Trending >

Neil Young, GMOs and Monsanto: why the artist picked the wrong fight this time

MonsantoYears Neil Young’s 36th studio album “The Monsanto Years” is available now on his website via his own Pono digital music platform, as well as through iTunes and Amazon, and possibly even in fine record stores everywhere, or those that still exist.

You can probably guess what the record is about from the title, and also given Young’s track record of caustic and frequently insightful social criticism. Throughout his entire career, Neil Young has felt the need to both play and grind an axe.

Reviews for this record haven’t been particularly kind, though, not even from NPR.

To give you a taste of the content, Young sings, “Don’t say pesticides are causing autistic children / People want to hear about love” and “Yeah, I want a cup of coffee but I don’t want a GMO / I like to start my day off without helping Monsanto.”

There have been worse lyrics in pop music. “Ob-La-Di” by the Beatles comes to mind. But there’s a difference between harmless nonsense and nonsense that’s harmful.

Young explains his mission in a social media post, “Monsanto is a corporation with great wealth, now controlling over 90% of soybean and corn growth in America. Family farms have been replaced by giant agri corp farms across this great vast country we call home. Farm aid and other organizations have been fighting the losing battle against this for 30 years now.”

That is basically true, and if Young’s argument is essentially that everything will be fine if we all return to organic family farming and get rid of agribusiness, then that puts him in line with Prince Charles and Pete Seeger and a lot of other anti-modernity activists who wish that we’d never invented electricity and returned instead to chopping firewood and going to bed when it gets dark because there’d be no TV to keep us awake.

It’s a puritanical vision, fueled partly by a Norman Rockwell-ish nostalgia for a world that never existed except in fictional representations of the past and propaganda meant to stir up feelings against people who don’t fit into that folksy vision.

In Young’s case, it’s also fueled by a healthy anti-authoritarianism that goes off the rails by dividing the world into black hats and white hats, representing those who can do no right and those who can do no wrong.

However, it’s one thing to criticize Monsanto as a company and another thing entirely to make scientific claims about the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Monsanto does have a troubling history of bullying farmers through the legal and patent system and then spinning those cases so as to make them appear trivial.

But in staking out his argument against Monsanto, Young allies himself with all of the other fear-mongering nonsense of the anti-GMO and anti-vax crowd while also displaying contempt for science, which he regards as being firmly in the black hat camp. One of the founders of the movement, Mark Lynas, eventually found the issue to be many shades of grey.

The rise of “wellness” bloggers and “mindfulness” advocates like the Food Babe and Dr. Oz attests to the fact that nobody ever went broke playing on the fears and insecurities of the public while offering them half-baked nutritional advice, despite being frequently debunked.

Even Belle Gibson, the wellness blogger who was caught lying about having cancer in order to profit from selling the healthy diet that purportedly cured her, now claims that she was the primary victim of the circus that she created, and that she is now “traumatized” at having “lost everything” in the phony empire that she manipulated into existence.

So there are flakes and narcissists on one side, science and industry on the other, and Neil Young striding up the middle and presenting himself as a concerned artist/citizen singing on behalf of the little guy against authority and heartless corporations.

As much as he and the anti-GMO crowd like to present themselves as marginal outsiders, Neil Young’s beliefs are actually not that out of step with the mainstream.

A Pew Research Center poll earlier this year found that a “majority of the general public (57%) says that genetically modified (GM) foods are generally unsafe to eat, while 37% say such foods are safe; by contrast 88% of AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) scientists say GM foods are generally safe.”

How is it that the opinion of scientists are so dramatically out of step with laypeople? Scientists famously have a problem communicating scientific data and research to the general public. But that isn’t the entire problem.

The anti-GMO, anti-vax and anti-science people manipulate that inability extremely well, implying that science is just another opinion in a crowded field of opinions while incidentally making a pretty good living selling lifestyle advice to a public hungry for a quick fix.

Which would be fine if the science regarding genetically modified food wasn’t so clear.

“In order to maintain the position that GMOs are not adequately tested, or that they are harmful or risky, you have to either highly selectively cherry pick a few outliers of low scientific quality, or you have to simply deny the science.” – Dr. Steven Novella

In 2014, a paper was published by University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young in the Journal of Animal Science, laying out 29 years of data on livestock productivity and health, before and after the introduction of genetically engineered feed in 1996.

According to Van Eenennam, “The results have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals were comparable with those fed near isogenic non-GE lines and commercial varieties.”

Evaluating the report on his blog, Dr. Steven Novella writes, “We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There does not appear to be any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there could be any health effect on humans who eat those animals. In order to maintain the position that GMOs are not adequately tested, or that they are harmful or risky, you have to either highly selectively cherry pick a few outliers of low scientific quality, or you have to simply deny the science.”

