Seeds of Death

2012, Health  -   290 Comments
7.7k
7.57
12345678910
Ratings: 7.57/10from 257 users.
Storyline

Every single independent study conducted on the impact of genetically modified food shows that it damages organs, it causes infertility, it causes immune system failure, it causes holes in the GI tract, and it causes multiple organ system failure.

The whole concept of genetically modified organisms is throwing a monkey wrench in the life on this planet.

The reason why they have 170 million acres of genetically engineered corn, soybeans, cotton, canola oil and sugar beets in the United States is because it doesn't have to be labeled. The first genetically modified animal, the salmon, may soon be approved for human consumption and there has not been sufficient animal health testing, human health testing, or environmental impact testing of these new transgenic fish.

Basically, they take agriculture and build an industrial model which doesn't fit nature. So instead of changing our agricultural model to accommodate what is natural, they're changing nature to accommodate the industrial model.

If you have an organic corn crop that sits next to a genetically engineered corn field and it happens to tassel at the same time and happens to be downwind, you're going to get your crop contaminated. If the rest of the food supply is contaminated, then the genie's out of the bottle and it's maybe physically impossible to turn the situation around. In the genetic engineering revolution, these seeds are now patented property of one corporation, called Monsanto.

We are heading downhill at a rapid rate of speed toward our own extinction. The use of GM in agriculture is a risk that is simply not worth taking. Any scientist that looks into the research or the lack of research, on the safety of genetically engineered food comes to the conclusion that these foods should not be on the market. They need another decade or two of research.

Monsanto is the company that told us that PCBs were safe. They were convicted of actually poisoning people in their town next to the PCB factory, and fined $700 million. They told us that Agent Orange was safe. They told us that DDT was safe, and now they're in charge of telling us if their own genetically modified foods are safe because the FDA doesn't require a single safety study. They leave it to Monsanto.

Monsanto's job is to make money for the investor. Unfortunately, that becomes the highest priority thought in their minds. Make money, make money, make money. They're not actually making products to make health, they're making money, so they tend to overlook the health consequences. That is a ridiculous approach to the problem.

There should be some responsibility being assumed by the producer, that when they're producing food, they have a really good assurance that it's a good quality product. That should be the highest priority thing. Then if they can make money with that, fine and dandy. Unfortunately, it's usually the other way around.

People in this sort of business are looking for opportunities to make money first priority, and then in this case maybe letting somebody else worry about the health consequences. Maybe even the public. We have it upside down.

More great documentaries

290 Comments / User Reviews

  1. This documentary is a "must see" for all in our dumbed-down and sick America; and, it was damn good. Even had a Mike Adams rapp song at the closing that said it all in verse about GMOs - loved it.
    I am "old school". Debating and pleading with Monsanto for GMO labeling has fallen on deaf ears because the Almighty Dollar trumps all arguments. I am of the belief that a march on these corporations has become imperative. Our prostitute govt will not support what is most beneficial for humans, so it is time We the People take action. We should march and boycott against Monsanto corporation and their products. This video should be shared by all the people you care about.
    God bless America; we are under siege.

  2. They managed to drag this into yet another full length film?

    Waste of time.

  3. Simple logical reasoning... genes are not static and do not function independently. Genes are dynamic and interactive... obviously we should have animal studies to make sure the GM "food" really is FOOD and not poison, right? So why isn't there an overwhelming number of studies to confirm or deny the debate? Actually if you loo And for the love of god, why isn't food at least labelled GM so that at least people can make an informed decision as to what they are putting in their children's mouths? The US, Canada and Argentina are the largest producers of GM crops and they DO NOT HAVE LABELLING FOR GM food.

  4. Hummmm, I believe GMOs are against my religion !!!

  5. I believe in argument and logical questioning, but lets reference our material when possible. One would not expect a study, but confirming comments without reference is bad practice. Does any one else agree?

    1. You must not be referring to the documentary, because many of the people that were featured in the documentary would be exactly the references you are referring to. Many of these people were assigned reading at my university. So I am not sure who else you wish to see referenced

  6. This is factually incorrect. Current studies have shown no correlation between genetically modified foods and organ damage, or any other health problems for that matter. Just goes to show that you don't have to be honest when you make a documentary.

    1. So you've read every single current study on this topic? I know I haven't. So how do you know? How do I know? Neither of us know the potential impact, that much is certain and that's what makes us guinea pigs. Well not so much me because I have yet to see a study showing positive correlation between GMO's and health status, therefore I won't eat GMO's in the first place. I want nourishment as nature designed and intends. You're free to eat the food produced by chemical companies, unquestioned. And you're free to go drink a can of Roundup made by those same chemical companies if it makes you feel smart.

    2. Yeah, because the studies shown haven't been debunked, and aren't pesudoscience, or anything (sarcasm).
      What about 2000 independent, peer reviewed papers by real scientists proving GMOs are safe?
      Unlike GMOs, organic pesticides are not regulated by the government.
      0 studies have show gmos are less nutricious or unhealthy as organic. If anything, they are more nuticious.
      You are just fear mongering now with the round up. Anyone who took chemistry know chemical toxticity depends on the doseage, which Monsanto seeds contain little amounts of. Salt is far more toxic than roundup. An organic pesticide (forgot the name) is 37x more toxic than round up, and is sprayed more per acre than round up. Roundup also is watered down, and less is required for it to be effective.
      I can fear monger too,except what i'm about to say is true. Organic has been linked to an E coli outbreak in germany, that killed 44 and caused damage to thousands of other.
      Gmos haven't been linked by any credible paper, to cause any sort of health hazards. They've actually been proven safe.
      You can eat organic, but do not lie about Gmos.
      This documentary is just peer propaganda moot.

    3. Soo.... They showed studies in the documentary, but you obviously know more about those studies than them. Thanks for your input captain. I'll make sure not to take heed. Of you, that is.

    4. They showed woo, and opinion papers. not peer reviwed papers.

      Because all the credible ones prove gmos are safe.

  7. IF YOU SPOT ANY GMO? DESTROY IT/BURN IT ASAP! otherwise coming generations risk whole new level of never seen before genetic illness
    than current generations.
    just cuz you were knowingly ignorant and didn't care. that's the real sin.
    it just so happens that your guts have some sort of neural system that download some information from foods & upload it into your DNA. there's a saying "you become what you eat", so if you eat GMO or any other trash, that's what you will become. A GMO-Man that eats corporate trash.
    EAT NATURAL LIVING FOOD NATURE HAS OFFERED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS AND SOW THOSE NATURAL SEEDS EVERYWHERE YOU CAN SO THERE'S ABUNDANCE OF FOOD! Which will eventually erase death by hunger which is also created by corporations, governments, vatican, bankers & others who are with them.
    DESTROY THE MONSANTO AND ANYONE WHO IS WITH THEM.
    Live in harmony with Nature, Don't destroy it, Do Not Tamper with it.
    otherwise you're doomed to head on the path of self-destruction.
    Earth & Nature = LOVE. Corporations = Self-destruction.
    GMO is perfect example of Archontic distortion EVER!
    that's what they do, they take what already exist in harmony with nature
    and then they distort it on purpose. result is dangerous distorted food.

  8. Creating combinations of; plants, bacterium, animals, sea life, humans and insects was never meant to be. This is not advancement its perversion. Nor will the effects of these non foods be fully realised until decades even centuries later. Just simple nutritional deficiencies took hundreds of years to understand like scurvy. Even today many people who suffer from nutritional deficiencies such as b vitamins(Re Abram Hoffers work) and serotonin/melatonin are given drugs(Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) or are locked up.
    Furthermore, nutritional deficiencies take time to develop let alone pathological conditions involving foreign proteins/ genes that have never existed before. This is the folly of human "science". All attempts by humans to "improve" upon nature have been a failure antibiotics kill all bacterium which are required by the human body; for the immune system, to create various vitamins such as k, intrinsic factor, and so forth. Though natures antibiotics such as garlic, pau de arco tea and so forth are discarded. Mercury is another such example.
    One must remember that mad cow was created by humans feeding cows other cows. Who can determine the outcome of this bio engineering experiment which has no oversight rules as to the amount of genes added or taken out. Not only this, but what gives these companies the "right" to alter our food and to avoid labelling.
    This removes my choice and this removal is not democracy but is arbitrary law forced upon citizens by a multinational company that has bought out politicians who enacted laws which are unconstitutional. This is only a b gates idea of applying a monopoly over the food supply just like Microsoft was to the software industry.

    1. EXACTLY!!

  9. we have no business messing with genes, end of discussion, it is still too complex for us to mess with, this science is in it s infancy, same as nuclear, if we can t turn the reaction off, don t turn it on! would you open your faucet if you knew you could nt close it afterwards? the house would collapse from mold! this is a simple principle, because you can turn a steering, does nt make you a race pilot, we need way more research before messing with gene manipulation, why put speed limits on roads if science can speed up to 300 kmh? it will crash us just the same!

    1. Hate to break it to you, but people have been messing with genetics for thousands of. Many organic crops have been mutated with radiation. There is close to 2000 independent, peer reviewed papersproving GMOs are safe. Please stop comparing apples and oranges.

  10. The Indian guy talking about god sort of discredits the argument against the chem cos. They love that sort of talk.....keep god out of it.

  11. It is interesting to read comments from both sides of the argument, everyone makes interesting points, not one point is either wrong or right, being that without both sides of this argument there would be no science to which we would continue to question... Just thought I would put out something which may spark a different way of looking at science...

