Skip to main content

Genetically modified (GM) crops have not only failed to deliver the promised higher yields, lower costs, less hunger and lower pesticide consumption, they have done the opposite. The high cost of GM seeds has driven up food costs, increasing hunger, while impoverishing Indian farmers to the point of 250,000 suicides.   BT resistant "super corn worm"

Moreover, while failing to increase yields, GM crops have led to the development of superweeds and superbugs that require the use of stronger pesticides in increasing amounts. However GM crops have been a great success for Monsanto, Du Pont and Syngenta corporations who have reaped huge profits and now control 70% of the global seed market according to a report released today by a global consortium of NGO's. GM crops benefit no one but the GM industry according to the expert representative of the Friends of the Earth in the video below. GM crops are profitable on large scale monoculture corporate farms, but the higher cost of seeds keeps farmers from increasing profits. However, because of the short term benefits seen in the first few years of use, farmers have adopted GM crops to compete. Monsanto hooks farmers like a drug pusher hooks high school kids. The first few times are so good. However, as weeds and bugs develop resistance, the need to use more and stronger herbicides and pesticides increases over time.

For small scale farmers in developing nations, GM crops have been a catastrophic failure. One quarter of a million farmers in India faced with rising Monsanto GM seed costs but a stable price for their crop have been driven to suicide.


Ten common weeds have now developed resistance in at least 22 US states, with about 6m hectares (15m acres) of soya, cotton and corn now affected. Consequently, farmers are being forced to use more herbicides to combat the resistant weeds, says the report. GM companies are paying farmers to use other, stronger, chemicals, they say. "The genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering in farmers' fields," add the authors.

Superweeds growing in a GM corn field

The companies have succeeded in marketing their crops to more than 15 million farmers, largely by heavy lobbying of governments, buying up local seed companies, and withdrawing conventional seeds from the market, the report claims. Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world's three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and intellectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report.

The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over 95% of the Indian cotton seed market and of massively pushing up prices. High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought to be behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.


The causes of the large number of suicides of Indian farmers are an ongoing controversy. Even the number of suicides is in question. A 2009 report determined that BT cotton was not a major factor in Indian suicides. However, no report on the suicides of farmers in India is difinitive given the complexity of the problem and problems with compiling the relevant data.

Results from a new investigation into the tragic phenomenon of Indian farmers' suicides and the alleged link with genetically modified (GM) cotton have been published. The International Food Policy Research Institute's (IFPRI) analysis released in October provides the most robust evidence yet that suicide among farmers in India has several causes, but Bt cotton is not a major factor. Indeed, the authors of the report, Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence, argue that insect-resistant cotton encoding the cry1Ac toxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been very effective in India overall, notwithstanding the significant levels of variation that individual farmers have experienced with the technology. The study is unlikely to be the last word on what remains a highly emotive question, given both the chaotic conditions under which adoption of transgenic hybrid varieties in India proceeded at the start of this decade and the lack of solid data underpinning the very real and complex tragedy of farmer suicide in the country.

Note to readers
Because I do not have expertise in the biosciences, I am unable to critique bioscience reports like these in the same way I can critique reports in the earth sciences based on my many years of education and experience. I wrote up this post to highlight what looks to me to be an important report by a consortium of large number of NGOs in the developing world. I think we need to continue to discuss the practical results of the use  GMOs in global agriculture. I appreciate all criticism if it is backed by the results of scientific studies.

Highlights taken from the (uncopyrighted) report

One of the big promises of GMO seed producers - increased yield - has been proven False.

GMO's will cause pests to develop resistance & become "superbugs".

Crops which have been genetically modified to produce the natural pesticide BT will lead to resistance and the development of superbugs which will likely damage the crops of organic growers who use BT as a natural pesticide. GM BT cotton is already being attacked by a superpest. Primary report, 58 page PDF.