Noting that Van Eenennam’s study merely joins the now overwhelming mass of evidence that for some reason has to joust with all of the conspiracy minded and half-baked “evidence” presented by the anti-GM crowd, Novella encourages readers to consult his comprehensive list of other animal feeding studies.

That certainly won’t be enough for GM opponents, though, who regard all opinions expressed by scientists as corporate propaganda delivered by mouthpiece schills “on the payroll” of big agribusiness.

No amount of actual evidence will ever convince people whose minds are already made up.

Songs, though, have a certain power to persuade. Or at least they do if they’re well-written and emotionally delivered. Think, for example, of “I Ain’t Marchin’ Anymore” by Phil Ochs or “Mississippi Goddamn” by Nina Simone or Verdi’s great anti-slavery anthem “Va penserio”.

Let’s just say that “The Monsanto Years” doesn’t rise to any of those standards, either artistically or politically, or even to those of Young’s own “Ohio”.

It should pain anyone who enjoys music to say an unkind word about Neil Young, one of Canada’s many great contributors to 20th century pop/rock, which revolutionized culture so significantly and profoundly at a time when the culture wanted change.

And credit the man who is still up to the task of writing songs with the ambition of changing society, damn the consequences, after so many of his peers gave up so long ago, content to parade their unchallenging back catalogue hits in front of audiences looking for a good time.

You don’t hear the Rolling Stones writing protest songs advocating their right to hunt foxes in the English countryside, or Paul McCartney singing about the Gulf of St. Lawrence seal hunt.

The best that can be said about Neil Young’s recent attempt at activism is that he’s preaching to the choir.

The more accurate way to describe “The Monsanto Years”, though, is that it’s music for an echo chamber.

Below: Neil Young + Promise Of The Real – A Rock Star Bucks A Coffee Shop (Official Music Video)

  •  
  •  
  •  

About The Author /

Comment

  1. Is it really “basically true” that Monsanto “controls” over 90% of the corn and soy markets? Or merely that they have earned over 90% of market share from farmers who choose the best seeds to purchase and plant? Also, how does Mr. Young define agri business corp farms vs family farms? The vast majority of farms in America are still family farms: “USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) defines family farms as those whose principal operator and people related to the principal operator by blood or marriage own most of the farm business… Under the ERS definition, family farms represent 97.6 percent of all U.S. farms and are responsible for 85 percent of U.S. farm production… In the United States and in other industrialized countries, where farms are much larger than the smallholder farms so common in developing countries, family farms still dominate agriculture, even as large and diversified corporations dominate many other industries. Most nonfamily farms in the United States, even the very large ones, look like family businesses in the sense that decision-making is concentrated in a small group of people with long ties to one another.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-march/family-farming-in-the-united-states.aspx#.VcSx6vlViko

  2. Terry, how can you have an article about Monsanto and GMO, genetically modified foods, without mentioning glyphosate? I guess the answer is you must ignore the scientific evidence of the danger to human health from eating glyphosate based Roundup in Roundup Ready GMO crops in order to make you point that GMOs are safe. Well, they are not safe. They are poisonous, and they are making people sick. Either you are ignorant of the facts, or you are complicit in the propaganda to make eating herbicide laced food a good thing. Either way, you’re a tool.

  3. ‘The Monsanto Years’ is a courageous album. It is not just about ‘preaching to the choir’. The writer of this article chooses to ridicule both the lyrics and their message but, glycophosphates are no joke, just ask the World Health Organization ! Farmers in the U.S. , Canada and around the world are being bullied by Monsanto and this man, Neil Young, has the courage to stand up to a souless megacorporation and try to inform the average citizen of the dangers of GMO’s and the company that has foisted this franken-seed upon us.There are studies, not commissioned by Monsanto, that show their GMO potatoes cause large tumours in lab animals, so in fact we do not know the long-term health effects of GMO food. Who cares if- ‘ you don’t hear the Rolling Stones writing protest songs ‘?What an inane comment and one of many made in this weak commentary.This writer has made a pathetic attempt to whitewash Monsanto and patronize Young. This great Canadian musician/songwriter, is continuing a long tradition ie. protest songs meant for raising the awareness of the listener through his gift of music. Kudos to Mr. Young!

  4. What about the chemicals they spray on the GMO’s and the people that live near the farms that are sprayed what about them? Do some research, those chemicals do kill many people, and those same chemicals are on the food we eat. How long do i have to wash GMO foods to be sure all the nasty chemicals are off?