    Science is evolutionary, remarkable & fascinating. Some are only as open and aware to that which science can explain, others to that which is able to be seen yet science can not yet explain... throughout history, government, professional and reputable sources do get it wrong. I am neither for nor against this argument of GMO (as I do not believe GMO scientific research has been carried out long enough to know to the long term effects, and I choose to eat foods which do not have a negative effects on me) A couple of well know science facts to remember...
    Scientific testing was carried out for many years (years longer than GMO scientific testing thus far) on tobacco smoking, the first link to cancer was discovered in 1920's and not until 60 years on did this research start having government/societal impact... The Tobacco companies in 1930's duped the public by having medical physicians part of the adverting campaigns which 'perceived cigarettes as 'better for you'. The cigarette companies campaigned for years against the 'bad effects' of smoking, producing self funded scientific research. Granted we have come along way since the smoking days and more information is freely available to the everyday consumer...
    One more recent, Trans fats (think margarine) for many years (since 1902) has been tested as safe for human consumption, in 1993 research has shown the detriments to human health and development. Once approved as safe by the FDA is now not considered safe (2013) by the FDA.

    The key to our own understanding, and I encourage all to do is question the things we read, this includes the psuedoscience & scientific research. When reading a scientific article, find independent studies, that which have no invested interest (ie: who they are funded by).
    To those experiencing ill effects with no known cause, continue to speak up, our medical physicians & scientist too do not know the cause for the significant increase in gut issues, and autoimmune disease, so much more research is required, working out what works best for you to manage this and share your findings will help those around you.

    If enough people speak up about their own experiences with anything they encounter in life it creates a ripple effects which influences change in science... Who would have thought that the world was round! For some seeing is believing.

    1. Hello Sara,

      I wanted to point out some points you have made. I will respond by putting a specific part of your comment in quotation, and responding under it.

      First of all:
      "as I do not believe GMO scientific research has been carried out long enough to know to the long term effects"
      GMOs have been heavily researched since they were introduced. I would expect they would have found a long term effect by now. If you are talking about the environment, I know many farmers who are now taking better care of the environment, now that they plant GE seeds, than when they planted Organic seeds.

      "the first link to cancer was discovered in 1920's and not until 60 years
      on did this research start having government/societal impact. The Tobacco companies in 1930's duped the public by having medical
      physicians part of the adverting campaigns which 'perceived cigarettes
      as 'better for you'."
      This is an apples to oranges comparison. Unlike GMOs, there was a large scientific consensus showing smoking caused cancer. Almost every credible study shows GMOs are perfectly safe. I say almost, because I do not know of any that show otherwise, but I will not say it doesn't exist.

      Evey anti-gmo study that people have shown me were either poorly done, flawed, or opinion studies.

      "One more recent, Trans fats (think margarine) for many years (since
      1902) has been tested as safe for human consumption, in 1993 research
      has shown the detriments to human health and development. Once approved
      as safe by the FDA is now not considered safe (2013) by the FDA."

      This is another apples to oranges comparison. Since 1902, better scientific methods have been developed, and more research is done. GMOs have been overwhelmingly researched, showing no hazard to human health.

      "The key to our own understanding, and I encourage all to do is question
      the things we read, this includes the psuedoscience & scientific
      research. When reading a scientific article, find independent studies,
      that which have no invested interest (ie: who they are funded by)."

      I agree, but you should not consider this a huge factor. Would you go to work for free? Of course not. The scientists have to be paid, otherwise, they will not do it.

      You are not likely going to see an anti-gmo organization funding a pro GMO study, or vise versa.

      You should NEVER waste your time reading pseudoscience.

      Most scientists do not believe GMOs are bad for humans, and nearly all research show they are healthy.

      "so much more research is required"

      GMOs are the most researched topic in the history of agriculture. How much do you need to satisfy you?

      "If enough people speak up about their own experiences with anything they
      encounter in life it creates a ripple effects which influences change
      in science"
      That's true, but unfortunately, it does not mean the research will be right, or be flawless. It could be biased, and show something is dangerous, when in reality, it isn't.

      I have been eating GMOs my whole life, I even had a strict GMO only diet at one time, and I am perfectly healthy. I have never had any sort of health problems, or unknown illnesses. A lot of those are anecdotal, and a lot of it can be explained by other causes.

    2. Thanks for sharing your comments
      Would you mind helping my understand your points.
      Long term effects on GMO.... considering GM foods have only been in our commercial food supply for approx 20 years, can you show me sources to mass study which has been conducted to the long term effects of GMO over the a persons life of eating GM foods?

      'Most scientists do not believe GMO's are bad' that depends on who is paying them and what their backgrounds are in. Yes all scientic researchers need to be paid and funded for their work, when there is invested interest, this changes the landscape. From what I have seen, there are a number a scientists that do believe GMO's are bad.

      Science does excitingly, have a long long way to go in inderstanding the human body and as we as a society continue to move farther and farther away from the natural rhythms of the mind/body we continue to see increase in disease and unexplained disorders. Remembering that it's been about 50-60 years since our life styles & food habits have dramatically changed
      If you are interested in learning more about our biological history 'the history of the human body' by Daniel Leiberman (Phd in evolutionary biology, Harvard) is an excellent read.

      Some of the most interesting scientific research I am following is how GMO is altering the microbiom in the gut... Now being that when your microbiom alters this effects your brain centres (studies are being done on depression for an example). The key point here is there is so much is unknown about the microbiom and what effect this has on us. Diet, from the day you are born, drinking breast milk vs milk formula and to eating a diet natural vs unnatural (GMO) certainly does alter the microbiom. What is yet to be determined is how this effects us good and bad.
      The discoveries made thus far is that implanting healthy microbiom into a diseased person (altered microbiom) sees increase health and elimination of disease, that is science (in my opinion) not to be ignored.

      You are right there has been lots of research done to date, my scientific opinion there has not been enough research over the long term to adequately determine the effects of GMO food as an impact on the human body, because we do not yet have enough research on the human body.

      I'm happy for you that you are healthy and well, and you're are completely entitled to your opinion and one of the greatest things in this life is we get to have the choice.
      Auto immune and other disease is on the rise, over the last 20 years significant increase and unexplained disease is filtering through our world.
      Why I say that people need to speak up, is because mass noise creates change. And wether the causes of the still unexplained auto immune disease are present and on the rise we need to keep looking and questioning those things, which are changing both our internal and external environments

      I do hope that in 30+ years time others can still have the choice about choosing non GMO crops vs GMO crops, as we do today.

      For now I choose not to eat GMO for sustainability, our future generations, for the health of the body, and ethical reasons.

      There are many many many many things that cultures/people having been doing for 1000's of years do in life to promote health and wellbeing that modern science is only now starting to catching up with...!
      Hence why Monsanto is trying to patent foods which India has been using for 1000's of years for it's medicinal properties.
      So I encourage anyone to look outside what is only written in a scientic journal and see what has worked for 1000's of years (some would call it pseudoscience/culture/tradition/alternative) DO read these articles as this is what expands our minds to question and make our own decisions in life. Modern science and historical traditions go hand in hand :)

  12. Decapitate Corporate Psychopaths. Canada's former PM Brian Mulroney was awarded a seat on the chair of Monsanto for his role in selling us down the river with NAFTA.

    1. That's a paranoid delusional association you've drawn between two unrelated events.

  13. The opening line in the description is categorically false and, since the writer must know this to be the case, is simply a lie. I will look elsewhere for information on this topic and will steer clear of this trashy mockumentary.

    There are, in fact, no validated reports of ill effects in humans from GM food. That is a fact.

    1. Totally wrong. I had a distinctly unpleasant intestinal reaction to GMO corn and a frightening allergic reaction to soy, in my blood, per the doctor I dashed to. My attempt to notify Health Canada was dismissed. I have NO negative reactions to conventional or organic soy and corn. Even you would know that if you never did a study in the first place, there would be no results.

    2. "Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that "no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population," and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods "are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health."

    3. If this is true then why has the European Commission continued a ban on certain GMO's and demanded labels on food that is?

    4. Populist reactions. A bit like Germany shutting down all its Nuclear electricity. Though accurate labeling should be mandatory for ALL foods.

    5. because pressure from popular groups using fearmongering and superstition has drowned out the scientific concensus...as misinformed popular opinion often does.

      you seem to forget that politics is a popularity competition not a reasoned progress.

    6. GMO's are illegal in most countries and for good reason.

    7. Many laws have nothing whatsoever to do with reason. The silliest is probably that corporations are legal persons.

    8. depends on whether you consider misinformed popular superstition to be good or not.

      Most countries kept slaves, by your argument that means it had a good reason.

      Most countries prosecuted homosexuals for sodomy...presumably you think that was a great idea too, afterall it was very popular.

      Blashphemy laws are doing a good trade in many countries...do you support them? are they a good idea too?

    9. Wrong. Most countries still import GMOs. Only two countries have banned GMOs, and they were for political reasons.

    10. Did you actually just quote the WHO for use in protecting human health? WOW just WOW.

      Maybe all the countries around the world, including most of Europe, that have already banned most GMOs.....are just stupid and ignorant. I mean we are 'Murrica, the land of the intelligent and genetically superior people. Who are they to question us?

    11. Just wondering if you can provide links to these peer reviewed scientific articles and research that have definitively proven this. As far as I am aware there have been no tests on human beings (other than the mass science project going on now) in peer reviewed scientific studies. I am sure you are aware there are dozens of animal studies that have been performed and they provide a completely different picture,

    12. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that "no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."

      I am sorry for your hyperchondria and your fabricated story about soy in your blood. Health Canada was correct to dismiss your claim.

    13. And this is according to studies done by Monsanto.

    14. How could someone have soy in their blood unless it's injected? There is no other way soy could scientifically be transferred to the bloodstream.

    15. Leaky gut syndrome. The food gets in the bloodstream from intestinal damages.

    16. That is not soy, maybe soy proteins at worse. If the gut was leaky enough for her to have actual soy in her blood, she would be dead.

    17. how convenient...an anecdotal story that there is absolutely no way of verifying.

