My lord you are one coo-coo clock. The majority of the populace is uninformed and unintelligent. They are mentally superior to you.

That is one hell of a lot of misinformation and outright bullshit in one post. Um...nice job, I guess? So when are the aliens coming to pick you up?

The photo of the rats are Sprague-Dawley rats. They naturally develop tumors at high rates.

Good luck with your crusade though. It's a shame you'll never have peer-reviewed science on your side.

Maybe next time you can tackle chemtrails.

So she's anti vax AND a Scientologist?

"What kills insects, kills us." Not necessarily so. Boric acid is a deadly neurotoxin for some insects (like ants), yet is non-toxic to humans and animals, and has been used for many years as an eye wash and antiseptic as an aqueous solution.

I would agree that Monsanto has carried out many insidious business and patenting practices and deserve greater regulatory oversight. As a rule of thumb, when someone resists full disclosure / labelling, they usually have something to hide.

Anything you buy at the grocery store is GMO.

According to US Census statistics from 2000, 20% of the US population didn't reach the age of 50. and 1/3 didn't reach 62. If you were Hispanic American , then 20% didn't reach 40. statistics for 2010 were suppressed. Why? People in this country need to wake up. There is a reason why in countries like Italy GMO is banned. Most of the population doesn't have children until their early 40's, so people have to be healthy until they are at least in their 60's to take care of their children & send them to college. in the US 1/2 the population of children are born to women between the ages of 15-19. Which meansby the time the population is 40, they've worked the best years of their lives & already raised the next generation of slaves. what do they need us for to collect social security and take it out the mouth of banks who'd get it instead?

A few years ago, there were sixteen countries that had total or partial bans on GMOs. Now there are at least twenty-six, including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia. Significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about sixty other countries. However, the official position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) is: There is no difference between GMOs and non-GMOs. These agencies have also proposed to the CODEX Alimentarius Commission (UN Food and Agriculture Organization), that no country should be able to require mandatory GMO labeling on food items. The FDA and USDA say that mandatory labeling of GMOs is “false, misleading, and deceptive, implying there is a difference between GMO and non-GMO ingredients.” Ultimately, the FDA and USDA want to do away with product labeling standards overall, trusting corporations to maintain necessary health standards. So there you go, our Federal Government cares more for big money Monsanto, than the health of U.S, citizens.
Remember, we have 2 Supreme Court Justices that are former employees of Monsanto. And these 2 Justices refuse to recuse themselves on Monsanto Vs. the People, crucial cases that affect us all. Please get involved in removing this poison from our seeds. And all those people who think they are safe because they eat organic foods? What about cross-pollination? and the law suits filed by Monsanto against the small, organic farmers? My sympathies for the author's deceased cousin and loved ones, may she rest in peace.

Now 38 countries have banned GMOs. Like always America knows the best. GMO must be safe. And that is why Americans are so healthy. Go to inner states why are they so fat then? Life expectancy is not too high either for a country with such high tech medicine. U can label it as conspiracy theory etc. But human body isnt designed to eat pesticides nor genetically modified food. U dont have to be too smart to figure that out.

Are 38 countries who banned it all coocoos then?

No, those countries are just misinformed and sorely in need of scientific literacy. Like you.

Then explain why Americans are so fat? Must be the fat that can't make you understand. And Europe must need your scientific literacy education. Europe has pretty much banned it. As well as many Asian countries.

Explain then. instead of babbling.

The transfer of DNA from GM food to gut microorganisms is a relevant (and evidence-based http://www.nature.com/nbt/j... issue that should be considered when designing GM crops. However, if you transfer a piece of DNA from carrot into potato, the resulting potato would be a GMO. The carrot DNA could pass to your gut bacteria from the potato. Similarly, the carrot DNA could pass to your gut bacteria from a non-GM carrot. It really makes no difference. Gene transfer isn’t confined to GMOs (http://www.pnas.org/content.... It is natural way that bacteria evolve (and is part of the reason for antibiotic-resistant bacteria becoming so widespread http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... So when a GMO is being designed, you need to question whether or not it matters if the gene you are introducing is going to transfer to gut bacteria.