The primary justification for the genetic engineering of Bt into crops is that this will reduce the use of insecticides. Bt cotton is among the ‘miracles’ being pushed by corporations like Monsanto as a solution to the pesticide crisis. One of the Monsanto brochures had a picture of a few worms and stated, “You will see these in your cotton and that’s O.K. Don’t spray.” However, in Texas, Monsanto faced a lawsuit filed by 25 farmers over Bt cotton planted on 18,000 acres which suffered cotton bollworm damage and on which farmers had to use pesticides in spite of corporate propaganda that genetic engineering meant an end to the pesticide era.

In 1996, two million acres in the US were planted with Monsanto’s transgenic Bollgard cotton. However, cotton bollworms were found to have infested thousands of acres planted with the new breed of cotton in Texas. Not only did the genetically engineered cotton not survive cotton bollworm attack, there are also fears that the strategy will create super bugs by inducing Bt – resistance in pests. The question is not whether super-pests will be created, but when they will become dominant.

Summary points from the GMO report on BT

1. The Bt Plant does not merely use ‘sunshine, air, and soil nutrients’. Bt crops are transgenic and have a gene from a bacterium called bacillus thuringiensis (bt) which produces the Bt toxin. In addition it has antibiotic resistance genes and genes from viruses as promoters.

2. The so called ‘biodegradable protein’ is actually a toxin which the gene continuously produces in the plant. This protein has been found in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses.

3. Insect pests like the cotton bollworm which destroy cotton can actually evolve resistance because of continuous release of the toxin and hence become ‘super pests’.

4. The Bt crop does not affect ‘just one specific pest’. Beneficial insects like bees and ladybirds (ladybugs) can be seriously affected. A Cornell study showed that the Bt toxin affected the Monarch butterfly.

Superweeds growing in a GMO bean field are stealing water & nutrients

Reuters, 19 Sept.2011 Super weeds pose growing threat to U.S. crops

Farmer Mark Nelson yanks a four-foot-tall weed from his Kansas soybean field. The “waterhemp” towers above his beans, sucking up the soil moisture and nutrients
his beans need to grow... “When we harvest this field, these waterhemp seeds will spread all over kingdom come” he said. An estimated 11 million acres are infested with “superweeds” some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

False Promise of Reduced Use of Chemicals with GMOs

Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, this has not been the case. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them.

In India:

• A survey conducted by Navdanya in Vidharbha showed that pesticide use has increased 13-fold there since Bt cotton was introduced.

• A study recently published in the Review of Agrarian Studies also showed a higher expenditure on chemical pesticides for Bt cotton than for other varieties for small farmers. (Are there Benefits from the Cultivation of Bt cotton? Review of Agrarian Studies Vol 1(1) January-June 2011. Madhura Swaminathan* and Vikas Rawal)

In China, where Bt cotton is widely planted:

• Populations of mirid bugs, pests that previously posed only a minor problem, have
increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any financial benefits of planting Bt cotton had been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat non-target pests. (“Benefits of Bt cotton elude farmers in China” GM Watch,

Some animal studies have shown detrimental effects of consumption of GMO feed.
Experiment by Irina Ermakova: influence of GM-soy (Roundup
Ready) on same age rats : control group on left, GM-soy on right
with pups small sizes and weights

The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and universities at Caen and Rouen were able to get raw data of Monsanto’s 2002 feeding trials on rats at the European Council order and made
it public in 2005. The researchers found that rats fed with three approved corn varieties of GE corn—Mon 863, insecticide products, Mon 810, and Roundup Ready herbicide —suffered organ damage.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary, detoxifying organs as well as different levels of damages to the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic systems,” according to Dr. Gilles Eric Seralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen. (“A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health,” Joel Spiroux de Veu de Mois, Francois Roullier, Dominique Cellise, Gilles Eric Serelini, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009, 5: 706-726).

Originally posted to FishOutofWater on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 06:09 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, Progressive Hippie, and Meatless Advocates Meetup.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Advocates claim that GMO's are based on science (39+ / 0-)

    but scientific studies show that GMO's have failed to cut pesticide use and have failed to increase yields as promised by advocates.