    18. I think it's humorous that you are sitting there nay-saying anything said about the effects of GMO's - here's some FACTS:
      GMO's were released for human consumption in 1995. In 1996, the rising obesity rates went into overdrive - skyrocketing. Diseases on the rise since 1996 - cancer, brain diseases (memory, parkenson, etc), thyroid disease, kidney disease all rise but no, it's NOT the food. It's what? El Nino?
      The one BIG thing we've changed is how foods are grown and the chemicals used on them. Surely plants designed to grow food while sprayed with POISON are safe!
      I'm going out on a limb and believing you are associated with the creeps at Monsanto so you can debunk any proof with only *your* opinion.
      By the way - the FDA banned the use of Canola Oil (actually RAPESEED OIL) for YEARS and suddenly allow it into the US after receiving a hefty payment. Released only kinda since the FDA covers it's a** with a "considered safe" list. So that can always change... And Canola Oil was originally an engine lubricant/oil...but lets all say it's healthy when it has a very low smoke point and breaks apart when used in high heat. Attaching to fat cells to make it hard to lose the fat.
      You think your government is out to protect you? How many pharma companies are sued for drugs that are toxic and killing patients?
      But I don't want to sway you. Go eat your crap food and pretend it's all a myth. So was global warming. Oh and they never found nuclear weapons in Iraq but we'd never be lied to... nope. Not ever. Not when big business is involved. LOL.

    19. I like this thinking well done CEO

    20. By the way, Germany banned british beef in 1989, because of BSE and BST, growth hormones = since then most meat unless it is grass fed and has no antibiotics or added extras in its flesh is seemingly safe. Go veggie, grow your own, see the difference.

    21. actually the meat was banned because there was a disease spreading through our cattle population...but whatever, make up lies if you want.

    22. So you freely drink milk from cows with BGHT?

      It explains your posts more clearly now.

    23. don't believe i said that, or implied it in any way but as i said, make up whatever lies you want, i can't stop you.

    24. I didn't realise the Blue Guard Hockey team sold milk...

    25. wait wait wait...you're blaming GMO's for obesety and not the rise in availability of sugar?
      Can you not see that there's no correlation whatsoever?

      Also we're diagnosing more cancer because we're getting better at diagnosing...you've got no evidence whatsoever that there's a link between GMO's and cancer.

      you've essentially made up every word of that comment.

    26. What about autoimmune diseases? I have Fibromyalgia and it's very odd that I get flare ups when I eat GMO products. Also the fact many Fibro patients have what is called IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) which is what I was diagnosed with first as a teenager. And the scientists who do claim GMOs as damaging show damages more directly to the gut...
      My generation is certainly far sicker than the one before it, and calculating about the time GMOs were heavily in our food would have been when I was a baby.
      Also another interesting thing is Autism has been on the rise. And one strange thing Autistic children share is gut problems. Who knows why?
      There's also been an increase in food allergies. I read how food allergies can be caused from leaky gut syndrome, it's very interesting to look up.
      My own child, who was born 6 weeks prematurely after I suffered a very harsh pregnancy, has digestive problems. He can't keep food down well. He has intolerance to milk protein and we've had to try numerous formulas to find the right one. It's starting to look like he may even be allergic to wheat.
      While there is still enough reason to suspect GMOs as the culprit, we certainly should not be risking our children until there's more proof that GMOs are safe.

    27. Has your doctor told you that GM foods are to blame for your reactions, or is that a self diagnosis? What actual evidence do you have that these supposed GMO's are to blame for anything? How do you know you weren't just naturally flaring up?

      Your understanding of autism is incredibly flawed as well...What has increased is our ability to diagnose autism...there is absolutly no evidence that Autism is increasing or that it is linked to Vaccines or GMO's.

      It sucks that your kid's got allergies...but that does occur naturally.

      I don't see a culprit...I see someone who has had a very rough life trying to find a simple explaination for all of the problems...I kinda feel bad suggesting that the world is just a chaotic place where bad things happen to good people for no fathomable reason...but it's genuinely what i think is the case.

      There's a harm to what you're doing though. GMO's aren't being designed with you and me in mind. they are being developed so that people in parts of the world with bad soil and poor farming land can grow a reliable supply of crops.

      Every cause and movement that tries to stop GMO's is hindering the drive to end world hunger, and they are doing it for reasons based solely on superstition and paranoia.

    28. If shes been to a doctor she has medical evidence.

    29. i see...and we're just believing everything she says? fair enough i didn't realise i had to have my gullible meter turned up to full.

    30. At one time, there were also no validated reports of ill effects in humans from cigarettes. In case you haven't realized.. the medical industry is in the business of making money. Be careful where you get your 'facts'. Living in Hawaii, I see the effects of GMO crops and what they bring first hand. This is living proof, not a report written on paper by someone with a fancy title and disguised character, values and funding. One day alone 40-50 school children were treated for illness on Kauai, breast cancer has skyrocketed in the specific area near the crops, among MANY other illnesses and reports. There are local documentaries and bills that have finally been passed to do something about this abuse. I understand the benefits of scientific research with GMO products, but these scientists are being irresponsible with their work and it IS affecting human health. And that I can tell you, is a fact.

    31. This is living proof, not a report written on paper by someone with a fancy title and disguised character.

      Instead it's a heavily biased opinion by someone with an axe to grind.

      The reason the people with fancy titles write their findings on paper so that they can be held accountable for what they write, and their findings can be examined.

      "And that I can tell you, is a fact."

      nope, it's an opinion actually.

    32. Any doctor might think it is an opinion, but based on facts since Rachelle did get ill, and as such at least an opinion that would need further investigation based on those facts, wouldn't you agree?

    33. again, really REALLY confusing what opinions and facts are here!

      DID she get ill? we only have her word that she did, and forgive me but i'm not quite gullible enough to believe everything i read in an internet comment section!
      Let's say she did get sick...Is there a family history of breast cancer that she doesn't know about that gave her the genetic susceptibility to it? How can we be sure?

      When we get sick we grasp at straws to find some kind of logic or meaning to it because if we can then maybe we can fix it.
      IF she got sick then that is what i believe she is doing...blaming the first thing she can think of. Unfortunatly cancer is rarely that black and white.

    34. It IS a matter of opinion whether you want to believe she got sick or not.
      It is ALSO a matter of opinion if you want to believe she is blaming the first thing she can come up with as a cause.
      That is I believe you are doing.

      But whatever the cause of her symptoms, any GP would have to investigate her claims openly, in order to truly understand what is causing these symptoms. That is where the fact finding starts.

      Until then all you are doing is making assumptions, as she is doing, but blaming her for doing so.

      And assumptions are the mother of all f***-ups
      And that's a fact

    35. feel free to believe what you want...to be perfectly honest i don't care what you think.

      You say i'm, making assumptions for being cynical, are you not also making a lot of assumptions by being so creduous?

      It's nice that you think you can define where fact finding starts,,,my guess is a lot of research money would be needlessly wasted were you in charge.

    36. "no validated reports of ill effects in humans from GM food." This isn't fact. This is from Monsanto.

    37. And it's correct. What, because Monsanto said it, it is wrong? Show me evidence.

    38. No "validated" reports. Which means any reports that do show damage, they don't want to validate.
      Why should we be made to prove it is unsafe anyway? It is supposed to be their responsible to prove beyond any doubt that their product is safe. Which they haven't had enough research on it to even prove. The FDA has been very lax on everything it approves more recently, where as before they'd take years more to study it before releasing it to the public.
      And if they are so certain their product is safe, why not proudly label it then? And give us more evidence that it is safe. At least then we'd have a choice and the people who want to trust it's safe can go ahead and buy it at their own risk.

  14. First I would like to make some correction: Not all seedless fruits are GMO products: seedless fruits through thousands of years were developed via deliberate cross breeding, like grapes, for example. If talking about watermelon in particular: “A seedless watermelon is a sterile hybrid which is created by crossing male pollen for a watermelon, containing 22 chromosomes per cell, with a female watermelon flower with 44 chromosomes per cell. When this seeded fruit matures, the small, white seed coats inside contain 33 chromosomes, rendering it sterile and incapable of producing seeds. This is similar to the mule, produced by crossing a horse with a donkey. This process does not involve genetic modification.”

    Second, nobody doubts the genius of Luther Burbank, but how come this talented self taught botanist all of a sudden came out of the conversation about GMO plants? He was a genius of cross-breeding and hybridization, which were used by human beings for centuries in agriculture to produce new crop varieties within the related individuals. We are talking about DNA engineering which was introduced by Monsanto or one of its breeds in 1994, when humans started messing around with Mother Nature and put plants, insects, animals etc in one bowl. This may be more compared with Dr Faust charactor, than with such a respectable botanist like Luther Burbank.

    Ignorance is weakness, blindness, even if it acts with strong fists.
    Knowledge is power. We are here to empower ourselves and not have a fist fight with each other.

  15. We have been eating GMO foods for many many decades now. For instance think grapes and watermelons genetically altered to not have seeds. Or many different colors of corn. All have had their genetic material manipulated to create the desired effect. Guess what? Not one single case of harm to mankind. Millions and millions of acres of GMO crops grown and harvested all around the world and not one reported injury to anyone.

    This is anti science fear mongering hysteria at its worst. GMO's have been proven to be SAFE.

    1. equating hybridization with genetic modification by injection is like comparing someone finding a million dollars to someone stealing a million dollars. Luther Burbank was a great discoverer and enabler, not a thief.

    2. Susan G, you make a good point about the colored foods and seedless grapes and such, but You must be getting a pay check from Monsanto to be pro GMOs. Enjoy your poison.

    3. What a disgrace to suggest a person is paid for making factual statements, Eddie. Would you care to provide references for documented cases of human illness that has been proven to be caused by GM food?

    4. an ad hominem attack is not a counter argument.

    5. Are you aware of what a poison is? Here is the definition since you don't seem to have a grasp of what you are typing.

      "A substance that can cause people or animals to die or to become very
      sick if it gets into their bodies especially by being swallowed."

      If GMO food were poison, our whole food chain would be destroyed in a few weeks.

    6. Or just very sick. Which is more what we are saying.

    7. Millions of animals and humans eat GMO food every day and don't die or become very sick. As of 2013, roughly 85% of corn and 91% of soybeans produced in the United States are genetically modified.