  5. I Don’t really think that you understand the issue. Glyphosate resistant crops just changes the timing of the herbicide application not what herbicide is used. Glyphosate is the worlds number one herbicide even in countries that don’t grow GMOs. Glyphosate is popular because it works well, is very safe and degrades in the environment far quicker than other herbicides. For example you can replant any crop 48 hrs after a glyphosate application, but other herbicides like Pursuit you have to wait up to 3 years to plant susceptible crops.

  6. No one has ever died from a glyphosate application, people are harmed by insecticides and fungicides, glyphosate is a herbicide.

    “How long do i have to wash GMO foods to be sure all the nasty chemicals are off?”
    You dont, Glyphosate rarly makes it into any food products and if some is there it is such a tiny amount that it is not biologically relevant.

  7. Thank you for the information, i will still try my best to avoid GMO’s you can eat my share lets see who lasts the longest.

  8. I think it is possible that you don’t understand the issue. Yes, before GMO Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate could only be used to prepare the ground for planting. Now, it can be sprayed directly on the crop, and Roundup is enhanced glyphosate that gets inside the cells of the crop so it can’t be washed off. It does not degrade, it can be found in blood, urine, and breast milk, and it is destroying the friendly bacteria in our gut that enables digestion, detoxification, and vitamin production. A good place to begin to understand this, if you want to get better informed, is watching this bio engineer explain what glyphosate is.

    Thierry Vrain is a retired biologist and genetic engineer who went on a lecture Tour across Canada in 2013-2014, to raise public awareness about the link between engineered food and poor health.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiU3Ndi6itk

  9. Ok, but you do know that conventional crops have far more pesticides applied to them…..

  10. Roundup can’t be washed off. Not only is it being sprayed on GMO crops, it is used as a desiccant to make it easier to harvest crops like sugar cane. There is a outbreak of cancer in Costa Rica among farm workers harvesting sugar cane sprayed with Roundup. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/04/30/306907097/mysterious-kidney-disease-slays-farmworkers-in-central-america

    The World Health Organization has labeled glyphosate Roundup as a probable cause of cancer. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/24/394912399/a-top-weedkiiller-probably-causes-cancer-should-we-be-scared

  11. ” glyphosate could only be used to prepare the ground for planting.”

    Nope, glyphosate is commonly used preharvest for many non GMO crops, especially in Europe.

    “It does not degrade, it can be found in blood, urine, and breast milk”

    I does degrade 7 days in water and 40 days or so on land. It is not found in blood unless you drink it out of the jug, of course it is found in urine, that is how you get rid of it. It has never been found in breastmilk.

    “Thierry Vrain”

    He is an Organic farmer from Courtenay BC..

    “lecture Tour across Canada in 2013-2014”

    And he was paid by Who???

  12. I dont think that they use glyphosate as a desiccant for cane, they use fire.
    The WHO also qualifies orange and coconut oils as possible carcinogens.

  13. I have never worked for Monsanto or even bought any of their products. Oh I did buy Roundup a few years ago./

  14. Organics have more pesticides than conventional? Where did you get that “fact”?

  15. “There is a outbreak of cancer in Costa Rica among farm workers harvesting sugar cane sprayed with Roundup”
    when did CKD become cancer? And when, exactly, did they determine it was in fact due to glyphosate exposure?

  16. Of course he does. A well known shill.
    Well not Monsanto exactly – some sleazy back alley PR firm.

  17. Beware of trolls and shills. They are often changelings who pretend to have attributes different than they actually possess. They usually use imprecise language with an emotional connotation. If cornered, they name call and otherwise hiss like a cross between a python and a wolverine, but are easily eviscerated with logic and can be left on the compost pile to decompose into their constituent chemicals, putrescine and cadaverine.

  18. Ken, can you please tell me why CKD is not cancer? Can you cite evidence that the CKD in Costa Rica is attributed to glyphosate. Or, can you just make shill accusations. #3, that’s what I thought.

  19. Yes, commercial Organic farmers use more pesticides than conventional farmers. It is just common sense, it you use less effective pesticides you have to use more of them more often. There is no magic in farming, just because you are all natural, doesn’t mean that the insects will not eat your crop.

  20. So you read all those studies and came to the conclusion that they are, as Monsanto shills say, junk science. Or B, Typical shill knee jerk reaction that any scientific research suggesting that GMOs are not safe most be immediately be retracted. Hyper, just give up already you a few vasdtly outnumbered and starting to look very desprate.

  21. that is a cut and paste from something Cletus sent me the other day. So, is the sockpuppet chain grinninglibber==.Ken Gallaher==Cletus DeBunkerman==>Ted Miner (the one troll to control them all)?

