negative without any contribution.

L-

[HuckleB]

151. Ah, so you think that asking you to support your claims is derision and ridicule.

And you think that pretending to understand something you do not understand is ok.

It's not. You are wasting the time of others, and yet you act as if you are superior.

That's absolutely bizarre.

[PatSeg]

152. There was nothing "ugly or personal or ludicrous" in what I said

I was speaking generally and directed my comment to no one person individually. I stated what was quite obvious and I am sure everyone on this board knows what mockery and ridicule and insults look like. It can undermine any meaningful debate.

You know, you and some of the others do make some really good points, but when you attack another person instead of their positions, it tends to nullify the entire debate. You obviously have enough resources and information to carry on an intelligent discussion. I suppose if a poster is below your intellectual standards, you could either present your data impersonally or better yet, ignore them and move on to more challenging exchanges.

[HuckleB]

155. As usual, you refuse to acknowledge your own foibles.

Yes, I am being very kind, because it has become quite astounding to note the hypocrisy you display.

[PatSeg]

156. Sigh

So much for trying to be reasonable.

I'd say, "Have a good day", but I'm afraid that this sort of thing is your idea of a good day.

[HuckleB]

157. You have never tried to be reasonable.

Not even close.

[womanofthehills]

89. If you think organic is a scam, just go ahead and eat your food loaded with glyphsate

Many of us prefer not to eat Roundup.

[MohRokTah]

92. OFFS

Food is not "loaded with glyphsate (sic)".

And Organic food can be treated with carcinogenic pesticides and still be certified Organic.

It's a scam to trick you into thinking what you're buying is better than everything else and charge you a shit ton more money.

[Major Nikon]

40. Repeatedly throw shit against the wall to see if any of it sticks

The author of the OP is financed by the Organic Consumer's Association who is one of the leaders of the batshit crazy conspiracy brigade.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/911-consensus-panel-factual-evidence-contradicts-official-story

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/breaking-courts-discreetly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism

[HuckleB]

43. Wow! I knew they peddled nonsense, but, yeah, again, WOW!

[womanofthehills]

44. You always say that anyone who disagrees with you believes in chemtails.

Give it a break!

[Humanist_Activist]

50. No, they just display the same paranoid tendencies and display a lack of...

critical thinking skills.

You should go to a "March against Monsanto" sometime and see the quality of speakers there. Or look who is in the lineup when Seralini speaks, like he did recently on a ship because he thinks people are trying to kill him or something, very strange.

[Major Nikon]

73. The 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, and chemtrail nutbags have gone the way of the dodo around here

The stock in the anti-GMO crowd is also fading. Science eventually wins out, albeit not without a lot of kicking and screaming.

[Major Nikon]

52. Kind of like your favorite source

http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-the-consequences-of-toxic-metals-and-chemical-aerosols-on-human-health/19047

[PatSeg]

74. What? What? What?

Are you saying chemtrails aren't real?????

[womanofthehills]

87. We will keep reposting this "shit" until Monsanto takes the glyphosate out of our food

[NBachers]

22. I'm in my local Rainbow Grocery co-op four times a week. I know I pay more, but I support the store

and the vendors they feature.

[PatSeg]

27. Also better to pay more

for healthy food now instead of medical bills later. It is kind of like insurance!

I love the whole concept of co-ops.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. There is no evidence that the food is healthier, where do you get your information? n/t

[womanofthehills]

45. Any foodout with the cancer causing glyphosate is healthier to me

[Humanist_Activist]

48. Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer, so try again. n/t

[Major Nikon]

55. All sorts of foods contain formaldehyde

I hope the perpetually chemophobic aren't eating any of these

http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fa/files/formaldehyde.pdf

[Major Nikon]

49. Sure, like organic wine, right?

[PatSeg]

58. At one time,

people thought DDT was safe, as well as lead, tobacco, agent orange, mercury, flame retardants, BPA, and PCBs. Thalidomide was a wonder drug for morning sickness and Vioxx was great for arthritis, (if you didn't mind the risks of heart attacks or strokes).

But somehow this is different. This time we should trust the people who brought us so many great products in the past, starting with saccharin in 1901 up to present day and the wonder herbicide Roundup.

[Major Nikon]

46. More evidence the scam works, though

[mdbl]

23. to me the whole "anti-organic" argument is laid waste

when you look at all the crap the Ag industry keeps trying to get the Congress to pass weakening labeling laws and organic classifications. If the organic seed industry was such a hot thing for them, would they even care? Get real.

[PatSeg]

28. Too much money in politics

is very unhealthy for democracy.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. The organic industry pushed for "Certified Organic" labels, then immediately went in to try to...

lobby to weaken and change the certification to allow for all sorts of things that most consumers aren't aware of, such as the use of highly toxic pesticides, environmental damage, etc.

Why trust any big business like this?

[HuckleB]

36. And if their "organic" food is so great, why do they need to demonize the competition?

Yeah, I know. I know. I'm just playing.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

42. A few months ago I read several Opening Posts, which claimed Monsanto had paid Trolls working at DU.

I wonder what their interest in this primarily political website is.

[Humanist_Activist]

47. Really? Where are these paid trolls, and where is my fucking check?

Seriously, what is up with this conspiracy theory nonsense?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

62. What "conspiracy theory?" I simply reported that reasonable sounding OPs reported monsanto trolls

Hosts and juries did not block of impair the Opening Posts. Who are you to judge and attack me for reporting what I read in General Discussion?