    8. Wrong. They have NOT been proven safe.

    9. just let susan g eat all the gmo's she wants. maybe she can wash them down with a shot of round up seeing its so safe.

  16. Thank you for getting us knowledge in such an important situation.We really need it.This documentary really reflects the situation that happen us today.Every capitalist firms lies that their products are safe even though they are GMO's and by doing this they risk our and the other animals lifes.So we must get enlightened about this situation and not to be lied by the firms which say their products are safe .So by this way we can protect us from these products.

  17. The great debate continues and as it does it seems the walls around GMO and GE food industry are closing in. Now that Mexico has joined the other nations that have banned GMO it sounds like in 10 years, the billion dollar corporations pushing the "Save The World" campaign will have to make their own sovereign utopian island somewhere. Wait a minute....you are trying to do just that to the beautiful island I live on. Kauai, Hawaii....but soon you will have to pack your bags as well. Maybe the Big 5 can chip in and take it to the moon!

    1. Maybe there would be some good to your scientific data "IF" it were not controlled by the likes of Monsanto, Sygenta, Pioneer Hi-Bred, and BASF..

    2. well the anti GM movement have made it pretty much impossible for anyone but those people to dabble in it, because there's too much backlash from pitchfork and torch wielding mobs.

  18. Very soon the food “made in USA’ will be regarded as poisonous. In fact in Europe it is considered already as not reliable and not healthy. Isn’t it sad that the whole generation has been raised on this food… Just want to share my own experience. Back in the early 90s, when I lived in Russia, even during the time of Moscow “empty stores” and long lines to buy the most essential food, like bread and milk, the American poultry - as they call it “ Busch’s Thighs” - that was coming from the USA, was never in demand, as there were so many stomach failures and allergies because of consuming it. People refused to buy them even for cheaper price though at the same time spending hours in lines to get Holland and French similar products. Some Muscovites were truly thinking that America was sending on purpose the poisoned products to kill Russian people in the time of starvation.
    I remember, there were even several articles in the local papers” How to Cook the Busch’s Thighs Safe to Your Health”: First leave them in the water for the night in the fridge, get rid of the used water, and then boil in the fresh water for 10-15 min and get rid of the Boiled water too, only then it should be more or less safe to cook”… This is absolutely true – you can ask any person living in Russia at this time. I did not realize back then, that those “bad” thighs were not just for Russia, THAT was the chicken, produced for the whole American population, until I moved to US, where almost every product caused severe allergic reaction in me. With years my body got used to some of them (if you consume poison by tiny amounts, your body starts adapting to it) and had to completely abandon some others. And that is just 10+ years living experience on American food! I can only imagine the damage being done to those who have been consuming this food all their lives!
    After constantly researching, balancing and playing surviving games with food one question always pops up in my mind. Who was that smart mind in the American government who made FDA two-in-one authoritative organ, responsible for both: food and drug control in the country? Russians say:’ One hand washes the other” The whole system is developed to produce more degenerate food products to supply the constant and stable demand for medication industry. Should it be two completely different administrations, independent from each other and controlled by the Health Committee of the Congress?
    Everyone knows about the moral “orange “ ethics of the companies like Monsanto . Should such companies be double- responsible for every label attached to their products? Do we want our kids suffer even more than us? I truly believe in God, and in that : “Like goes around, comes around!” You can NOT build your own perfect “kingdom” on the bones of the cancer patients, kids and babies included… Can we allow ourselves to be blind and deaf even further???

    1. thank you for sharing. I am a U.S.A. native with severe food related medical issues.

    2. Goldman eh? which native tribe is that name from?

  19. FactCheck probably Works for a Monsanto company. STOP messin around wit Food,

    1. lol. i love the way that any contrary evidence to your beliefs can be just dismissed as part of the conspiracy based on the flimsiest of reasons...I bet you don't subject things that say what you want to the same ammount of criticism, even though those people are trying to sell you books and t-shirts and have an obvious financial interest in misinforming you.

      You're not even willing to accept the possibility that there's another side to the story.

  20. Safe is a relative term. There is not enough evidence to determine how safe or unsafe GMO foods are. There is however evidence that they can cause severe allergic reactions in some people.

    1. and there's evidence that it can feed a billion starving people...

    2. Lol! You cannot call that evidence unless it has actually happened.

    3. Norman Borlaug won a nobel peace prize for doing it in 1970!

    4. Research into genetically REMOVING or ALTERING the antigens in foods that people are allergic to (life threatening peanut allergy) is happening now!

      Genetically modified crops that are pest resistant. Therefore reducing the use of pesticides are now available.

    5. Even if all this is true and GMOs are perfectly safe, I still believe they are a bad idea because they lull us into a false sense of security as our soils continue to degrade. All the fertilizer in the world won't save them from the loss of their organic matter, the stuff that makes them friable and able to drain, that protects them from weather extremes. Cover cropping is a much better answer to top soil loss that GMOs. And without topsoil we're screwed.

    6. agree, our farmland is so tainted from decades of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticide use. We have been working organic matter into a few of our smaller fields and the results and yields have been incredible

    7. There you go. Soil biology and structure are essential to fertility. We are already seeing a decline in GMO crop production rates.

    8. Right. And if we don't stop Monsanto natural crops will be wiped out if it hasn't already happened.

    9. Actually no. Pest resistance has been unsuccessful. Pests have developed a tolerance which has created super pests. So Monsanto has had to add more of the gene of the pesticide Roundup. Roundup is toxic by the way. So now farmers can add more Roundup to the crops without killing the plant.

  21. By definition a GMO is a novel life form with unknown characteristics and unspecified effects.
    The only way that modern man knows that a particular food is good to eat is : For generations our parents and children have eaten and enjoyed it and they did not die and there were no deleterious effects.
    This is NOT THE CASE with GMO's.

    The anecdotal claims of the vendor (whose loyalties are already questionable) that the GMO is safe and suitable for consumption are neither valid nor are they backed up by anything close to good research that proves their claims. Their reluctance to label GMO foods and ingredients would, rather pointedly, indicate that the case is otherwise.

    American criminal statutes and product law state clearly that if a party goes out and knowingly modifies a product or a substance and then sells this modified substance to an unknowing party as the original, unmodified product or substance that IT IS FRAUD.

    AMERICANS SHOULD DEMAND THAT ALL GMO'S BEING SOLD AS FOOD BE LABELED IMMEDIATELY.

    Otherwise, Americans should consider a class action suit - accusing all of the GMO producers of fraud.

    1. "there were no deleterious effects" Oh really, is that why everybody is SOOO healthy. Monsanto just pulled out of Europe. There is strong evidence emerging showing GMO's connection to the bee die off

    2. could you cite that evidence please?

    3. except they are.
      Norman Borlaug fed over a billion people with GMO's...and there wasn't any raise in rates of autism daemonic possession aids or whatever else you think GM may cause.

      All that happened was a billion poverty stricken people didn't feel hungry for a little while.

      the evidence is there, you've just chosen to ignore it.

    4. i think you mean by YOUR definition.

      Accuse GMO producers of Fraud?

      If you can provide a single piece of genuine data proving they have lied about anything then i will support you...I won't be holding my breath whilst i wait.

      The anti-GM movement however relies almost entirely on misinformation, ignorance, and scientific illiteracy.

      There is certainly a fraud taking place in the GM argument, but it might not be coming from the side you personally are expecting.

  22. It's good to get a view from the other side too - "Jimmy's GM Food Fight" (BBC Horizon) is pretty good viewing if you are upset by this one. Think there's not a lot we can do? I found a full version "McLibel" recently uploaded to Youtube (a superb David and Goliath battle).

    The lengths these corporations will go to for profit is clear and documented very well. Those reports stand head and shoulders above any concern for our best interests. Yet we are to give huge amounts of responsibility to these behemoths of capitalism.

    The real argument is against nothing other than the devious nature of these massive corporations...it really isn't. Despite having been shown time and time again the error of their ways, they continue to behave as close to the lines of legal limits as possible - because to do otherwise would affect profits.

    So what's wrong with that? To deny they are responsible for helping set many of those legal limits, compromising as little as possible of their interests (regardless of ours), would be akin to denying the existence of corporate lobbyists.

    We can not continually expect governments to look after our interests in these days of revolving doors. These doors prove we are dangerously exposed to abuse of power, as our apathetic oversight is steadily usurped by surveillance and bondage.

    By 'them' insisting we aren't capable of making these decisions, or even taking part in the processes (which is akin to calling us stupid and irrelevant) there has to be, in turn, concessions at least: we, the public, require transparency, culpability and freedom of information to be upheld in great detail, due to the responsibilities bestowed on our behalves, and not least concerning previous track records. Anything less (or indeed refused) deepens that previous akin (of stupidity and irrelevance) to deception and exploitation, making government instantly redundant in its claimed role and immediately legally challenged in its legitimacy.

    Government, can not have its cake and eat it and needs to rethink its appearances of loyalties, and money as free speech.

    It's only through our support, that these 'machines' function. It should only be through our diligence and vigilance that they are maintained.

  23. There is so much important information in this doc. GMOs are not tested, and heavily protected for financial reasons. Bottom line.

  24. This documentary should be under the "conspiracy" section.

  25. why is the world according to monsanto page all grey?

  26. Monsanto is evil.

  27. It seems like the same type of people who are convinced that vaccines have had a negative impact on human health. Wild claims without citation, with omission of important obvious facts.

  28. wow they just make things up for this lol

  29. Here's the thing. In order to avoid eating GMOs you have to eat organic and in order to eat organic you have to be about 50% wealthier. So the better off among us can protect their health, but everyone else is ....(add whatever word you like).

    1. The argument that we can't afford to eat healthily? Nah. I can't go with that.

      Thought experiment: I open a chain of restaurants to compete with McDonalds (right next door), selling rat burgers. I market them well (The McRat Happy Meal) and soon everyone's buying my rat burgers at cut down prices. As my market share increases, I increase my prices to match McDonalds. In return McDonalds ups their prices as the 'healthy alternative'. [cracking up with laughter here]

      As fear over health concerns of my rat burgers makes it in to the public domain, people cry out that they can't afford to eat the healthier McDonalds variety.

