Poison on the Platter

Poison on the PlatterPoison on the Platter, is an eye-opening film, made by Mahesh Bhatt and Ajay Kanchan, illustrating how all of our lives are gonna be (adversely) affected by genetically modified foods.

It is no more a farmer’s issue alone, it’s a matter of the consumers’ right to food safety. You and I wouldn’t even be able to separate/choose a normal Brinjal from/over a GM one, if Bt Brinjal - a GM crop produced by the mighty agri-MNC Monsanto - is let through by our corrupt regulatory body.

Let’s put up strong resistance, demanding a ban on GM food/crops for 5 years, until they are proven safe for human consumption by independent, long-term studies.

Watch the full documentary now

Ratings: 7.78/10 from 36 users.

More great documentaries

59 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Peter

    what a cr*p-load of nonsense, its also called quackery and pseudoscience from idi*ts and mor*ns produced for idi*ts and mor*ns. Just plain awful ...

  2. JR

    If they(the scientist) won't gm why should we.

  3. Mick

    The reason crops are genetically modified is to make them resistant to glyphosate (roundup), which kills everything else, including you and me. Therefore GMO's contain glyphosate and this is the real poison in our food. In my opinion GMO is more of a distraction than the problem.

  4. Paal Dinessen

    Fascinating statement that american are healthy with GMO=I recently read that 62.4% of Americans who go bankrupt is a direct consequence of poor health, That is a very scary number and speaks in volume of personal tragedy and pain beyond belief. American longevity is on a 38 ranking in the world (and dropping fast) and that is with the highest health costs per ca-pita in the world 17% of GDP. Life expectancy at birth in the USA, is 50th in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations, as you might know if you poison the foetus in the womb the chances are high that it will die young, Also forget genetics, Children eat what their parents eat, so a father and mother die from eating processed death food so will their offspring die from processed Death food around the same time in their shortened, sad, obese and sick life spans. I sincerely believe there are only two types of people on this planet of ours (These two distinct types have absolutely nothing to do with: being Rich or Poor, White or Black, Old or Young, Live in a city or in the country, Tall or short, Religious or Not). The difference is between knowing and not knowing – being Healthy or Sick – being Intelligent or Dumb:

    Either KNOWING: Living a long healthy, Untroubled, Euphoric, Joyful Happy Life and passing away naturally.


    NOT KNOWING: Living a Short Unhealthy, Obese and Unhappy life, probably to die a horrendously painful unspeakable gruesome death.

  5. Anonymous

    Comments: Something said when people think others give a damn what they think

  6. Ed

    are you folks aware that you have been eating GM foods for 20 years???? why do the uninformed fear mongering idiots continue to treat GM foods as something that is new?? the organic food industry is the best scam going right now. Oh well, it has made me a lot of money so I won't complain.

  7. Richard Shannon

    I was going to watch, but the comments made me hesitate. I read the description of the doc (gonna & the consumers' rights??) If I am going to watch a supposed serious scientific documentary, I expect more than text chat English and grammar errors.

    1. joe blow

      That an ignorant reason to not be informed. It's a serious subject ... keep on keepin' on with YOUR food choices.

  8. Guest

    you wonder why our goverment doesnt gave a S^^^ about the safety of GM crops or food supply...our 'friends' with top positions in government and regulatory agencies are no more than former Monsanto employees.

  9. Laszlo Groh

    What a load of rubbish.
    This film starts off with the WWII nuclear bombings of Japan, the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, and then moves onto the Indian girl that performs for money. All of these are non sequiturs and are intentional plays on the emotion. They have nothing at all to do with the matters discussed in this film, and are merely added to make people emotional or angry. Good psychology, but very irresponsible journalism.

    We are also told at the begining of the film that all the information in this film presents "incontrovertible scientific evidence, appearing in some of the best known peer reviewed scientific journals", yet, there are no references to these papers anywhere in the film, not even in the credits. After watching this "film" I went on PubMed to see if any of the so called facts presented here could hold up to their claims, I found no such papers. The majority of the papers actually seem to point to the general safty of GM (in particular Bt). I only skimmed through the abstracts so I won't be giving references, but go ahead search for these papers on PubMed yourself.