  22. Read them all, many times. Do you think that this is my first day on this rodeo circuit?

  23. So, Hyper, if you are so familiar with all those studies, please inform us how each one is flawed, because if you can’t, YOUR A LIAR

  24. How about you show something about how glyphosate is dangerous from something other than an activist site?

  25. Do you actually think organic farms repel weeds and insects via good intentions?

    How do you think organic farmers deal with weeds and insects?

  26. Ok.
    First claim is not even a study, just some farmer complaining.
    Second one was retracted,,,Not looking so good so far.
    Third one was debunked by the Indian Government and even the reporter that first published it… And it is not a study either.
    Forth one has no evidence whatsoever, so not even a real study.
    5 th is Benbrooks study which has been proven incorrect by newer studies that did not “Interpolate” herbicide use.

  27. Yep. It’s a small family. The tree probably doesn’t have any branches, either.

  28. More like organic propane in the flame weeder.

    And lots of soil erosion and dead soil biota from dragging the field cultivator around. Surely the tractor runs on 100% biodiesel, though, right?

  29. When I first read this comment, I thought you said “Sane” person, and I thought your account was hacked….
    Got to lay off the wine coolers.

  30. …just give up already you a few vasdtly outnumbered and starting to look very desprate.”

    Ignoring the obvious spelling errors, can you offer anything that remotely supports your claim?

  31. I Love GMO, it last longer than Organics, they are cheaper, the
    bugs won’t eat it, and it taste like science, BUT I have a hard time
    finding GMOs since they are not labeled. Please label them, so I can
    find the GMO food I love.
    It’s not fair, Organic consumers get special labels

    I demand equal labels for GMO consumers.
    Thank You.

  32. I normally never comment on politics, in the US or Canada (Canadian politics is even more boring than watching paint dry), But I am calling the US presidential election Carly F for the win.

  33. Well, the European royalty thought for a long time a good solid trunk was best. Then they all got hemophilia.

  34. Any bets on whether the WHO ever releases that IARC document?

    If they do then the global toxicology community will get to see exactly what citations this group used to come to their ‘conclusions’

  35. Terrific description! You hit the corrupt nail square on the head.

    Where have I seen that one before.

    LOL!!

  36. It was supposed to have happened in July & here wer are in August….. radio silence from the IARC.

    I’m not taking the bet that it gets released.

  37. The World Heath Organization has declared Roundup/glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

    Purdue Professor Dr. Don Huber explains even though glyphosate is an herbicide, it was first patented as a mineral chelator. It mobilizes nutrients so that your body cannot absorb them. Since glyphosate was also patented as an antibiotic, it does double damage.

    He says: “When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria fill that void, because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.”

    So glyphosate, which has been patented as both a mineral chelator and an antibiotic, both of which have tremendous implications, is being used willy nilly all over the world. All the while, the agencies which are supposed to protect public health continue to look the other way.

    The scientific journal Entropy, it was stated: “Contrary to the current widely-held misconception that glyphosate is relatively harmless to humans, the available evidence shows that glyphosate may rather be the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.

    So gobble down your food filled with hidden roundup laden GMOs. More tasty carcinogen in every spoonful.

  38. You own me? I don’t think so. So you’re going to troll me now, after Jason gave you a good schooling the past couple of days. Shocking.

  39. You cite the AAAS pew survey that is a piece of PR designed disinformation designed to deceive the public about the actual facts.

    The AAAS sponsored Pew study in the piece were commenting on you are on very shaky ground if you want to see it validated.

    It was a survey and not a study and the scientists were self selecting and they used a different polling methodology for the non scientists.

    Of those 88% how many are food safety or health experts? See when I look at Q42 I see that most of them have no food safety or health background, they are mostly agricultural or social scientists, etc.

    In comparison, at a 2014 Queen’s University Belfast ASSET conference, where about 350 scientists, regulators and industry representatives involved in food safety were scheduled to attend, a survey of the audience found 44% were pro GM, 37% were opposed to GM and 17% were neutral. An opinion poll of the same group, at the end, found 40% were pro GM, 42% were opposed to GM and 17% were neutral. Keep in mind that some of the audience were industry representatives and probably have a conflict of interest, but these numbers for experts on food safety and health are much closer to the numbers for the general public compared to the AAAS scientists. http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/safety-gm-food-consumption-yet-proven/

    So why are the opinions of the AAAS scientists so different than the actual food safety experts? It is likely that most AAAS scientists have little knowledge of GMOs and have formed their opinion of GMOs based on an earlier AAAS position statement. This earlier position statement was voted on by the chair of the board at the time who is a biotechnologist with a conflict of interest having worked with biotech companies Sigma Aldrich and Evogene. The remaining members who voted included another biotechnologist, an entrepreneur, an astrophysicist and a pyschologist. So it would seem these scientists who voted on this AAAS position statement were either biased and/or in fields not related to food safety or health either.