    The facts are that GMO's have enriched a few large corporations at the expense of millions of people, driving a quarter a million Indian farmers to suicide, while increasing environmental problems with superbugs, superweeds and pesticides.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 06:07:04 PM PDT

  •  Shuddering information Fish, literally. (9+ / 0-)

    I loath Monsanto.

    Bookmarked, FB and sharing this far and wide.

    Thank you so much.

    If corporations are people, then I want to see some birth certificates and talk to their parents.

    by Onomastic on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:28:02 PM PDT

  •  GMO's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, Onomastic, DawnN

    Killing the world one crop at a time.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:30:25 PM PDT

    •  We're putting in a vegetable garden next year (9+ / 0-)

      using heritage seeds.

      Monsanto can burn in hell.

      Hopefully before they take the rest of us with them.

      If corporations are people, then I want to see some birth certificates and talk to their parents.

      by Onomastic on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:34:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We use heritage seeds too (8+ / 0-)

        Some of the old varieties are very tasty and do very well in small gardens.

        I've tried to keep an open mind about GMO crops. In theory they could increase yield, decrease pesticide use and cut soil losses. However, the longer you study GMOs the worse they look. Short term benefits end and long term damage appears.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:38:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know you tried to keep an open mind about (6+ / 0-)

          GMO. Wouldn't expect anything less.

          There were just so many variables that we don't have control over.

          It's the same old thing that humanity does so well. Hubris striking again. You'd think we'd have learned to walk on the earth far more gently and humbly by now.

          If corporations are people, then I want to see some birth certificates and talk to their parents.

          by Onomastic on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:45:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What Was The Treatment For Waterhemp... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wee Mama, Onomastic

          in your example?  Did he have a waterhemp problem before he used GM seed?  Control of waterhemp must be made in the pre-emergent stage of growth and that is a vary short period.

          Waterhemp is an invasive species in many areas such as Ontario.  Invasive species are becoming a bigger and bigger problem.  The Emerald Ash Borer has changed the timber and camping industry because nobody wants infected wood transported to a mill or campground.

          Zebra mussels will continue to wreak havoc on pleasure boating as control measures and inspections increase.

          I used herbicides for many years for ag weed control.  I chose between two different herbicides depending upon the type of weeds present.  If I chose wrong, the weeds I did not kill looked like super weeds because they had no competition, plenty of water and nutrients.  That appears to be why the waterhemp is growing so well.

  •  This is insane (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, theatre goon, bryfry

    I'm sorry but I can't just let that fly.

    I thought we were supposed to be pro-science on this site.

    You realize that the vast majority of studies done on GMO's don't show any negative side effects right?

    Sure there are studies that are out there - a dismal minority - screaming about frankenfoods and all that shit. If someone will fund a study then they can probably get a result.

    Case in point, I see that you used the Seralini study - a study that was viciously shredded by multiple reviews in both 2007 and 2009.

    A sample of the rejection:

    This diary reads like the shit that I see on climate change deniers websites - You know the ones that claim that all those pro-global warming scientists are paid tools and just in it for the money. And 90 percent of the scientists are just fucking wrong. We must be right, because it seems so reasonable!

    There may be issues with GMO's, in fact clearly there are. Just like most technological advances.

    But this is just anti-scientific fear mongering.

    Gah. I have no words.

    Hr'd me at will.

    •  I understand your concerns. But realize there (5+ / 0-)

      were scientists for years that defended tobacco, denied the association of secondary smoke and cancer, etc.

      There is NO question that some scientists do lousy work, and some find only positive facts that suit their employers goals.

      I have seen it first hand.

      I was trained in the sciences and I believe in honest science.  Some don't.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

      by cany on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 08:17:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

      I'm willing to look at, and actually would like to have done,  published and confirmed studies by independent researchers in multiple climate areas.  And I'm not talking 'studies'/'reaserch' by Union of Conerned Scientists, who as a group, have a goal of getting rid of GM crops completely (so obviously any research or presentation is going to be biased).

      Otherwise, I do agree with you.  You cannot take a posting by someone that is obviously biased as gospel on a topic, science will show the truth of the matter.  I also agree with the generic point of the OP that the major GM seed producers are pretty damn evi as companies.