      Question: What allowed the price of a McDonald's burger to become 'unaffordable'?

      The Mexican farmers in this film are eating healthy organic corn living on little to no money at all, with abundance. Price points are just what the market will bare. It may be very real, but the fallacy of affordability should be clear.

      If you can't stand the heat, get out of the city.

    2. Hmm, if you're doing a McRat's, I might open a KFR chain near yours.....7 secret herbs and spices plus a secret ingredient...GMR's ;)

      One way around it is do what I've done, get a veggie garden going. Set them up right they're not that much work, I think easier in ways then buying it, cheaper, and taste better. For people that say they haven't got the time... it takes time to go buy it too. If you have kids, it's a life lesson about food/survival that I believe is very important, not to mention fun.

    3. 100% Agreed...and paragraph two ain't too bad either.

    4. G'day Digi,

      What Doco was talking about in his 2nd paragraph is correct in my opinion. My son spends hours in the garden with his uncle in now their garden.

      The enjoyment for me as a father is that I know that the guidance and the opportunity to learn how thing grow and are harvested for us to survive without all these fast food chains. With advancements with hydroponics very little area is needed to grow your own veggies, which include indoors

    5. Spot on. The moral of the story being? It's no use crying foul over a rat burger.

    6. Kids love gardening when they are raise to do it. I was transplanting a few pole beans this week while my grand son was visiting (2 1/2yrs old), he wanted to help and knew exactly what to do. My daughter and i are growing a large vegetable garden at her house and he gets to help a lot.
      A couple weeks ago we planted many strawberry plants around the bottom of his tree house. Everyday he walks to eat the few ripe ones.
      1i

    7. Cute aren't they :D My nephew is 5 now, very smart, he's not shy to correct me.. and is usually right :( It's winter here, citrus time, at the moment he loves the juices we make up from our limes, oranges and mandarins. We're waiting for the snow peas, broccoli and cabbages we planted to get ready, he's always liked the snow peas. :)

    8. Fresh citrus juice.....yum!
      Being Canadian this is not something we get here but i was able to enjoy such harvest while living in Poway, California. Sometimes i'd go back just for the gardening seasons.
      1i

    9. G'day oQ,

      It's our winter over here, (as I sit here in short and a t'shirt only), the variety of fruit and vegetables due to our climate and the fertility of our soil, that can be grown all year round through out Aust gives us an advantage over other parts of the world. The area taken to have a little veggi patch, for yourself to enjoy and also the lessons we teach our love ones, passing on truly important knowledge that will help sustain life. Hopefully that we can still grow organic without the need of any GMO's for many years to come. I'd have no problem with the research into GMO's if it looks at things like the water consumption or aiding the GMO product being grown in more arid areas then the benefits may have a far more reaching effect. However, producing GMO's to be pesticide and herbicide resistant, to aid there fellow chemical companies brothers to manipulate the system for there own advantage or greed over what this research should be trying to achieve.

      Edit: Medication and alcohol are a great mix at times...;)

    10. Sorry mate if it does not make any sense in places, but be male and trying to do to many things at once may the case. Hope you get my drift though....:)

    11. Gotcha...cheeers very much!

  30. 4) [I lied!] run @a_no_n [Taz]...run!

  31. 3 [of 3]) What if there were no Monsanto?

    Now we are getting the crux of the issues. There are plenty of reasons and ways to improve our farming methods without the need for chemical companies using GMO. Multi-tiered farming, biodiversity etc. etc. If we continue down this route we are on, we will soon cross the rubicon (the point of no return). I for one find that thought abhorrent and dismaying. We don't need Monsanto, or the likes. What we do need is:

    - improved 3rd world education,

    - improved farming techniques using existing proven technologies,

    - responsible and transparent research & development in to GMOs.

    ...When we are ready to implement GMOs we do so responsibly and thoroughly effectively, without having sold our souls to Monsanto. The very idea that people are starving to death right now and we need the likes of Monsanto to save the day is nothing less than playing in to their hands.

    1. At 70 and w/a 50 yr career in agriculture and horticulture, including original research and plant breeding, I know all-too-well the evil that Monsanto is, as well as that of its methodology. DigiWongaDude is quite correct in his reasoning and POV. Twenty generations of testing is not too long a wait to be sure something so fundamentally world-changing as GMOs are is truly safe as what has gone before. In the case of most food plants that is only twenty years, surely not an excessive demand when we're looking at an eternity of consequences.

  32. 2) GMOs vs. Monsanto

    This documentary goes against GMOs via the route of looking at the business practices and ethics of the Monsanto Corporation. The two are inextricably linked, and Monsanto makes an easy target. Monsanto also (because of its sheer size and influence) sets the legal precedents and standards of anyone wishing to follow in their footsteps. The same way that McDonalds sets the de facto model for restaurants, and Disney World sets the de facto model for theme parks.

    The buck stops with Monsanto.

    If they can't get it right, no one else will. And right now if Monsanto was McDonalds we would have to sign a waiver before entering their restaurant against future law suits, have to consume all food in store, and be searched on the way out to ensure we don't inadvertently leave the premises with any of the products...(irony intended).

    But being against GMO in general is like being against food because of McDonalds. The two are linked but one is not, necessarily, the other.

    1. Agree, GMOs should be evaluated on their merits and demerits. The problem is Monsanto has been preventing that from happening by inserting itself into government agencies not only by money but also personnel. In reality Monsanto is a new kind of public/private entity. It has inserted its genes into the body politic.

    2. An excellent and original insight, poetically stated, to boot! It brought to mind The Bad Seed, a classic 20th c stage-play that was made into a movie, whose premise is a human parallel to what Monsanto's done to agriculture.

  33. 1) GMO Labelling

    People might not always know what is 'best' for them, they are fickle, fussy and impressionable. If they were to see a food product labelled as containing some hypothetical, immune system boosting antibiotic, they'd likely steer clear, regardless of the benefits, preferring to opt for a 'natural' product.

    If, however, you could eat a labelled banana that delivered a 3-month inoculation against malaria...munch munch.

    If a company wants to use GMO in their food, and people find that abhorrent, that is no reason not to label it! That's partly why we have public relations and advertising - and looking at the tobacco companies alone, it is more than capable of dispelling 'myths' over GMOs. So, the fact that money is spent lobbying to ban labels, bypassing the PR route, makes me extremely sceptical of their known knowledge, and motivations. Compound that with the Monsanto Protection Act, and you can be damn sure I would not buy a food product with GMO contained within it.

    But here's the rub: the UK recently had a spate of horse meat being used in ready meals; a country with some of the strictest Food Health & Safety Standards in the world (hence horse DNA was found). What guarantees are there at all that no GMOs would be in our cornflour even with strict labelling laws? None whatsoever.

    Therefore, not only am I sceptical, I'm against GMOs in our food supply (period) until the industry as a whole can restore trust, responsibility and accountability (...not going to happen).

    1. I do know how the US can get around this problem. They have to show that some people have adverse reactions to a particular GMO (like a nut allergy). Throw some public money at that through crowd sourcing, and that way the product will have to express "This product may contain traces of Monsanto GMOs". Play them at their own game!

  34. There is no good excuse not to label the foods. Of course they will suffer; but shouldn't those who invest the time, effort, and money to grow GMO-free produce reap the rewards of those investments? People are still going to buy food, it isn't as if they see a GMO tomato and then don't buy a tomato. They'll maybe go buy the GMO-free tomato.

    So it's not a question of harming industry, that's not going to happen, it's a question of protecting certain people and certain companies, people with many friends, from fair competition in the market, against those who have invested to produce a product that the consumer is more likely to choose - if he had the freedom to choose, which is what is being deliberately kept from him. GMO products could still compete on price if they are really as efficient as their proponents claim ... and if they aren't ... why are we doing it?

    The other issue to me is contamination. I think anyone who negligently contaminates another crop with GMOs is essentially vandalizing someone else's property and threatening their livelihood, and so should be subject to criminal charges as well as civil damages for the property that was contaminated due to their negligence (or willful destruction, as I suspect is more commonly the case)

  35. They just listed Australia as being one of the countries that has enforced GMO labelling. I can say for a fact that that is utter bulls*it. I wish it were the case...

  36. I love the way it's all about the money, and Monsanto is evil because profits...Yet when organic farmers mark up their prices and sell their food for ridiculous ammounts of money, that's all fine and dandy.

    It's a ridiculous double standard...also quite telling that none of these conspiracy theorists can see that the Organic market has a clear financial incentive in getting people to believe that GMO's are evil.

    I'm not saying their is a big conspiracy theory...just that it's very telling about the real agendas of the Anti GMO crowd, who seem to be more interested in dismantling science than they are searching for any sort of truth in it all...they certainly aren't applying their skepticism to their own information.

    1. Wow, lots of posts! :) hmm...a storm in a teacup, or the Tasmanian Devil from Roadrunner...oh...oh... I got it, you're a Taz in a Teacup!

    2. Mate please don't insult the tassie devils intelligence...lol

    3. have you finished throwing your teddies out the pram now?

      You can't attack what i've said so you're just going to attack me instead.

      It just proves my point for me that you lot are all the same as creationists, you're happy to talk so long as everyone believes what you do...no other opinions allowed on pain of pitchfork wielding mob.

      Although in all fairnewss, at least the creationists can go without forming the actual pitchfork and torch wielding mob...unlike you anti-GMO lot.

    4. Alright Taz, calm down to a panic.

    5. can you please explain to me how i'm not being calm?
      i haven't swore, or written ALL IN CAPS, or done anything to...oh wait, you're just telling me to shut up because you can't articulate your opinions in a reasoned or measured way...fair enough, each to their own.

    6. Organic farmers produce a particular product and invest time, energy, and money to do so. They charge a higher price because their product cost more to make and because consumers value it more. That's how the market works: consumer choice.