    Further more. GM foods, in particular the corn, soya, potatoes, etc. for the most part are only limited to animal feed, so when they say "we are all eating GM foods", they mean that we eat it only after it has been processed by animals. The chances that "toxins" remains in the steak are riduclously low. Under that logic, everytime we eat a steak, we are getting a mouthfull of grass.

    Next, Bt is a protein, and most GM plants are made to produce enzymes or antibodies, all of which are proteins. Now when a protein enters our digestive tract, we break it down into the amino acids that form the protein in question. What this means is that the protein doesn't exist anymore, only the amino acids that make it are there, and so the protein CAN'T do anything to you after it has been digested. This is basic biology.
    Now there are some cases on which a protein may cause a reaction even after consumption, but this is rare, and there are a myraid of experiments that are conducted in order to make sure that this does not, and can not occur. These rules are applicalbe to the metabolite variety of GMO's (a metabolite generally isn't broken down and has functionality after consumption; like vitamins).

    The StarLink corn issue was a mistake, it was intended for animal use only, yet through various regulatory problems it entered into human products. I didn't both researching the supposed allergic reaction it caused because I don't have time right now, nor do I think it reflects on the saftey of GM as it was not intended for humans.

    I won't even get started on the people that they chose to put in this film, very few seemed credable. I would never trust a relegious guru to give advice on scientific studies unless he has a credible degree and conducts research himself. And I won't even get started on large amount of logical fallacies in this film.

    Trust science, be skeptical, and don't be fooled by conspiracy and intentional charlatianism.


    1. A B

      Oh, so you want to eat genetically modified food that is totally unnatural and unproven to be safe?

      You actually trust these corporations?? Are you NUTS??!!

      A lot of the information is suppressed and studies that are not supportive of GMO are probably not published. The world is corrupt and these corporations have the money to buy politicians and threaten people who want to expose the truth. You think everything is okay just because you went on Pubmed? You need a little bit more common sense.

      Did you know that Monsanto was fined for BRIBING government officials to refrain from doing scientific studies on the environmental impact of GM cotton?

      Don't trust biased science studies backed by billion dollar corporations, be skeptical and don't be fooled by the lies, propaganda and brainwashing force-fed to us by the media.

    2. Laszlo Groh

      Define natural. Technically we've been modifying the genes of plants, and animals, for centuries, is that natural? So majority of the food you eat today, both animal, plant, or fungi, have had their genes modifyed from their "wild-type" state. All living organisms contradict the laws of physics, so is life itself natural?- this is known as the naturallistc fallacy.

      Which corporations? I never talked about such corporations nor stated that I trust them. - straw man, and a bit of non sequitur, with a pinch of ad hominem.

      Oh information is suppressed is it? And studies that are not supportive of GMO are probably not published?
      Prove it. Give me credible references to those statements. Without proof, you are either lying or delusional. I'm not biting your conspiracy bullocks.

      No, I'm sorry mate, but PubMed is amoung the most reliable source for credible, peer-reviewed journals and publications with regards to all subjects biological. There actually are very few other websites that are more trust worthy than PubMed. So yes I do think everything is okay. Try doing credible research yourself.

      Your quote about Monsanto is known as cherry picking, again another fallacy.

      " - be skeptical and don't be fooled by the lies, propaganda and brainwashing force-fed to us by the media. - " Take your own advise mate.

      Prehaps instead of drawing out red herring fallacies, why not actually argue the science of GMO for use as food? Or maybe you are not qualified to argue scientific facts?


    3. sknb

      It's true. Pub Med is awesome. I was recently diagnosed with an endocrine disorder that 10% of American women have and up to 33% of British women have. No one knows the cause. That really annoys me so of course I turn to the internet and find fear mongering everywhere... I chose to turn to PubMed for my research knowing the science was there to back me. One of the things that I like is that with Pub Med (and good science) they must reveal what they think the flaws in their own study are. Very often it is small sample size.
      This may seem off track but some people have claimed that PCOS is caused by changes in food supply.Regardless....I would love it if you could post the articles on Pub Med about GM food. I think it would be a good idea to show everyone. I haven't made up my mind about GM food yet because I don't decide something until I see the science.