If you read the method of the article providing the picture of porcine stomach inflammation, you would see that the pigs were fed a mixture of different GM feeds including glyphosate-resistant maize and soybean. You would also see that the judgment of the level of inflammation was left to the researchers; it was based on the non-quantitative criteria of redness and swelling. The researchers state that there was no difference in the blood biochemistry between the pigs fed the two different (GM vs non-GM) diets, but, as far as I know, blood tests are the only way to quantitatively measure inflammation (http://www.nhs.uk/Condition.... Even if the two groups were quantifiably different, it would perhaps be more of an indictment of glyphosate than the GMOs, as already addressed. It’s not really possible for me to comment on the photo of rat testicles, because there is no reference (as with the picture of the maize cobs), but the same arguments as for the pig stomachs may apply.

The idea that we don’t hear about this stuff in the media is ridiculous. All the links you have given me have been from the media. (None of them have been peer-reviewed original research articles.) Do a Google search for “GM food danger Daily Mail” and you get plenty of scare stories about GMOs from the Daily Mail, the British newspaper with apparently the second highest circulation (http://www.theguardian.com/....

Finally, where is the link between GMOs and people getting cancer? People get cancer. (I got cancer.) People have been getting cancer for far longer than GMOs have been around (http://www.plosone.org/arti....

There are several points in this article in which I think you are mistaken (but it’s going to take me a couple of comments to address them):

Saying that glyphosate is found in cattle that have eaten GM feed is relevant, but you should realise that glyphosate is the active compound in the herbicide Roundup. It is not produced by GM crops, and Roundup was being used before GM started (it was patented in 1974: http://worldwide.espacenet..... One specific genetic modification that has been performed quite widely is to make crops resistant to glyphosate so that the herbicide can be used to kill weeds that grow where the crops are grown. I fully acknowledge that this may be dangerous - Roundup isn’t very nice stuff - but the problem here is that using glyphosate-resistant crops has encouraged the use of Roundup. It is not the glyphosate-resistant crops, on their own, that are dangerous, and this is only one type of genetic modification. What about all the genetic modifications to increase tolerance to droughts, extreme temperatures or floods, or those that are able to use nitrogen more efficiently and so require less spraying with chemicals, or those that have increased nutritional content? The human population is almost certainly going to reach 9 billion by 2050 (http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/..., and those extra people deserve to be fed.

The “first long-term study of GMOs” that your article refers to has been retracted from the journal it was published in (http://www.elsevier.com/abo... because the number of rats in each treatment group was too small to lead to definitive conclusions. The type of rat used is one that has an extremely high incidence of tumour formation, and so it couldn’t be concluded that any differences in tumour incidence were not due to chance. Also, that study involved glyphosate-resistant maize, so even if the differences between the groups were significantly robust, it would be an indication that glyphosate may be dangerous and not necessarily that the GMO itself is dangerous. Essentially, the arguments that I made in the previous paragraph apply.

The section “Animals fed GMOs have sterile grandchildren” refers to a report (from 2010) of a study that still has not been published, which makes it difficult to authoritatively comment on the veracity of the claims, but the fact that the study hasn’t been published suggests either that the methodology was seriously flawed or biased or that the differences were most likely due to chance. From the description of the study, it sounds like hamsters were kept in families and forced to inbreed for several generations. In animals, each individual generally has two copies of each gene. If one copy of a particular gene has a mutation that makes that gene create a protein that doesn’t do the function it usually does, then that’s usually okay because the other copy of the gene compensates. But, if both copies of the gene have the same mutation, it can mean that no functional protein is made and the individual is compromised (for instance, by being infertile). Nearly every individual has several mutations in one copy of a gene that would be lethal if they were present in both copies of the gene. That’s normally fine, but if animals are being inbred, that becomes very important (http://onlinelibrary.wiley..... Sons and daughters have very similar genetic make-up to each other. When they are forced to breed, the offspring can end up with both copies of genes being of the mutant form. In this unpublished study with hamsters, it may be the case that, by chance, the sons and daughters of the hamsters fed GM soybean inherited mutant gene copies to the extent that their children were infertile, while, by chance, the hamsters fed non-GM soybean inherited normal gene copies. (The same argument applies to the mouth hair.)