      "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

      by erush1345 on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 10:22:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  FSANZ argues that statistics aren't enough. (3+ / 0-)

      They insist that if you can't find the causative factor the factor doesn't exist. That's silly, and that's not science.
      The rats pictured are clearly different. Your authorities would have us believe that was merely chance, and that if the toxin or nutritional deficit that caused the apparent differences can't be identified then the differences don't exist.
      GM isn't about science, it's about technology and money - and power.

      "Our answer is more democracy, more openness, more humanity." ~Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg

      by Andhakari on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 10:57:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The rats pictured look different, extremely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        different, so much so that they almost raise the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" standard, because sure as heck there is nothing in the transgenic grains that would make sense for such a major impact, from this biologist's perspective.

        It can happen in an animal colony that one group, for instance, picks up a mycoplasma infection or something like that. If these transgenic grains are truly this harmful it should be trivial for another group to replicate the effect.

        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:08:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          but the previous comment I was responding to didn't offer a link to a study showing different results for a replicated experiment - the link went to a jargon riddled analysis which based its criticism on what wasn't looked for or found.
          I have no idea if the featured photo intended to show average or extreme differences, but if statistically significant differences were found then we can assume that the populations have been affected by a variable. If the variable was withdrawn and reintroduced with corresponding changes in the rats, we may be able to infer causality. What the causal agent may be (other than something in the GM soy), I don't think the experiment in question examined.

          "Our answer is more democracy, more openness, more humanity." ~Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg

          by Andhakari on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:39:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for your opinion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilK, Onomastic, kurt

      I presented a summary of this report which was produced by a large number of NGOs. Perhaps all of these different organizations across the world are denying science.

      I claim no expertise in the biosciences.  I could be wrong to think that this report is accurate.

      However, I think that the key to sustainable agriculture is biodiversity. Manipulating one or two genes to try to escape the destructive effects of monocultures and lack of genetic diversity is a strategy that I don't think the developing world can afford. I don't think farmers will be able to adapt to climate change based on the GMO approach.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

      by FishOutofWater on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:10:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)

    For posting this diary it was very informative and before reading it I had no clue about GM crops. If your goal was to educate people about this issue, you succeeded.

    Pencils aren't for eating. Trust me.

    by Hamtree on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 08:07:45 PM PDT

  •  Well for me, here's the bottom line: (7+ / 0-)

    Monsanto and others HAD to have known much of this before they ever marketed.  If they didn't, then they didn't do proper scientific studies.  If they DID know--a sheer speculation, though logical, on my part--they committed fraud.

    The fact is that groups that opposed GMO prior to release and after were right--or partically right--from the get-go.

    I learned a long time ago not to trust corporations for scientific integrity having reviewed accepted "scientific" study in environmental documents for new land use.  Then I did a stint on radioactive waste (7 years) and learned the data they produce is wrong (but the government's WAS correct).

    In each of the above cases, they had a goal they wanted to meet:  New development and LOTS and LOTS of new profit.  How did they meet that goal?  By bending data to meet the goal, the facts be damned.

    This is where it ALWAYS starts and almost always where it ends up going.


    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

    by cany on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 08:11:12 PM PDT

  •  Anecdotal evidence (4+ / 0-)

    and therefore absolutely worthless, but a lot of our problems with honeybees came exactly when GM rapeseed (canola) plants started becoming popular here (UK). We don't have as many butterflies the past three years or so either. While climate change and severe cold that occurred over last two winters have been blamed, as well as urbanisation. None of these factors has been so extreme as to explain pollinator decline.
    Plus I observe many dead and dying bees in my yard when the rapeseed bloomed in the surrounding fields, something that never happened until recently.
    Friends in the States claim there are fewer Monarchs as well. I would have to know about conditions in their overwintering grounds, and have a graph of butterfly numbers overlaid with year on year temperature variations to speak to that, but surely someone has done some research.