      However from an American perspective it does seriously feel that the food system is trying to kill us. The number one determiner of obesity in the United States is poverty. In a few years, over half of minority children will be obese. High Fructose Corn Syrup FLOODS our markets and most people don't know anything about how harmful it is - especially to children. The reason it is so common is because our government gives subsidies to grow corn- so it is in everything. I know this because I teach adults English in economically depressed areas and I see them giving Cola to their BABIES often. Not sometimes, but OFTEN. The meat is flooded with Nitrates and Ammonia. The cows are not even fed grass so they get sick and need antibiotics. Hormones are everywhere. People are uneducated about food and where it comes from. Two popular types of plastic have been determined to be harmful to the endocrine system and pregnant women have been warned not to use BPA plastic (commonly found in disposable water bottles). The problem with BPA? It is in 95% of Americans bloodstream and when pregnant mice with BPA in their system give birth their babies become prone to diabetes and cancer (Duke University). A lot of these changes are epigenetic (The methylation or demethylation of DNA)- meaning that the environment changes our genes and then we pass those changes on. SO..... you can see where from an American perspective those of us who know these things are scared and angry and get freaked out about further corporate/ governmental control of our food supply. It's true - in respects to food and food safety the people who ran the corporations are now the ones who are supposed to be regulating it. All of the things I have just stated have serious scientific studies backing them up.

      SO. The jury may be out regarding GMO foods, but forgive us for being skeptical.

    4. Jeremy Hughes

      Check out the Documentary, Fat Sick and Nearly Dead, I feel it is the root of most of these illnesses.

    5. Laszlo Groh

      Sorry I was unaware that people would be replying to such an old post. I wonder if you'll even see mine?

      I can understand why American's may be concerned about the safety of their food suppiles, your government makes me go insane at times myself. However the American people are very prone to turn concern, skepticism, and healthy criticism into fear, paranoia, and conspiracy.

      For example hormones in meat serve little to no risk to humans for two main reasons; 1. we don't have the receptors that are needed for them to maintain functionality in our bodies, 2. when we cook the meat, we denature the protein, thus causing it to lose effectivity. Same for antibiotics in food (although I have read that some don't denature so readily in heat). Furthermore we have to ask, what's the danger in eating meat with antibiotics in it?

      A true scary story is that of the famine in Zambia (2002). Due to fear mongering of GM food, being refered to as "poison", the Zambian government regected the donation of GM food for fear of "causing more harm than good". They had no evidence to support the regection and mostly relied on the suggestions of others. However the crops have been grown and eaten successfully in many countries, with no people getting sick or ill, and they still regected it on the bases of it being "poison".
      This is the flip side to the paranoia of GM food. Maybe GM food could be harmful, but it has the potential to be a life saver We may never get to know, or put it to utility where/when it is needed simply because of 1st world citizens spreading misinformation, and encouraging world leaders to avoid a potential life saver!

      Yes you should be skeptical of the claims that your government makes, but you should also be skeptical of claims made any and everyone. If it sounds like fear mongering, it probably is. And I suggest taking a look at the facts, not the conspiracy, with regards to GM food. I personally think it could save our planet, and may truely be the way to end starvation worldwide!! At least I like to hope.

    6. chetep

      Ok, the doc isn't too credible, but neither are many of your assertions...

      For a start, PubMed is operated by US Federal Govt. which is in turn owned by corporate lobbyists, thus " The majority of the papers actually seem to point to the general safty of GM". Your animal feed argument and mention of StarLink skim over the cross-fertilisation, commercial and biodiversity issues, the real issues.

      The most telling part of your diatribe; " I didn't both(er) researching the supposed allergic reaction it caused because I don't have time right now, nor do I think it reflects on the saftey of GM as it was not intended for humans".
      Read, 'Why would I bother researching something that isn't going to reinforce what I already believe, and I arbitrarily assert that a negative health impact as a result of GM, doesn't reflect the (lack of) safety of GM because they didn't do it on purpose'.

      Sensible people don't oppose GM because they think science is a conspiracy to poison them, they call for more regulation and controls over a cutting-edge and commercially lucrative new technology. This isn't just because they want to seem intelligent to strangers as I believe is your motivation in being aligned with GM, it's because they've seen time and again the issues that arise from the gold-rush mentality of profits first consequences later. So f*ck off, smart c#nt.