[PatSeg]

75. It is common knowledge

that professional corporate and political trolling is very common place these days. They are all over the world as well. The Internet has created a new occupation. Of course, there are always people who do it because they enjoy it.

[Major Nikon]

84. There's also people who promote nonsense bought and paid for by Big-Organic®

Your OP is an excellent example.

[PatSeg]

86. I really, really wasn't going to respond

but that is hysterical! Good one!

[Major Nikon]

94. What's really funny is your source is a paid tool of OCA

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/911-consensus-panel-factual-evidence-contradicts-official-story

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/breaking-courts-discreetly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism

Nothing quite so ironic as a paid tool of the batshit crazy making nutty allegations about someone else's conflict of interest.

[womanofthehills]

51. Their trolls are all over the internet on every Dem site

Are we playing the "I am so baffled game?"

[HuckleB]

83. Several? Link us to them.

[ozone_man]

104. Guessing that Republicans could care less.

So, go after the other half. Paid trolls at DU? Whenever there is a GMO article at DU, a few are sure to be there in defense. Trolls perhaps.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. i'm shocked! Shocked I say!

Only a bumbling anti-science woo ninny would think that reducing the load of pesticides we intake from, say, our produce would be anything but a dangerous fool's errand!

[Major Nikon]

68. Good luck with that

99.9% of your food pesticide load comes from the food itself. Virtually every plant on earth has some sort of natural pesticide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54831/

[Warren DeMontague]

77. No doubt.

but "reduce" doesn't mean "eliminate". I'm not anti-science, but I also see logical reasons to try and grow things organically.

[Major Nikon]

79. Actually appeal is nature is a fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

"Organic" is a marketing term, administered the USDA Marketing Service that doesn't even mean organic. The standards are completely arbitrary. For instance, if you develop seeds in a laboratory using very precise bio-tech methods, the resultant products are ineligible for organic certification. But if you develop seeds in a laboratory by bombarding them with ionizing radiation to produce completely random genetic mutations, the resultant products are fully eligible for organic certification.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Fine. I don't spray anything on my tomatoes to kill bugs.

You can call it whatever you want, however, pesticides and herbicides are additive chemicals, and if they don't NEED to be there, I'd rather not eat them.

Beyond that, I don't tell other people what to eat, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

[Major Nikon]

82. Organic doesn't mean no chemicals, which is a well debunked myth

Some of the chemicals used by the organic industry are far more toxic and far less tested than their non-"organic"-certified alternatives, and it often takes far more applications for them to be effective.

I couldn't care less if people eat road apples. Do whatever makes you feel better. What you do or don't do on the food you grow yourself isn't all that relative to the "organic" marketing gimmick. The term does not mean safer or more nutritious or pretty much anything claimed by those who promote it.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that "more nutritious" makes no sense.

a lot of people have agendas, on all sides of this deal. Let's be real, here.

[Major Nikon]

90. Nor does it take much grey matter to figure out the other claims make no sense

Including the ones for food safety. Because people have agendas doesn't mean what they are putting out is equally invalid. The scientific consensus against the anti-GMO crowd is even bigger than the scientific consensus against the anti-GBW crowd.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Im not anti-GMO, by the way.

I question whether selling more roundup is really the best use of such a revolutionary technology, but Im not against the technique.

[Major Nikon]

102. Isn't increased production and lower food cost isn't a net positive?

[Warren DeMontague]

103. it is.

but I remain unconvinced that it is the best or only way, and I am dubious that a corporation with a vested interest in selling the chemical is the best authority on whether or not it is.

[Major Nikon]

105. The farmers themselves seem quite convinced

Many GMO options for things like corn, soybeans, and cotton have somewhere around a 90% market share.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Well again, I make a distinction between GMO technology itself and one specific use case

namely, "roundup ready" monstanto seeds.

I don't think it should be banned, so if farmers want it, good for them. I just think the potential for the tech is much greater.

[Major Nikon]

107. The potential is undoubtedly greater

Many great things are on the drawing board. Part of the problem they aren't coming out sooner is the length of time and the number of hoops needed to jump through compared to other plant breeding methods, even though GMO is far more predictable. Much of that is due to the plethora of junk science being produced by the anti-GMO movement which is working hard to convince the general public that GMO is somehow a bigger risk than other seed development technologies.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Well, in 2014 hippie crunchy granola Oregon -defeated- a GMO labeling initiative.

So maybe the anti-GMO movement isn't getting as much traction as you think.

[HuckleB]

112. The more information people get, the less the fear mongering holds sway.

But it is easy to foment fear, which is why the organic companies have been so successful at doing it.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Again, I don't put all organic food and anti-GMO hysteria in the same bucket.

but you, of course, can do whatever you want.

[HuckleB]

144. The marketing utilized by organic companies is quite obvious.

You can choose to look the other way, if you want to do so.

[Person 2713]

59. I've shot down a few of these @DU & got one to self delete ..links are hardly independent sources

in all cases so far.....

[HuckleB]

93. No, you haven't.

http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/12/the-truth-about-organic-farming/

[HuckleB]

98. Why couldn't the organic-industry hack debunk the content of the actual paper?

Why go with this backdoor laziness?

Hmm.