      Monsanto wants to do an end-run around the market, deny consumer choice, and charge the same money for an inferior product by ensuring the consumer is prevented from choosing.

      If GMOs are more competitive, then they can be produced for less, and Monsanto can compete against GMO-free on price. If GMOs are not more competitive when the consumer has choice ... well ... welcome to marketplace competition and goodbye Monsanto.

      There's no double standard here. Just a rotten and corrupt company that teams up with others of its ilk like the banks and oil companies to destroy our economy by buying politicians, spending billions to warp minds and get supporters who somehow think we need Monsanto. We don't. We need consumer choice and fair competition in the market. If it favours Monsanto then they'll survive, and if it doesn't, tough luck!

    7. ffs...GMO's aren't about competition...they're about ending our food shortage crisis.

    8. Hahahaha, ok, Monsanto is doing charity and saving the planet. Sure.

      Even if Mother Theresa headed the development team and Monsanto etc developed GMOs with halos round their heads, never thinking for a moment of it as a product intended to make the company money, it doesn't change anything. They can still be labelled and the consumer can still have the freedom to choose. There's no good reason not to.

      It's like saying there's a food shortage crisis so we're going to add sawdust to some brands of bread, but we're not going to tell anyone. It doesn't make any sense, except to the guy who is selling sawdust at the same price as bread and making a lot of money. Now if he has to label his bread, he'll have to put the price down, but if there is a food shortage, people are still going to buy it. They're just not going to pay as much and the guy will have to compete like everybody else.

      The food shortage excuse is a bunch of baloney. Has nothing to do with reasonable measures and fair competition for that product, its just a weak excuse for the kind of end-run they want to do around the market.

    9. that seems like a bit of an hysterical reaction to what i said. I'm starting to get fed up with constantly repeating that i think big corporations are underregulated.

      You say the food shortage excuse is false...try telling that to the millions of people starving around the world...unless you've actually been there and have the evidence to prove that poverty is a big conspiracy theory then you can't really say sh1t like that...because i'm just going to assume it's a privilaged middle class white person speculating on the wider world that he has no experience or understanding of...just because you're comfortable, doesn't mean the rest of us are.

    10. Sure there are people starving, but does that demonstrate that is why GMOs were created, or that they're a viable solution? GMOs were not created for that reason, they were created as a product by a company looking to make a profit, plain and simple. You can throw all the emotional appeals and rhetoric you want, accuse me of being privileged (haha) and so on ... it doesn't change the fact.

      And you accuse me of hysteria? Really, now that's rich, after that post! A bunch of sophistry and trying to manipulate emotions as an argument against reasonable measures like labelling. Because if they label GMOs the sky is going to fall, right? Baby Jesus will cry? Africa will go hungry because all their food will have to be used to make the ink to print the labels?

      You're hoping all you have to do is throw some issue like that and everyone will stop thinking critically, due to the hysteria you're attempting to create. Thereby evading a rational look at the issue.

      It's not as convincing a tactic as you seem to think. It just makes me think you've got something to hide, to play around with that sort of sophistry.

    11. The internet was made by the Military for the sake of Espionage...yet i see you have no qualms using that.

      The patent for electricity was stolen by Edison for the sake of making money...you also have no problem with that i see?

      Again it all comes down to imperialistic racism, you think you know what's best for the starving of Africa even though you've never gone hungry in your life, and you think it's better that people starve than engage in technologys which get your superstitious heckles up.

    12. You accuse me of knowing what's best for Africa, when I haven't even brought it up - it's you who claims to know best. Roundup Ready corn so they need to buy lots of Roundup and so they can never save seeds, that will help with their food security, right? No, but it makes money. Africa is irrelevant here. We don't make this decision on some irrational "save the children" plea that has no real basis to it other than an emotional hook.

      You have decided that I must dislike it because I mentioned it's motivated by money. I don't like or dislike things motivated by money ... I am just stating what the intent here is, it's not this lousy fairytale about Africa. It's just a product, on the market, there to make profit for the business that created it. Not about saving the world or any of that.

      You've also decided that since I believe GMOs need more regulation, that I must not like the use of GMOs. Again, you jump to conclusions ... one of the reasons people like you shouldn't be part of the debate. GMOs are just a technology so I'm neutral about them. I don't care if they're used or not, just so long as it's done properly. That is to say: labelling, so the consumer has choice and so the market can properly determine the better product; better experimental testing on long-term effects; no contamination of non-GMO plants through open air pollination; finally, no patenting on living things (only processes). Under these conditions I have no problem with GMOs and I doubt the starving of Africa do either.

      If GMOs can't meet these standards and fall by the wayside, then the market has shown they are an inferior product and a scam being foisted on the public. If they survive and meet the conditions, then great.

    13. exactly, you haven't brought it up...which seems strange considering they're the ones this technology is being developed for.

      Ok...so say we make plants that don't cross pollinate in the air...then the manufacturers get accused of trying to control the food market because the seeds are sterile...there is literally no way to win, GM is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't, lol and you've the nerve to try and pretend to some sort of neutrality?

    14. You're stubbornly persistent with this fantasy that it's motivated by a concern for the Africans. It is most decidedly not being developed for them. It is being developed for multinational corporations as a product for the purpose of making a profit. Fact.

      Sterile seeds should be mandatory, for obvious safety reasons.

    15. right...they just happen to be making rice that's heavy in Vitamins these people can't get easily...but it's not designed for them, honest!

      I think you're deluding yourself mate...nobody is making GM rice for you, no matter how important you think you are.

      And it's not just Africans, It's India as well...If you could pull your head from it's snug middle class comfot you might actually realise it's a complicated global issue...Imperial racism through and through, and the sad thing is you don't even realise you're doing it!

    16. It's designed to meet market demands to make a profit. Perhaps the market demands more vitamins; perhaps it demands a way to make African and Indian farmers pay what little money they have for seeds and fertilizer and keep them in bondage. This, too, is profitable. Ideally, a bit of both would suit a GMO developer looking to make money and lo and behold! This is what we get. Surprising? Not at all. Not when you recognize that the products are being developed by companies to make a profit, not by charity organizations.

      Frankly that's not what I care about. What I care about is good regulation. That means, labelling of GMO products so the consumer has free choice, allowing proper competition to take place and allowing the people to choose at the store shelf, rather than these decisions happening as a product of lobbyists, vocal minorities, and backroom suits knowing what's best for everyone else. It means no open-air pollination so that natural strains are not contaminated. With proper regulation, I see no reason why GMOs can't be produced, the problem is the "wild west" attitude of the producers who think they should be allowed to contaminate people and crops with unknown variables, that they know what's best for everyone else so it's ok to hide their tampered produce among normal produce and make sure we never get to choose.

      This, of course, has nothing to do with "imperial racism" or any of your other thinly-veiled attempts at cynically exploiting such terms. You should be ashamed.

    17. That's a good joke!
      1i

    18. now this may shock you...but i was being serious.
      It is possible for people to hold alternate view points without being paid to/joking/etc.

  37. when the first sentence of the description is an all out lie i have little hope for the rest of this doc.

    1. yeah i thought the same thing. people seem to forget that we have been gentically modifying our food for mellenia ... corn used to be purple banas looked completely different and cows chickens and sheep look nothing like they did when we first started using them. just because we have learned enough to do it directly rather than spending 200 years breeding it out how does that suddenly make it evil.?

    2. The flaw here is that we are forcing nature rather than cooperating with nature. That is a major difference. It implies that GMO stands for God, move over.

    3. no it doesn't...if only because science doesn't recognize the existence of a god.

    4. i think it was carrots that used to be purple...Corn can't exist in the wild.

    5. What was it you said.... ohh, that's it. Sources please. ;)

    6. again...double standard. If you're only asking one side to produce evidence, you're not being smart you're being a backward hypocrite.

    7. Asking someone on a troll-a-thon to apply the same rules to themselves is being a backward hypocrite is it? You can ask for sources but none can ask you? The only double standard toting hypocrite you currently see is your reflection in your monitor.

      I notice you've selectively chosen what to reply to on your current troll run. Like this little hypocritical gem from you; "You can't attack what i've said so you're just going to attack me instead." That statement, and then don't answer any questions that don't suit you, but instead call me names. Hmm, and I've got the double standard. lol.

      Have you anything to offer the discussion instead of BS and insults?
      Here's another question for you to consider. You said this show only says what I want to hear. I've not stated my position on GMO foods here, so how do you know what I do or don't want to hear?

      I did say I agree to mary, but not exactly what part of her post I agree with. ;)

    8. well done...you danced around addressing that point superbly.

      I know what i said to you...you don't need to repeat it back to me.

      Is that how you answerr all questions? by repeating them back to the person who asked you.
      I can't imagine you get much done like that.

    9. You'll only go round in circles with this poster. Nothing to be learned or shared.

    10. I'll have to agree with you there mate. After looking into his posting habits as well as this thread, his lack of answering questions to anyone that tries to engage him, etc it becomes very clear
      he's just a troll, TDF is just one of his regular 'fishing spots' unfortunately, and that's his usual MO.

    11. Yeah, can I get some sources that this is a lie?

    12. well...there is no evidence.
      Quite simple really.

    13. As I have given you one of my sources and you still have not, it would appear that you're a hypocrite and my evaluation of you being a troll seems to be correct.

    14. you posted it 17 hours ago...i've got this thing called a life...at least give it 24 hours.

      ffs...you see me as an enemy to be beaten into silence don't you?
      You don't see opposing opinions as intellectual quandries do you, you see them as a plague that must be gotten rid of.

      Well done, you've found a handful of studies...and they are quite interesting, it'll be interesting to see where further study takes that information, it's very probably that those strains are ones that should be abandoned in favour of others.

      But that's the thing...those are STRAINS of gmo, not ALL GMO's...do you understand that subtle difference?

    15. Are the questions that I asked you in my reply to your first post to
      me here are still unanswered, are the questions to hard for you to comprehend
      or is it that you find it hard to be honest???