    7. Laszlo Groh

      "For a start, PubMed is operated by US Federal Govt. which is in turn owned by corporate lobbyists, thus" And that's supposed to mean what exactly? And even at that, the US Fedral Government is not affiliated with PubMed as far as I'm aware (or you've proven). And corporate lobbyists? You're going to find those everywhere.

      - The most telling part of your diatribe; " I didn't both(er) researching the supposed allergic reaction it caused because I don't have time right now, nor do I think it reflects on the saftey of GM as it was not intended for humans".
      Read, 'Why would I bother researching something that isn't going to reinforce what I already believe, and I arbitrarily assert that a negative health impact as a result of GM, doesn't reflect the (lack of) safety of GM because they didn't do it on purpose'. -

      Or it could mean exactly what I wrote?
      But also, you haven't actually made an arguement here. Prove me wrong, go ahead.

      Do you have any idea of the amount of controls and regulations that any researcher has to go through simply to work with GMO's? And most researchers using GMO's aren't even in the field of food and drug development! You must understand that the present is very different from the past, and most people seem to be locked into the problems that GMO's have caused previously, yet fail to realize that the legal, commercial, and scientific world at large has already learnt many lessons from these events, and that A LOT has changed since then.

      As for your "profits first conseuquences later" idea. Well I'm not qualified to talk about business in any way shape or form, I'm a science guy through and through. But I urge you to consider that GM food does have a lot of potential for good, and that maybe the "consequences later" part actually may be a very very good thing. But you're close minded, so I doubt.

      (I'll happily ignore your taunt for trolling, all of them)


    8. englishjakes

      After reading your reply i went to pubmed and found that although alot of the abstracts seem to support gmo their actual findings are, often but not always) contrary to what the abstract suggests. i think this is because most of the studies on this website where paid for by sub companies of the agrochemical industry (including the university studies) and thus are being censored with what they say in abstracts and conclusions.

      I will agree that the film itself is flawed it does point out that many countries have banned gm foods i have to wonder why. so i checked out some British research BMJ website and for the most part their research suggests that most modern food allergies stem from gm and argrochemical use, the allergies include gluten and peanut allergies.

      Its sounds like you have never heard of bio accumulation by feeding animals with gm food any problem with the gm plant will be compounded significantly in the animal not diminished so by feeding cows gm grains and corn your getting super doses of any toxins in that would be present in the plant that the cows are eating by eating said cow.

      Besides that the scariest part for me about the whole gmo industry is the amount of control they could exert if they controlled all of the food everywhere because they could deny certain part of the world food just like coke and pepsi already do with water. i bet you didnt know its illegal to collect rain water in alot of states now.

      trust science but be skeptical and never ever only look at one website or source of information if you want to get an accurate read on the situation, then check who funded the research because if their finding conflict with the funding company they probably wont get anymore money from them.

  10. Jo McKay

    It continues to be beyond my understanding, that one (1) company can publicly admit that they intend to Control (read again CONTROL) the world's food supply - that company is Monsanto - the ways and means is control of seed and GMO's... no one took that company seriously 20 years ago - yet today, still, our governments pretend it's not really happening! Who then 'controls' our governments?

    1. Sherman Monro


    2. Jo McKay

      exactly ...case in point this week, in more than 50 countries, 2 million citizens took to the streets in an extreme act in the March against Monsanto, yet no major news service printed more then a dismissive line or two about it, and NO government 'leader' (I use the term very loosely) made one comment. The best thing? Maybe. Maybe...when the "rubber hits the mat" so to speak, the 'people' might actually act. Hmmm

  11. Sion88

    Genetics can be applied to food production in a beneficial way. It is a tool. If it's being misused by corporate interest then that's where the problem lies.

    You can not demonize science just because irresponsible people use it in irresponsible ways.

  12. ThisIs

    So, made by hippies I presume?

    1. sknb

      Haha. I think it is so hilarious when people call other people hippies. What does that even mean anymore? Ridiculous.