    When we look at actual groups that are experts in food and nutrition, medicine and public health we see a very different story. For example :

    Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: “Biotechnology in the form of genetic engineering, commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms, has produced some crops that are biofortified, chemically resistant, and/or pest resistant. There is no consensus on the benefit or harm of this approach and more research is needed to determine the impact on human and environmental health.”
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672%2813%2900128-7/fulltext

    Dozens of other food and nutrition, medical and public health groups make similar statements. http://www.gmofreeusa.org/research/gmo-safety/

  40. You cite the Van Eenennaam feeding study.

    That is the infamous Public Relations based 100 billion animal study that prove nothing about the long term effects of consuming pesticide laden GMOs in humans

    This bogus study was done by a Monsanto “scientist” who assigned patients to Monsanto, it was peer reviewed by Monsanto controlled scientists and published in a Monsanto controlled publication. It is the same study highlighted in this piece to try and make a corrupt devious dishonest point.

    The animals were mostly broiler chickens which were slaughtered at 49 days of age, with the rest being cattle none of which lived a full natural life.

    The executive summary statements were not supported by the body of the study and no serious independent scientist will take it seriously.

    FACT is there are no studies that prove pesticide laden GMOs are safe for long term human consumption.

  41. This is simply a poorly re-written GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber press release. The citations are all for widely discredited by serious ethical scientist. You can see the details in my other comments.

    This piece is not journalism. It is corrupt GMO pesticide industry propaganda designed to confuse and deceive the public by using cooked jun pseudo-science.

  42. You and the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon squad members have been trying to goon Truth Tellers off these threads for years now.

    We can all recognize obsession when we see it.

    Troll on …..

  43. Well, I haven’t been on these threads for years, so there is just another untruth from the self-professed truth teller.
    But, once again, you trolled me, so I think we know who has the obsession.

  44. Maybe you are a johnny come late to the obsession, but you have caught the addiction fast and quick since you started working for the industry liars club.

  45. “since you started working for the industry liars club”
    more untruth from the self-professed truth teller. No industry ties. Oh well. Keep those untruths coming, “truth teller”

  46. Ha, Ha, Ha, that’s a good one.

    Keep doubling down on the lies. That way people know they are dealing with the real Michael.

  47. Doubling down on the lies, well, I think I’ve shown that to be you. Good job on outing yourself further.

  48. The “troll on” meme already? Wow. You do know that you have an option in life, and that is to not post comments to people that cause you such mental anguish that your only recourse is to accuse them of trolling? Well, I’m sure you’re aware, you just seem to enjoy punishment. Masochists…SMH.

  49. IARC has assigned the same sort of carcinogenic rating to many things they have looked at, including working the night shift, the process of frying foods, and wood burning fireplaces. They work on the basis of finding hazards, and risk analysis is secondary to their mandate. The BfR did more extensive review of the accumulated information on glyphosate, did a risk assessment, and they found no evidence of “carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development”
    Entropy. Samsel and Seneff. A good representation of the depths that some so-called scientific publishers will sink to in return for a cheque. It is referred to a pay to play publishing, or the kiss of death to the scientific career of new researchers that fall for their tactics. Please contact a first year microbiology student to read that for you to pick out the most egregious errors. Mitochondria in bacteria! The gut is an aerobic environment! In just one paragraph! Snort.

  50. I’m not the one that started with someone, again. So, why should I stop making you look like a loon?

  51. All the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon squad members try and spin it away too.

    There is much more than simply cancer associated with Roundup/glyphosate.

    WHO Glyphosate Report Ends Thirty Year Cancer Cover Up
    http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/26/who-glyphosate-report-ends-thirty-year-cancer-cover-up/

    Glyphosate herbicide induces genotoxic effect and physiological disturbances in Bulinus truncatus snails
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357515000279

    Glyphosate
    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SS-glyphosate.php

    Chronic Kidney Failure 5 Times Higher in Glyphosate-Ridden (Monsanto Roundup) Areas, Study Confirms
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/chronic-kidney-failure-5-times-higher-in-glyphosate-ridden-monsanto-roundup-areas-study-confirms/5434947

    Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity
    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh-rtecs/mc106738.html

    Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X12003459

    Glyphosate affects the spontaneous motoric activity of intestine at very low doses
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357514000947

    Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X09003047

    An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668914001227

    A step further toward glyphosate-induced epidermal cell death: Involvement of mitochondrial and oxidative mechanisms
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668912000300