      A you have never tried to engage an actual discussion with me about GMO's at this or any stage that I have tried due to your TROLLING.

    16. This is what i mean...how can I answer your questions when every new post you're just burying them under more and more accusations and insults?
      You're not looking for a discussion, you're trying to batter me down into silence because you don't like what i'm saying...I actually conceded a point to you earlier on...you'd have noticed if you wiped the froth from your mouth for a second and actually read what i've said to you.

    17. will you answer the questions that I actually asked then in my 1st reply to you??

    18. Sir, please cease trying to nail jelly to a wall. I can not imagine you topping a troll statement that begins with "well done".

    19. perhaps this comment should have gone on that thread where it would have made more sence?

      rather than ad homineming me in a way i can't defend against to try and tarnish me as opposed to what i'm saying on a different point.

  38. So easy to comment if you don't have to worry about drought or famine killing your children. Stop behaving like spoilt little children and think for a min, the actions of large scale corporations and the harm they do are an issue separate from the safety and necessity of gmos.

    In fact it is due to propoganda campaigns like this that regulation on GMO make it prohibitive for almost anyone other than huge corporations to develop and implement gmos. *slow clap*

    1. You seem to believe we need GMO crops to feed the world. That's been proven to be a lot of hot air. Conventional crops are yielding more than GMOs. You seem to be saying that GMOs are necessary even though they may be causing harm. I guess then it's okay that I have serious heath problems as long as I get my three squares a day even if the squares are causing the health problem.

  39. Very interesting comments. Any of you up for organized work or do you have any recommendations for serious organizations to join? I have set out to make a tour on the theme limits to growth in Sweden. GMO's are certainty a matter to take seriously, since almost everything we tamper with end up in flames sooner or later. It is time for science to get more respect for nature and for mankind to realize we are not masters of the universe, only a biological species as every other animal on the planet.

    1. I totally agree. Mankind is in a fit of hubris and is headed for a tragic crash. The ancient Greeks understood this and developed a virtue called reverence that guarded against hubris.

    2. It's amazing humanity has already have been through this several times in history. Still we obviously don't get the picture. It can only be the the result of tremendous ignorance. So sad.

    3. Human are the loose cannons of the world. It makes you wonder what God had in mind.

  40. Oh no! Somebody says it's bad and it must be true because there so much more cancer now that people live longer lives!!!

  41. So instead of moaning about all this lethal poison, monsanto, (doesn't even warrant a capital 'M'), grow your own food, source locally, avoid "supermarkets" like the plague, do something about it, BUT STOP BLOODY WHINING!!!!

    1. how can you say we have to stop whining? are you crazy? it's not whining, it's PROTESTING. and you have to keep protesting so things will change. one man's solutions will not apply to all, but one man's protestings can spread easily.

    2. god knows protesting is better than going out and researching the science.

      If you did that you'd realise there's not anything to protest...except perhaps the decietful measures of the anti-science lobby

    3. No we will not stop whining. If it hadnt been for "whining" then I would never have heard about the disgustingness that is monsanto myself a few months ago. Stop being a part of the problem by hoping to hush us all and sweep it under the carpet so that only a lucky enlightened few may protect ourselves. I have family members working with health providers and in hospitals who don't even know what GMOs are, let alone have a clue of their dangers. To them I'm a crazy person. And this because I'm aware. Well I will NOT as you say stop whining because I LOVE them. People who are still asleep deserve their health just as much as we do. THEY ARE WORTH THE EFFORT IT TAKES TO WAKE THEM UP. AWARENESS IS POWER!! SPREAD THE WORD!! AVOID GMOS!!!!!

    4. because thousands of Starving African children just aren't important when there are middle class white people out there not eating organic food.

    5. without people who "Whinge" American's would still not know what they have been eating for the past 2 decades, some still have no idea what a GMO is.

    6. like yourself for example.

      You seem to be under the impression that it's arsenic when in fact it's just food.

    7. Its not "just" food, its genetically modified food. Which hasnt been test enough to be deemed safe for human consumption. Or can you please show me a impartial study or three that begs to differ?

    8. but if it hasn't been tested, how can you possibly know it's deadly?

      I'd like to show you a study, but every time someone tries a pitchfork wielding mob turns up to burn it!

    9. I never said that it was deadly, I said that it hasnt been tested enough to be deemed safe. Quite a big difference, dont you agree? Since food is something we must have every day I just want to be sure that its safe. Even if I eat it every day for 50 years. Arsenic will kill you with quite small amounts, but I dont like my food to kill me at all. Can you be 100% certain that GMO's arent bad for the human body in the long run?

    10. and you're wrong, it has been tested. Norman Borlaug was credited with feeding a billion people with it...how is that not evidence?

    11. Rather than blame the invisible mob why don't you do as others have done and provide the link the you obtained your "said" information from as you have repeatedly demanded from anyone who seems to have a different opinion than yours.

      You said "It sounds like you only like discussion when it's going one way."

      Puzzled!!! were you referring to yourself in that remark or have you always tried to play the comedian.

      PS Are the questions that I asked you in my reply to your first post to me are still unanswered, are the questions to hard for you to comprehend or is it that you find it hard to be honest???

    12. You'll find a_no_n only demands sources never give any....

    13. i suggest you google "the burden of proof" and learn how to engage in proper debate

  42. I appreciate this documentary, as one who "developed" a rare autoimmune disease that showed its physical presence when I was in my early 30s. I had been a healthy child, raised on organic garden food my parents grew, and grass and simple-grain fed meats they raised. After marriage my foods were purchased from the commercial chain. I was just past 20 when I began to have reproductive organ issues that lead to a complete hysterectomy. MY lower legs now look as if I have walked through raging fire, with un-healing and recurring ulceration - an attack on the flesh by my own disoriented immune system. It sickens me to know that, had I known what to not eat, I would not have "developed" this life-shortening disease. Science and farmers need to be held accountable for producing and marketing ONLY healthy foods. And I wouldn't care the excuses of how they have the responsibility to "feed a nation". America was once plentiful with naturally grazing meat sources and natural vegetation. Who wiped out those millions of buffalo? Abundant deer, elk, turkey . . . . ? Waste not want not. But don't try to cheat nature at the expense of the health of millions of unsuspecting consumers. You like your modified foods, then YOU eat them!!! I'll have not one bite of that salmon.

    1. I agree, and feel empathy for your problems, and wish you all the best in your continuing battles Mary. Keep 'truckin' mate.

    2. and what evidence do you have that this disease was directly caused by commercial food?

      Is it not possible that you were desperate to come up with an explaination and settled for what seemed like the simplest answer?

      I don't understand how you think organic food somehow protected you or staved it off, i presume that's what you're suggesting.

      don't get me wrong, it sucks what happened to you, but that doesn't give you free reign to pass off your assumptions as fact.

  43. why dont we just nuke the whole planet and exercute anything alive, not like most of you would risk anything or lift a finger to take back the power, makes me sick, but oh! you have a new iphone, wait what was i just saying? nevermind. bah.

    1. Vent its cool =).. I know how you feel.

    2. i doubt it :P

    3. isn't it funny how most of the people at these anti GM movements are posting about it on their iPhones.

      All big corporations are evil...except (cuer long list of luxury products your modern hipster just can't do without)

    4. heh, i use an ancient nokia.

  44. Lack of research my arse... The scientists working on this stuff make it their lives work, 10, 20, 30 years in research and development... If you want to shoot at something, shoot at monsanto and like companies themselves... the idiots that want pesticide and herbicide ready products and sue farmers out of their livelihoods.
    Genes don't 'change' by consuming these foods. In the case of insects and weeds, evolution is affected by exposure to the herbicides and pesticides. Improperly researched GM products may have side effects, but thats not the way REAL science works, thats the way capitalist science works !

    1. 10 20 years to do something that takes a few months... I call it job security lol..

    2. Maaaate,

      I did read your earlier post and noticed you have not mentioned the spelling mistake in the next post you replied to.

      I believe that people in glass houses should not throw stones .eg. "10 20 years to do something that takes a few months" to my knowledge unlike your childish babble no man has live for 10 20 years.

      I enjoy having discussions or debates on this site and the topic matter that the particular documentary is discussing. I would be very interested in your true understanding of GM foods and the advantages or disadvantages they may have in the long term.

    3. It may be job security, but it doesn't take a few simple months. First you have to isolate the genes you want, blast your target plant with a gene gun and then culture and test the results hoping you have a viable strain. After that theres a very lengthy process with the FDA for testing and approval and crossing your fingers that greenpeace idiots don't trample your crops into the ground. Would you want to eat something they threw together and put on the market in mere months ?

  45. There is no biological free lunch we should for sure figure out more efficent ways to produce food, but not chemically altering. we've been living off the same foods for too long for gmo to not have an adverse affect on us but nothing we can do about it unless like 10 million show up at their HQ.

    1. we've been living off the same foods for too long for gmo to not have an adverse affect on us.

      how did you come to that conclusion?

  46. A lot of this doc (2012?) seems to replicate much of what was introduced, using the same topics (and the same interviewees), as in "The World According To Monsanto". (2008, 7.7 on IMDB), but with less of the evidence, follow through and impact (imo). This one glosses over some issues that without the backup shown in the 2008 version, can come across as sensationalism. The fact that it really isn't, is what makes this one worth paying attention to, too. This one talks a lot more about the scary potentials and citing possible GMO effects as the source of declining bee colonies and the reduction in male fertility, so because of that I'll recommend the former over this one.

  47. Wrong from the first sentence to the last word, and I don't want to discuss more about GM, believe as you like, but the reality will not change.

    1. "Wrong from the first sentence to the last word." Really?

      ...The origins of Monsanto?

      ...The revolving doors?

      ...The proactive lobbying for prevention of accountability?

      ...How RoundUp was 'discovered'?

      ...Transgenics?

      ...Patent infringement suing of farmers?

      ...Suicidal rate increases in India?

      ...Global domination and control of food supply by a single corporation?

      Oh...sorry, I forgot you don't want to discuss it (unsurprisingly).