  13. mamtaa_agarwal

    God is the best creator and has created every thing taking into consideration of its pros and cons. eg. plants give oxygen which we use and give out co2 and in plants again use this so that balance is maintained, but, we human beings, we are very intelligent and create things and start saying this is the best creation and will help the world in various ways, but then we do not think about the negative side of our creation

    example is ---- PLASTIC bags, we created and we were very prod in saying now we can save trees as we will not have to cut them to make paper bags..... but now what has happened is we are saying BAN PLASTIC BAGS.... they are not biodegradable .... wow ... what a creation... same way one day GM food will have a disaster on mankind...why can't we use our skills in more productive ways......think

    1. spijkerpoes


      god god always god

      that 'best creator' created a moronic respectless oil-feuled monkey

    2. mamta agarwal

      :) How true.. we are so respectless towards nature...I like your answer...

  14. Aidan Skillings

    I don't see how genetically modified foods could poisonous unless they were genetically modified to produce toxic chemicals, or genetically modified using a short term toxic method, the latter of which is totally outlandish.

    There really isn't a need to be worrying about such trivial thins as Gm foods.

    1. invient

      The issue is that when they insert a gene, they do not yet have precise control of where this gene is inserted. It takes many attempts before they find a plant where the gene actually succeeds... this new GM variety changes proteins that were produced before because not only did they add the new gene, but they changed other genes in relation to each other.

      Allergies are a reaction to unrecognized proteins in the body. Since GM introduces the body to new proteins, allergies will rise. We do not know what these unintended proteins effects on the body are.

      Recent studies have shown these genes actually transfer into the bacteria in the intestines, and in one study in rats, the gene was inside the mammalian cells in the rats kidneys.

    2. ThisIs

      You dont realize something - in fact a lot of people dont, to be fair. Your genes are being spliced and respliced constantly by viruses and retroviruses passing through your body. But it doesnt matter - they mainly affect the junk DNA in the Introns, outside of the active sites. Where they affect the active sites the possibilities are limited: the cell dies, most commonly; the immune system detects the cell has changed and destroys it, quite common; the cell develops some quirky behaviour that doesnt really make much difference to it or its environment, quite common: the cell goes rogue and becomes cancerous - ie. the immune system fails to recognize the change, quite rare; the cell develops a useful mutation, if it is lucky enough to be in sexually germinative tissue this trait can even be passed on to later generations, extremely rare but its what drives Evolution.

    3. ThisIs

      You just nailed it.

    4. joe blow

      They insert toxins and they insert E Coli -bacteria. That does Not concern you? WOW! Seriously?

  15. Anthony Pirtle

    so much scaremongering mixed in with decent docs...

    1. ThisIs

      Yeah, but to be fair I'm not getting off my lard ass and making a good docco :) I guess the site has to take what it can find, most will be crap made by idiots and lunatics, but a good chunk will be gems.

    2. sknb

      I think that Vlatko - the creator of this site - intentionally puts polarizing docs on here to expose people to how documentaries, which are supposed to be non - fiction - are inevitably manipulated by those who create it.

  16. spaceace2012

    How are these "Roundup Ready" crops supposed to feed the starving millions?

    Each week at my work we throw out tonnes of odd shaped potatoes because the shopping centre who are signed to receive them won't take "odd shaped" potatoes. Trust me, EVERYONE'S doing this...there IS PLENTY OF FOOD TO GO ROUND don't worry about that...getting it to the starving seems to be the problem.

    Everyone using pest resistant GM crops over here knows that once you use Roundup Ready seeds, you gotta PAY for them AGAIN each year, PAY an intellectual property price on top of that, EACH YEAR, and gotta PAY for Roundup to spray on them...EACH AND EVERY YEAR....then because the soil is useless from all the Roundup...PAY to have the soil "repaired" enough to KEEP growing the crops. That's cost effective.

    Anyone thinking this is affordable or sustainable in countries that can barely find or afford clean water to water them with, or that it will feed millions is not only a fool, but are probably the same people who buy two of everything they DON'T need when they shop just because the advertising says..."Spend More, Save More!. Hahaha YOU I@#$%&. Give YOUR food to the starving and YOU eat all the yummy Roundup Ready food!!!

    We already HAVE horrible Roundup Ready Monsanto crops here (Australia) and only now, the stupid farmers have found out that it also infects their "organically grown crops" (which they actually got MORE money for)....and they're getting "fined" by Monsanto for not having "BOUGHT" those seeds from them....hahaha

    Wait till they find out that one day, not if...but when, insects are gonna get resistant to Roundup...