    "Bootstraps are a fine invention as long as they are attached to boots." blueoasis

    by northsylvania on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:18:07 AM PDT

  •  Monsanto can rot, but this diary stinks. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, bryfry

    "Superweeds" are a result of using the same herbicide repeatedly. The number of glyphosate resistant weeds is dwarfed by those resistant to a much deadlier herbicide - atrazine. Farmers had a good twenty to thirty year break from using atrazine. You know chemical pests controls are an arms race. Bugs, disease, weeds all develop resistance over time.

    Bt cotton was so effective when first put on the market, millions of acres converted to its use. Aerial spray companies folded in the south from lack of business. The first Bt resistant bugs were found in the fields of organic farmers using Bt as a spray. Yes, I think Monsanto screwed their own goose by not providing refuge seeds (unaltered) in their Bt corn product. Now they are looking for approval to do just that. Probably too late.

    Farmers in India committed suicide because of financial hardship due to: drought, 100% interest rates on loans, low prices at market and increased input costs, including but not limited to high priced seeds.

    Bt toxin is a insect toxin, pretty specific at that. There is zero evidence that the protein expressed does anything other than kill certain bugs.

    I'm kind of surprised by this diary FOOW. Full of debunked or inaccurate information.

    “The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

    by the fan man on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 03:48:39 AM PDT

    •  Please read the source PDF if you think this sucks (0+ / 0-)

      I do not claim to be an expert on this topic. It certainly is not in my area of expertise. However, experts from many developing nations contributed to this report. I suggest you take a look at the PDF source document if you think I reported this story inaccurately.

      In my opinion, although a number factors contributed to the high suicide rate in India, the high costs of GMO seeds are a primary factor. India didn't have this kind of suicide rate before GMOs when farmers practiced traditional agriculture. GMO seeds created the illusion of lower costs and higher yield for a few years. That set farmers up for a disastrous fall when resistance set in and they had to pay for expensive seeds and pesticides.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

      by FishOutofWater on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:00:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indian farmer suicides predate GMO seeds. This (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, bryfry

        is a debunked story.

        A report released by the International Food Policy Research Institute in October 2008 provided evidence that the cause of farmer suicide in India was due to several causes[clarification needed] and that the introduction of Bt cotton was not a major factor.[105] It argues that the suicides predate the introduction of the cotton in 2002 and has been fairly consistent since 1997.[105][106] Other studies also suggest the increase in farmer suicides is due to a combination of various socio-economic factors.[107] These include debt, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, the downturn in the urban economy forcing non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counseling services.[107][108]

        Comments from the report's authors:“To be brutally honest there was nothing in there which was significant, given the scatter [of data] you had,” says Stephen Morse, professor of sustainable development at the University of Reading in the UK, whose farm extension studies were cited in the IFPRI report. “If they had done a proper [statistical] analysis they might have picked up something.” But he too is highly sceptical of a causal link between Bt cotton failure and suicide. “There is no evidence of any kind of a jump or any kind of surge.”....
        The picture is further clouded by the selling of mislabelled, counterfeit seed packets, which often contain more than one variety. One Indian official was quoted in defining four distinct categories of Bt cotton: “legal, illegal, fake legal and fake illegal.”

        That last statement is really telling. How can you tell if GMO seeds didn't work if you weren't using them to begin with?

        Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide

        “The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

        by the fan man on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:44:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What about the fact that the cotton plant left (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the fan man

      sores on any animal that brushed against it and that the QUALITY of the cotton was so bad.  I don't have the article any longer but it stated that this was the only seed available.  When mass suicides are involved - you know that the manufacturer of the seed has a great deal of fault.

      •  Since we don't see that in the US or (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        anywhere else for that matter, I'd suspect animals are brushing against something else, or suffering from some other ailment or perhaps what farmers are spraying without guidance.

        Read my response to FOOW. GMOs may be bad, but bad information clouds whatever real substantial criticism there may be.

        “The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

        by the fan man on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 06:30:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Monsanto is evil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Bt used to just wash off in the rain. That's why organic farmers had to keep reapplying. But no one ever ate it before Monsanto put into the food. Given how much corn is in virtually every processed food, one has to wonder how much of the stuff Americans are consuming every time they drink a soda or eat a BigMac.