    A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233311003341

    Studies on glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity in mouse skin: A proteomic approach
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187439190900390X

    Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: Involvement of glutamate excitotoxicity
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X14000493

    The herbicide glyphosate causes behavioral changes and alterations in dopaminergic markers in male Sprague-Dawley rat
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X14002162

    Glyphosate-induced stiffening of HaCaT keratinocytes, a Peak Force Tapping study on living cells
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047847712000597

    Glyphosate (Roundup) Carcinogenic In the PARTS PER TRILLION Range
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-glyphosate-roundup-carcinogenic-parts-trillion-range

  52. If you are stating that you are continuing to troll, then I will agree with your statement.

  53. Nice Gish gallop. You can copy and paste, but I’ll bet that you didn’t verify or understand any one of those sources. For instance, “Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity” gives a CDC NIOSH bulletin as a source. Nothing to do with ethoxylated adjuvants.

  54. TRANSLATION: Gish gallop = any study or other valid information that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda. GMO pesticide industry disinformation goons use this term to try and dismiss truthful information instead of dealing with information they can not refute.

  55. Video boy, INL hockey players, if you made that far…..are not really anyone would pay attention to….. .

  56. I just pointed out that one of your bits of “valid” and “truthful” information had absolutely nothing to do with what it claimed. I have wasted too much of my time reading and rebutting GreenMedInfo to trust that anything that is written by Sayer Ji. I doubt that he has encountered a paper anywhere that he can’t twist into a conclusion unrecognizable by the original authors. I have posted quotes from the original paper that directly contradict what he claims, but like you, he manages to ignore evidence pointing out that he is glaringly wrong. As for your other sources of information, if I am going to read science fiction, I think I’ll go back to reading The Martian. It is far more entertaining and plausible.

  57. All the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon squad members agree with you.

    You are not “debating science” and it is disingenuous to claim that you are. You are using science, selectively, to promote a corrupt GMO pesticide industry political agenda.

    Smart readers will look at the science represented in my links instead of letting corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber BS tell them what to think.

  58. Scientifically literate people agree with me. Nice to know. Smart readers look at your links, see the glaring flaws in your cherry picked studies and scrape them off their proverbial shoes. The big difference between thee and me? If I ever see any good reproducible science backing up your contentions, I will cheerfully change my mind. You, on the other hand, could have a host of angels deliver an immaculately conceived, irrefutable proof that GMO crop technology is as safe as conventional crops, and you would dismiss the angels as GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon squad members. A mind chiseled in stone is a terrible waste.

  59. I don’t care what you think, Vera. You have already decided that your are right. I’m ok with that, but I won’t sit back and let you run your disinformation game with out challenging you on the facts.

    We all know Monsanto pays scientists to do their disinformation. http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16340

    You still haven’t commented on the substance included with the links on glyphosate, remember? …. 😉

  60. You can’t even get my name right. Way to help your credibility. Proof that Monsanto pays me? Please produce it. The IRS and Revenue Canada would love to know. Your complete absence of any evidence hasn’t stopped you from making repeated false accusations. Using false accusations as an argument is not only intellectually weak and lazy, but that defect in your moral compass does far more to discredit you and your sources than any debunking I could ever do.

  61. Sorry about your name. I must not have been impressed enough with your industry BS to remember it.

    Maybe you can give me ONE study that shows long term consumption of cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs is safe for humans.

    The rest of your attempts to defect and deceive aren’t worth responding to here.

  62. I Love GMO, it last longer than Organics, they are cheaper, the
    bugs won’t eat it, and it taste like science, BUT I have a hard time
    finding GMOs since they are not labeled. Please label them, so I can
    find the GMO food I love.
    It’s not fair, Organic consumers get special labels

    I demand equal labels for GMO consumers.
    Thank You.

  63. I Love GMO, it last longer than Organics, they are cheaper, the
    bugs won’t eat it, and it taste like science, BUT I have a hard time
    finding GMOs since they are not labeled. Please label them, so I can
    find the GMO food
    It’s not fair, Organic consumers get special labels

    I demand equal labels for GMO consumers.
    Thank You.

  64. I Love GMO, it last longer than Organics, they are cheaper, the
    bugs won’t eat it, and it taste like science, BUT I have a hard time
    finding GMOs since they are not labeled. Please label them, so I can
    find the GMO food I love.
    It’s not fair, Organic consumers get special labels

    I demand equal labels for GMO consumers.
    Thank You.