    But I suppose Monsanto will have Roundup Ready 2 available to BUY by then.

    Poor countries....stop starving and start SAVING... you're gonna need all the money you can get to grow this s@#$.

    Coke Adds Life
    Fanta is a bottle-o-fun
    McDonalds is a healthy alternative
    and Bottled Water is worth it's price.

    1. ThisIs

      Yeah but its not that simple and thats one of the problems - people think its that simple. By and large I agree with you but things are moving: Everyone is getting sick of Patent crap across the board and the rebellion is well underway. I doubt it will be possible to copyright any genetic process in 10 years time. And the pesticide thing has hit the wall several times already - but now we have some new generation gear that enables us to go back to older, safer ones so thats what will happen there. As for dumping - yes, I couldnt agree more. Everytime I hear this "The world is getting too big how are we going to feed everyone" CRAP I just want to break things - we could probably have a population of 100 billion, not 7, and its room we'd run out of not food. But an important point - GM foods have saved us several times over by delivering crops that resist all sorts of nasties that Nature threw at us.

    2. mir61

      Are u crazy? I live in Canada for last 35 years and been to States like thousands times...i have seen with my eyes that how these GM stuff can harm your life ...crops and its diseases are part of natural cycle...its called ecosystem if u understand...we shouldnt be trying to change the pattern of nature....and do u think that big corporates think about u and people? noooooooo never ever , they think about the profit and only profit you d*mb( sorry if i have offended you). They are not feeding 100 billion or trillion of PEOPLE no not at all ... ...they get billions and trillion of $ by selling you that "C***"....OPEN UR EYES YOU D***......

    3. Sion88

      "...we shouldnt be trying to change the pattern of nature..."

      It is only natural that we do. We must use nature and we must use it to maximum efficiency. If we employ the scientific method to do so responsibly, there will be no issues.

    4. Sion88

      "...we could probably have a population of 100 billion, not 7, and its room we'd run out of not food."

      So how is it that a large portion of the population is starving?

    5. joe blow

      It's not a matter of food shortages, it's a matter of unequal food distribution. This country throws away tons of food from over production. Makes me sick that they use this as a fallocy to promote this garbage.

  17. Randy


    Well, that is certainly, agreed!

  18. Carl Hendershot

    Muhahahaha. Just a little. It would be insane to be completely sane. 0.o =)\

  19. Randy


    Um... what, now?

    You seem to agree with me, but... then there is the crazy...

  20. Carl Hendershot

    1 apple for you 2 for me. 7 billion people on this planet any day now. You feed them all. LOL
    Ok i got it lets not try to find a faster growing food fast enough and start a food war. Hmmmmm. Ok lets just let 5 billion people starve to death. No that wont work either or will it? Hmmmm. Here is a solution stop having babies lol. @randy cushy home well fed. What do you know about other posters. ROFLMAO. You are right about nobody gets out alive. Whos coming with me. Im taking the first hippy UFO of this planet. I have 3 extra tickets any takers. =)

  21. Philosophocles

    Said it once I'll say it again

    educate yourself before trusting Monsato, whose director of corporate communications Phil Angell, stated in 1998: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.”

    Anyone who says something like this KNOWS something is wrong with their products but doesn't CARE.

    @ Randy

    No evidence has shown that genetically altered foods can 'feed the hungry' as you claim. Genetically altered foods feed the accounts of all the over paid execs at Monsanto. But I have yet to see one piece of GMO crop feed people starving in Africa (I been there, and they are STILL starving.) Do your research before you trust people who's main business is selling you anything (no matter how poisonous, because they make the drugs that ease your pain too)

    The issue is not how much resources we have. Its how much we use. Over indulgence and money are the main issues. Think about it... does money decide how many Earthly resources we have left? No. So why use money to determine who gets to use them? Last time I checked everything on Earth only comes from the Earth and if anyone is owed anything it is the EARTH. But we exploit the Earth to its limits and now we will face the consequences. The Earth is going bankrupt because of Money, so we need a change in our world monetary system, or a change in the human race (i.e. extinction)

  22. Randy

    You hippies really make me laugh.

    Two and half BILLION people are starving in the dirt on this planet as we write here-- in our cushy homes, all comfy and well-fed.