      Yes indeed: "...believe as you like, but the reality will not change."

    2. ladies and gentlemen i give you the textbook definition of "the gish gallop"
      Where the poster (in this case Digiwongdude) lists SO MUCH deluded tin foil hattery that it would take you a week to disprove all of it.

      If i had the time and the effort i would tell you why every single one of those points is irrelevant, but even if i did i doubt you would either listen, or stop using them as examples in further conversations.
      you anti GMO's are just creationists with a new bag...It's the same backward logic, the same undying faith in prophets, the same unwillingness to even look at the science lest it should brainwash you or something.

    3. a_no_n, please can you make the effort to disprove one of Difiwongdude's statements? Just calling it "tin foil hattery" doesnt make it less true. The gish gallop is also a bit different from this as that more refers to a debate where you have to answer in realtime and dont have the internet at your fingertips. Also, I can see no apparent likeness between anti-GMO and Creationists, can you please explain that further?

    4. When you can point me to a single piece of peer reviewed science that says GMO's are harmful, then this conspiracy theory will have some sort of grounding and not be a conspiracy theory anymore.

      Anti GMO's and Creationists have a shared anti-science agenda...They cling to their pamphlets of lies even though science and critical thinking can clearly tell them otherwise.
      They both use flawed logic and rely on logical fallacies to make their points, and there is absolutly nothing that you can say or show them which will alter their beliefs...everything just adds to the conspiracy by "big-Science".

    5. Can you point me to a single piece of peer reviewed science that say GMO's are completely harmless? Then you can fight for down right evil companies as Monsanto even better.
      I see my self as a pro-science and logical person, but maybe you can group anti-GMO's with something else than those narrow minded Creationists since that's a completely different subject. I think that a corporation as Monsanto will spend A LOT of money on convincing that their products are safe, even if they aren't. Dont get me wrong they may be safe but right now there is just no way of knowing.

    6. Luyang works for Monsanto. He forgot to mention that.

    7. the bog standard tin foil hat reply.

      You disagree with me therefore the only possible answer is that someone has paid you to come here and say these things...Can you say paranoid delusional?

  48. Ah yes, more propaganda...
    Monsanto might not be your friend, but GM sure as HELL is your friend, and even if it's not, you go tell the BILLIONS of Africans who's lives where saved by GM technology, that they might as well die anyway, since your too squeamish about eating GM when having no CLUE what it actually means.

    1. If it is propaganda then Monsanto should allow studies and clear there name. Our policy should be prove it safe before eating and not eat it first and find out later. At least label the food so we have choice. Maybe I will get sick maybe I will not but at least I will have a choice.

    2. That is propaganda because africans won't eat gm because they know its poison.

    3. They are eating the hell out of it and so are you most likely.. You just do not know it yet.

    4. Again show me the evidence that clearly shows that we are already consuming GM food stuff as from what I've read from you tells me you have no idea what your talking about as per usual from what I've read from your previous posts on this subject and others I've seen you post on.

    5. you are a known troll on these forums, no proof, no evidence just your loud mouth, they reject them

    6. actually when African governments banned GM crops the Farmers had them smuggled in.

      It never fails to amaze me how many white middle class people who have never been to Africa seem to know exactly what every African thinks...by any other name that would be called imperialistic racism.

  49. The human body is a chemical/electric factory it doesn't need modification without experiencing severe consequences.

    Drink real strawberry juice and then artificial strawberry juice. The body can tell the difference immediately. The body's chemistry factory doesn't need a lab to spend time telling which is which.

    Mother Nature can be fooled at risk over time.

    1. good job we don't have things like pacemakers then.

      People can't tell the difference between horse and beef when the picture in front of them isn't honest.

    2. Stop trolling answer the question put back to you in the replies that you have all ready received

      Considering you have tried to attack me why haven't you come back to defend your false statement you have made.

    3. do you class all opposing opinions as trolling?
      is it not possible that i genuinely feel this way?
      can you not empathize with other human beings very well?

    4. I would like to answer you however I'm waiting on your response to my question in my reply to your first post to me.

    5. what the one where you provided a single link and cited that as gospel and i pointed out to you that it wasn't?

  50. In the Philippines, large companies lend GMO crops to farmers to be paid
    back after the crops have been harvested. Farmers complains of the
    little crop yields that's why they resort to using the GMO crops because
    they didn't have a choice. No support from the Local government either.
    Thanks for this very informative video.

  51. I might be jumping the gun here, I'm only 5 mins in. I think i read somewhere that monsanto make the bug killer, Roundup and they also make their GM crops Roundup ready which means they can use more of it. Don't know whether the crops are bad for you but pesticides are not good to drink :)
    Edit, I don't even know if Roundup is a pesticide or a weed killer so I'm probably just making things up again. Can't get into this doc, all a bit dramatic and panicky. Might make me believe a lie and I wouldn't even know it. Giving up and looking elsewhere. Naughty Monsanto!

    1. Check out "The World According to Monsanto" (if you have not it's quite incredible, and it's here on TDF) - I can vouch for that one, now watching this one.

    2. you are partly right, Monsanto makes more bad things than just roundup ready crops, but that is a big issue. the crops are resistant to the pesticide roundup and in turn breed super bugs which require more / stronger pesticides.

      I think patent for a pig is another good docu, but the world according to monsanto is the one to go to ^^

  52. Not to be too soap boxing here, but this endangerment of the public's health seems a very common pattern in situations where there is just the right combination of little or no empirical research and political/economic interests (in which one may be the cause of the other). For example:
    - Psychiatric medications - Fluoridated water
    - Vaccination ingredients - Hormones in livestock
    - Electromagnetic radiation - Chemicals in food/topical items
    - Plastics in food packaging
    - All of the above and their environmental impacts

    Of course, the jury is still out on these issues and issues alike regarding short term and long term residuum, but doesn't the fact that there even is controversy imply individual criticism and discretion? Unfortunately many are unaware the debate exists, and trust there is an implicit safety of products made publicly available.

    I made the switch to buy organic and locally grown foods about three years ago, and though its a more expensive lifestyle, it is completely worth it. I ascribe my health, natural energy, and general enthusiasm for life to the fact that organic foods are not nutritionally depleted and are not used with toxic chemicals. Its literally common sense; if I am physically well, my body is better able to cope with not only physical activities but with emotional and stressful situations as well. This new found vitality of course led to the reduction in sick days and medications, and also health and beauty products - my hair was shinier and my skin was clearer due to just eating well, so there was no need to buy all the serums, lotions and makeup. I also invested in a personal water filtration system which also plays a key role in my health, but that's for another comment.

  53. It's easy for Monsanto to get these entered into the general population when many of it's former executives now reside in the White House.

    1. surely that's the failing of government, not science.

  54. Great documentary!

    1. Exagerated rubbish. The only GM food to cause these problems, was corn modified with Roundup weedkiller. What a bloody stupid idea. Check the web. NOT EVERY study. JUST ONE stupid modification.

    2. Mr Taylor,
      Do you also believe it is rubbish to have labels on food items that are genetically modified?

    3. Another shouter...without backups, without links, and the few words used being wrong... so wrong. "corn modified with Roundup weedkiller" is such a blatant misunderstanding of what's going on, you can not possibly expect the discerning folks here to take you seriously...oh look at that...you found Jesus. What a pair!

    4. His point stands - the opening statement in the synopsis for this documentary is a blatant exaggeration. Some independent studies of some GM foods have shown potentially harmful effects - not ALL. Like you say, how then are the more discerning folks meant to take it seriously?

      Just because studies are independent in no way implies they are immune to the same biases as corporately funded studies, though the bias may point in the other direction. Independent studies are more likely to be lacking effective controls, and use smaller samples.

    5. {Raised eyebrow}

      You (and several others of note) have got my attention. Perhaps I've inadvertently run with the herd? Let's see...

      - RoundUp ready seeds contain a resistive protein that was found in a bacterium which survived an industrial accident of a chemical spill.

      - The chemical spill 'product' becomes a weed killer product called RoundUp and that miracle resistant protein is used genetically to allow plants to adopt those resistant qualities.

      So...the idea here is to purposely spray the land with a highly toxic chemical that virtually nothing organic can survive, except for some Frankenstein plants, owned and patented by a massive chemical corporation, which has stated is not concerned with safety standards (as that's the FDA's job) only profit. To tackle the propagation issue (and transgenics no doubt), they have re-engineered the plants further, to only grow a single season.

      Whenever 'man' interferes with nature, the results are always negative. I know that will be a contention here so I will say, in my absolutely firm opinion. Yet for some reason we want (or are expected) to believe that this won't be the case this time. And yet, reports are beginning to emerge that weeds are becoming resistant to RoundUp (as we've known for decades they would do).

      This will mean introducing stronger chemicals, and more (additional) engineering of the plant to resist, from a 'agriculture company' primarily concerned with profit. Each new generation having a new hefty price tag (or encouraging a farmer to sign long term contracts).

      This is not some sort of technological miracle, this is a mitigated disaster born out of short-sighted greed for profit, and sustained by the very same.

      We don't know how to deal with some of our new emerging super-bugs...isn't is obvious that the birth of super-organisms (weeds, bacteria and bugs) will be absolutely inevitable, as nature balances the scales? If nature doesn't, it would be a true first! Monsanto is surely just as aware of this as anyone, and surely has a drooling smile at the prospect!!!

      Please, oh please, show me the errors of my ways?

    6. Keep on messing with nature, i just hope your children will grow up to be healthy... By the way, the study's that don't show harmful effects are the ones done by Monsanto and its subsidiary’s, and they are all short range study’s. And if GMO's aren’t bad why aren’t they allowing labelling? They should be confident about their products... Oh and lets ignore the fact that pesticides destroy the land and water! And lets ignore the fact that GMO's disable organic farms as far as 200 miles! Lets ignore microRNA getting into our body's! "just one stupid modification", do you really know how many modified crops they have, how many patents they already have? Wake up my friend!