  65. I Love GMO, it last longer than Organics, they are cheaper, the
    bugs won’t eat it, and it taste like science, BUT I have a hard time
    finding GMOs since they are not labeled. Please label them, so I can
    find the GMO food I love very much.
    It’s not fair, Organic consumers get special labels

    I demand equal labels for GMO consumers.
    Thank You.

  66. I Love GMO, it last longer than Organics, they are cheaper, the
    bugs won’t eat it, and it taste like science, BUT I have a hard time
    finding GMOs since they are not labeled. Please label them, so I can
    find the GMO food I love.
    It’s not fair, Organic consumers get special labels

    I demand equal labels for GMO consumers.
    Thank You.

  67. Beware of trolls. They
    are often changelings who pretend to have attributes different than they
    actually possess. They usually use imprecise language with an emotional
    connotation. If cornered, they name call and otherwise hiss like a cross
    between a python and a wolverine, but are easily eviscerated with logic and can
    be left on the compost pile to decompose into their constituent chemicals,
    putrescine and cadaverine.

  68. And, I offer as proof of changeling trolls, sir_ken_g, AKA grinninglibber, kengallaher and Kenneth Gallaher. He also likes to c/p and make shill accusations, but never adds anything of value to the thread. Typical TROLL.

  69. Dear Jacek, We both agree, it would be marvelous if all GMO foods were labled. Please write to your govt. representatives and sign petitions to ensure all GMO foods are labeled! Most people who have read the research would not choose to eat franken-food nor enjoy the bitter ‘taste of science’,as you call GMO food. Compare it to organic, if you try non GMO foods, you will taste the sweet difference.

  70. Wow. You really don’t have a clue do you? Do you have any idea what percentage of GMO food crops are herbicide tolerant? Clearly you don’t based on your comments in this thread. Herbicide tolerant means they are genetically engineered to be sprayed repeatedly over their growth cycle with glyphosate.
    Glphosate does not break down in 7 days. It takes years! And yes it has been found in great milk, the water table, honey, soil and even in the air.
    BTW, the answer is between 80 and 90% of GMI food crops are HT which means you will find them loaded with glyphosate. Its also used as a dessicating agent in about 85% of the wheat grown in the US… So I hope you like eating herbicides because you’ll get lots of them in your food these days…

  71. Matt you really have no clue. All crops are resistant to at least one herbicide, some are resistant to many. Herbicides have been used on crops for over 80 years now. There are also Non GMOs that have been bred to be resistant to specific herbicides, check out Clearfield crops.
    Glyphosate is used rarely in North America for a wheat desiccant less than 10% of wheat, it is used mostly in Northern Europe about 45% of wheat and barley. In North America we normally have warm dry autumns, so you don’t need a desiccant, the wheat dries on its own. Why waste money on a dessicant if it is not needed.

  72. “The anti-GMO, anti-vax and anti-science people manipulate that inability extremely well, implying that science is just another opinion in a crowded field of opinions while incidentally making a pretty good living selling lifestyle advice to a public hungry for a quick fix.”

    Couldn’t explain it any better. Keep up the good work, Terry Dawes!

  73. “All crops are resistant to at least one herbicide,” Total BS
    I see you conveniently skirted the issue that more than 80% of GMO food crops are specifically bread to be herbicide tolerant (liberally sprayed with herbicides such as glyphosate). In other words when we eat them we are getting a good dose of herbicides.
    But anything you say has been bought and paid for by agritech interests so there is really no point in listening to you. You post using a fake name and rely on fake information…

  74. “All crops are resistant to at least one herbicide,”

    It is true.

    Wheat, barley, rice, early corn, rye, are all resistant to 2-4-D.

    All Corn is resistant to the Triazine family of herbicides.

    Soy is resistant to quizalofop and many others

    Tomatoes are resistant to Treflan and others

    Alfalfa is resistant to Raptor

    All Clearfield (Non GMO) crops are resistant to Pursuit.

    You get less herbicide on the crops on average with GMOs than without, and both glyphosate and Libertylink (Glufosinate-ammonium) are better for the environment than the alternatives.

  75. “All crops are resistant to at least one herbicide,” Total BS

    Name a crop that isn’t resistant to a herbicide. I was thinking there might be one, perhaps something like strawberries where they are often grown in raised beds planted in plastic–but then I googled “strawberry herbicide and found this:

    http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/weed_control_at_strawberry_renovation

    My 30 years of farming experience can’t think of one, so can you enlighten me? What crop is there that isn’t resistant to at least one herbicide?

  76. Thanks J.R. I was hoping that there was a herbicide for strawberries, and cranberries. I had to look it up but Cranberry farmers use Callisto.

  77. A retired biologist? That’s hardly relevant. What would be relevant is any independent academic research he has authored (or co-authored) on the subject that has been subjected to the rigors of peer review.