    I know which side I am on: the one that does the math.

    by Grassroots Mom on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:54:37 AM PDT

    •  The process that extracts the sweetener removes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      in the Trees, the fan man

      proteins. Eating and drinking too much sugar is a bad idea, but it isn't exposing people to Bt toxin. In any case our stomachs are great at denaturing proteins unless they are targeting to the stomach specifically.

      A friend studying sucrose compared several sources before starting some experiments. He found that the five pound bag of table sugar, straight from the supermarket, was already as pure as his reagent grade sucrose.

      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:14:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If That Is True... (0+ / 0-)

      I should outlive the rest of the country since I do not drink soda and avoid fast food.  I do eat fresh corn on the cob inseason and niblets and cornbread however.

  •  A nice manual on herbicide resistant weeds: (0+ / 0-)

    U Illinois Weed Science
    If you look at the list of weeds (pgs 274-76), very few are glyphosate resistant, most are ALS (atrazine) resistant.

    It takes three conditions to create a resistant weed:
    1) An herbicide with a single site of action
    2) repeated use of said herbicide
    3) lack of other weed control methods

    “The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

    by the fan man on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:08:11 PM PDT

  •  Changes to genes are definitely questionable. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It would be one reason that I favor an immediate ban on the evolution of species.

    It's a scandal how genes keep changing.

    Actually, one of the surprises of the human genome project was to discover how much of the human genome derived from gene insertion from something called, um, viruses.

    One of the interesting things that has been recognized is that this sort of thing is still going on, a fact that is widely recognized by a group of people called "geneticists" which represents a sub-class of people called "scientists."

    I understand these classes of individuals are not very popular, but who am I to question the wisdom of fear, ignorance and superstition?

    In a paper cited by more than 800 other people also called "scientists" it was reported nearly a decade ago that HIV genes have been inserted into human DNA.    The paper can be found here:

    Cell, Vol. 110, 521–529, August 23, 2002,

    Here's some of the deadly garbage reported by the evil authors:

    Here we report an analysis of integration target of the viral RNA genome to make a cDNA man lymphoid cell line with HIV or an HIV-based vector copy, then integration of that cDNA copy into a chromo- and cloned 524 junctions between viral and cellular DNA. some of the host cell. The integration reaction requires The sequences were then determined and mapped on specific sequences at the ends of the viral cDNA, which the human genome sequence. As a control, 111 sites bind the viral-encoded integrase and other proteins to were generated by integration in vitro into naked human form preintegration complexes (PICs). The cellular DNA DNA and their genomic distribution compared with the sequences that serve as integration target sites, how- in vivo integration sites. Genes were clearly preferential ever, show no strong primary sequence preferences. integration targets for the in vivo-targeted set but not Here we investigate targeting of integration in the cellu- for the in vitro control. Transcriptional profiling revealed lar chromosomes in vivo, where the target DNA is pack- a strong correlation between gene activity and integrated in chromatin, revealing strong biases imposed by tion targeting, particularly for genes that were active in the in vivo environment. cells after infection with the HIV vector. Hotspots for integration were also detected, including a 2.5 kb region influencing integration site selection in simplified mod- that contained 1% of integration events.

    Undoubtedly these scientists at the Salk Institute were funded by Monsanto, and it is also very, very, very, very, very reasonable to assume therefore that HIV was invented in Monsanto's laboratories and the whole thing has been the subject of a huge cover-up.

    Someone should sic Greenpeace on those people who have those genetic "hotspots," that endanger the rest of us and also publish an expose by great bloggers about the link between Monsanto and HIV.

    As for corn, it is one of the most genetically altered plants known to exist, and actually its genes have been manipulated for centuries by an awful process called "breeding."  

    This has lead to an environmental disaster that is so profound that the corn plants now around cannot reproduce without human intervention, a practice called "planting."   The same unfortunate reality applies to another plant whose genome has been manipulated to the point of destruction.   It's called "wheat."


    Have a nice day.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site