    If a genetically altered wheat stalk can resist predation by insects, grow fast and yeald more off-spring, thereby feeding more people, more cheaply, I think those starving people would say:

    "I don't care if I get cancer in ten years... I'm not gonna last another 10 minutes!"

    The science seems very safe and sound, to me. No one is anticipating any problems, but if there are? Hey, our whole environment is toxic, and was long before we were born. Nothing to be done, but adapt or die... *shrug*

    Hell, I've had a coupla cancers and they were genetic! Nothing could have prevented them... no big deal!

    Something's gotta kill ya! Am I right? Nobody gets out alive...

    1. from_the_bleachers

      "i don't care if i get cancer in 10 years blah blah blah.." just because you are suicidal, and kinda dumb, doesn't mean everyone should follow your lead..

    2. joe blow

      keep on keepin on!

  23. Savvy

    Soylent Green is people.
    That would be a really cool remake.

  24. Savvy


    There is a difference between hybridization of whole genes for making a "tangelo" (tangerine/orange), a new variety of rose through cultivation, or breeding different species of dogs together. Altering a plant on a genetic level by adding genes which do not belong in the plant's natural chain has caused problems as it jumps into other varieties in Mexico. How do we know that these spliced genes aren't going to end up in the wrong place in a few more generations.

    Silly you. Go ahead and eat something designed by a chemical company so that they are able to sell more Round Up, and control their patented seeds.

    I refuse.

  25. Philosophocles

    The world is hungry because the International Monetary Fund is lending third world countries HUGE loans with their farmable land as collateral. When they fail to pay up (Which they always do) the IMF forces them to farm only cash crops and export them to your local supermarket. Our excessive over consumption and greed is causing global hunger not lack of farmable land. Also consider how much land is destroyed to raise cattle. Eating meat kills more farmable land than even the IMF scheme. In the end you should just grow your own food, and start your own revolution.
    Good books to get started: Cradle to Cradle, and Permaculture.
    Vlatko also has docs on both of these subjects, please check them out and educate yourself before trusting Monsato, whose director of corporate communications Phil Angell, stated in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job." I would not touch these kind of people with a 100ft pole.

  26. Courtney

    not to mention that GM foods are specifically engineered to do one of two things: 1) either produce a pesticide systemically throughout the plant through the inserted genes, or 2) the inserted gene allows the plant to be sprayed with Round-Up (made also by the company Monsanto) without dying. When the whole cry for GM foods is backed by the false assertion that productivity is increased and we are feeding the world, it leads me to question, where is this increase in production, and why are we eating more and more pesticides. I need to step down from this soap box, I could be here for days.

  27. Chockie

    Genetic modification compared to selective breeding or hybridization is completely different.Genetic modification takes genes from unrelated species and inserts them into host DNA,using crude and unnatural processes.Forcing fish genes into strawberry DNA with a gene gun is not the same as crossing two types of tomatoes.

  28. P.F.

    Just another sheepie, thinking like that will cause them to continue to get away with using us as lab rats! You keep eating it and die of cancer or lesions of the brain, but give us a choice in what we eat. We don't want to be test dummies!

  29. JustAnotherSheeple

    uhhh yeah, pretty much all the foods you eat have undergone selective breeding and artificial evolution. Just take wild corn or wild cabbage as a perfect example. you're already eating modified food, science is just taking it one step farther and removing decades of splicing and artificial selection

  30. P.F.

    Satyabroto, this isn't naturally occuring hybidization! This is dangerous! I agree with Estrella, I don't want the government or Monsanto or anyone else experimenting on me or my child!!!

  31. Estrella M

    If hybridization is a natural process, then let nature do the job and not man! And for all those corporations as Monsanto and their wonder workers plus those who side with them who believe their GMO are safe, lock them in their own experimental places and make them eat their products for at least 15 years. If after that time they are in better health than before, maybe I would look to see if I be willing to take a chance. After all if they are that sure their GM's are so good and safe for us to eat; they should be more than happy to eat it first.

  32. Satyabroto

    Hybridization is a natural process. It is integral with evolution itself. A sweeping condemnation of all regulators is a figment of the imagination: it is against the public interest as well. It is true that consumers should have rights to informed choices, but food safety concerns about modified foods are not well founded in scientific facts.