    A title only (retired biology and genetic engineer) is to put forth the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority. Even a lecture posted on YouTube doesn’t cut it. A journal article with academic peer review and open access to data is where the evidence would be, if there is any.

    So, does this Thierry Vrain have any such research? If not, then is he positing his theses on this type of research? If so, please inform us.

  78. Nicely done.
    I think this article sums up the hive-mind, group-think approach of the entertainment and media industry. They collectively lack any real ability to understand and evaluate the science. Consequently they exist in a relativistic world, where perception is reality and if ‘everyone’ is saying it, then it must be true.

  79. Terry,

    It must be that you are simply trying to get lots of social media activity by writing such a controversial post. That must be it…

    Or maybe you draw income as a copywriter from and/or are a spokesperson for ‘agri-business’, or the GMA or some corporate other entity in the food chain? Maybe you are a stockholder in Monsanto or one of the other biotech firms?

    What is YOUR science background? And you have a PhD in which science?

    Question: Are you in favor of GMO labeling?

    You like GMO tech, fair enough, label it so we can all choose if we want to eat it or not – at the point of sale. That’s not the scary part for GMO mfrs, although their sales would drop significantly based on polls showing the percentage of consumers who don’t want to eat GMO.

    The real kicker for GMO producers is the liability link. If they label gmo’s that will create a direct link for potential lawsuits when more widespread illness sets in. Right now there is nothing connecting the dots and the Monsanto lawyers, FDA guys (who used to work for Monsanto) and lobbyists all know this.

    Just got a very interesting email from mercola.com today in fact. You might consider reading the article and check out the science sources linked in the article below to address your own comments above:

    “However, it’s one thing to criticize Monsanto as a company and another thing entirely to make scientific claims about the dangers of genetically modified foods.

    and further…

    But in staking out his argument against Monsanto, Young allies himself with all of the other fear-mongering nonsense of the anti-GMO and anti-vax crowd while also displaying contempt for science, which he regards as being firmly in the black hat camp.”

    Here is the link and you can verify the validity of the research yourself.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/01/gmos-herbicides-public-health.aspx?e_cid=20150901Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150901Z1&et_cid=DM84417&et_rid=1099917070

    I am not an anti-technology and never display a contempt for science – only BAD SCIENCE and unproven technology. The people WHO SUPPORT GMO are the ones who have to prove the safety and the validity of the technology NOT THE COMSUMERS.

    I am not certain how an intelligent and reasonable man can support GMO and Monsanto, if you sincerely look at the research – not including Monsanto’s own internal stuff.

    I would love to hear what you think about the quality of the science in the article mentioned and what your views about GMO labeling are.

    My suspicion is that you will not respond to this comment. But I bet a lot of readers would like to hear your answers.

    It might help you to save face, a little.

    I have no idea if Neil Young’s new recording is any good or not. But I have respect for someone who does not hide behind a laptop acting like he cares about technology and people.

    Regards

    Michael Barrett

  80. I want to apologize to the readers here for the unnecessary noise..

    Someone has created a fake disqus profile that
    impersonates me and is posting here.

    I have flagged all the posts and reported the abusive profile to disqus.

    Flagged…..

  81. Someone said their was a troll with a fake profile impersonation another user.

    Flagged, impersonation, violation of disqus tos.

  82. It pretty obvious to smart people that when the corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon squad members need to sink so low because of their paranoia and desperation that they know they are losing on the issues. The Ketchum PR scripts are no longer working.

  83. There is no problem with scientists conveying information to the general public, there is a problem with lies and propaganda being told the the general public! GMO’s cause tumors and digestive disruption resulting in sick immune systems and growth of cancer! This article was clearly written as propaganda for untested unproven vaccine Big Pharma! We see you!

  84. Glyphosate in our food? You think that is healthy? Modified DNA that disrupts human DNA is good? Monsanto is destroying nature and they have no respect for the stability designed into living organisms! When people get good food and healthy living conditions, disease is low! Why are women giving birth to microcephaly children after receiving Dtap vaccine during pregnancy? Chemicals injected into our bodies that contain Mercury, Aluminum and cancer causing agents is wrong and harmful to humans! GcMaf research reveals the evil of vaccine lies!

  85. What about the farmer having to buy seed and not being able to save them? That seems to be a big problem with gmo’s, it seems rather disingenuous to claim they are helping farmers with science but it seem to be more about selling a product. If farmers breed their own seeds then there are thousands of different varieties that result from this type of breeding so a pandemic would not wipe out the entire line either, that is a type of security that can offset any gains from a gmo that would be bound to one corporation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RELATED POSTS