Curcurmin would have helped reliever her from the brest cancer ....classic chemio only spreads it ...laser tech is better .;..careful when you buy " BIO foods" because BIO is latin for life ...whereas it doesn't indicate if it is artificial or not ....
another thing ...GMO wheat made in the 70's through natural strains only increased the production of gluten... Transgenetics hit the market in the 1980's with the rice and was abandonded , then it was the turn of corn that was and is still used for
making ethanol and fructose/glucose cornsurup which is used to sweeten everything unatural ... and promote type two diabetes... By the way , did you check to see what was in the "suppliments" ? last I read about them , theses were containing alot of carcenogenic additives ....some made from transgenetics....So to me ,it's not surprising ...if what she ate was truly BIO healthy , why take suppliments ?

I am so sorry for your loss! This is such an important fight. Thank you for your bravery and for exposing this atrocity.

I wish more people would wake up and do something about this major issue before it's too late. We have a much greater chance in numbers if we act before our food keeps degrading and there is less of us and we are weaker.

Are you a part of the one percent (1%) or think that you might be?

You are eating it too, join the resistance.

Wheat is gmo free. Learn something before u post

We are getting GMO in sweden this spring. So I am looking at moving.

I quit eating Kashi cereal and another one I can't remember the name of right now when I found out they support Monsanto. I don't eat dairy, meat, or drink sodas or juice. I drink artesian water, with either organic lemon juice, or bragg's apple cider vinegar in it. When I started eating only organic, and left aaaalll the food from the grocery store alone, I lost about 30 pounds, quick. I was overweight that much and thanks to reading about health, I figured out how to be healthy, no white bread, sugar, or flour. Organic fruits and vegetables only. No wheat in anything, cause its all GMO. You don't need a diet pill, just stop eating poison foods.

Bt rips apart the caterpillar's gut. The caterpillar's gut has a alkaline, pH > 7. The human gut ideally is pH 4, acid. Ergo, Bt is safe for humans.

One problem though - nature does not provide precise on / off switches. Bt does not suddenly become active at pH 7. Some humans have gut environments that are not sufficiently acidic. One consequence is inflammation. Another, susceptibility to Bt ripping holes in the intestines. The holes need not be gaping. The holes need only be large enough for larger than normal food particles to cross the intestine wall and engage the immune system.

A great many intractable, chronic human conditions trace back to nutritional density in our foods, to the composition of microflora in our gut, etc. Everything you eat either nourishes the colonies living in your degestive system, or damages them.

Force feed all Monsanto employees GMO foods and the company will change its policies quickly.

Hey steph r u hot

We have been down this road many times and it always ends badly for everything.

"Not so. Read the ancient Book of Enoch. Seems we may have been down this path before. The result was not beneficial for the human race."

Thank you for correcting me. You are correct. I should have said, for the first time in modern times".

"For the first time in history, bacteria, plants and animals can all be mixed up together. For example, right now the DNA of bacteria is put into food plants."

Not so. Read the ancient Book of Enoch. Seems we may have been down this path before. The result was not beneficial for the human race.

As I have said many times, I am not a $cientologist. I have never been a $cientologist. I merely do some techniques from the original books which boil down to helping someone find the cause of a problem, and removing it.

And if you aren't anti-vax by now, then you have haven't read enough. Know that they all contain mercury and formaldehyde, for which there is NO save level, and many contain cancer viruses (Ref: Horowitz on Vaccines, http://www.Tetrahedron.org).

I am a Christian who also uses Kinesiology and other techniques like clearing with a Biofeedback meter to help people solve their problems.

Cancer is not is virus: Cancer are cells that have mutated and are splitting at a dangerous speed. Vaccines are safe. The few vaccines (none designed for children) that use mercury use thimerosal mercury, which is not like the kind of mercury that stays in fish and humans, making them sick. Thimerosal mercury does not stay in the body, and you probably are more likely to get sick by the germs that the mercury kills than being sick from the safe mercury in it. Formaldehyde (methanol) is used to inactivate the virus or bacteria, without it you would get the flu from the flu shot. It is also used in very little amounts, so it passes through your body without consequence. If you have any more questions, see the following links. Thank you.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines...

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines...

https://www.healthychildren...

http://www.mayoclinic.org/d...

Wow, that is a lot of wrong in one post. Did you learn all of this from your Ouija board?