Latest articles

The benefits of GMO corn

There will always be differing viewpoints and opposing scientific studies, but looking at all of the peer reviewed studies offers a balanced consensus on the benefits and risks

It was in 1996 that genetically modified (GMO) crops were first grown commercially, yet the debate still rages over their safety and toxicology as well as over their environmental and agronomic impact. And it doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re a supporter or an opponent, you’ve got a stack of scientific studies you can point to as proof of your position.

In fact, the existence of so many opposing studies means this debate is likely to continue far into the foreseeable future.

Besides, as we are learning, no matter how many new studies are done or how many old studies are re-evaluated, there will always be those who keep referencing old and even discounted work to justify their stance.

Nor should that surprise us. After all, how many people still believe vaccinations can cause autism because of a 1998 report in the medical journal The Lancet that linked vaccinations and autism, despite the fact there were only 12 children assessed in the study, the study was found to be flawed, and the doctor responsible for the study was accused of falsifying data and eventually lost his licence to practise medicine in Britain.

Or consider that some people still believe the earth is flat, or that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or that evolution is a myth, despite all the scientific knowledge gained in the centuries since these ideas were common place and supported by the scientific community of the era.

The best we can hope for in the GMO debate is a strong consensus of scientific opinion, based on evaluation of the many studies into the risks and benefits of GMOs. We need to consider the combined results of all scientific studies of GMOs, pro and con, rather than supporting or rejecting GMO technology based on any single study.

A team of four researchers including Elisa Pellegrino, Stefano Bedini, Marco Nuti, and Laura Ercoli of the University of Pisa in Italy have just completed a review of all peer-reviewed literature of genetically engineered (GE) maize (corn) published between 1996 and 2016.

They reviewed 6,006 publications and compiled the results of all the studies that addressed the agronomic, environmental, and toxicological traits of GE maize. Specifically, their meta-analysis sought to reveal the impact genetic engineering has had on yields and quality of maize, on non-target organisms, on decomposition of biomass in the fields, and on crop protection chemical usage.

Their findings were published on February 15, 2018, in the online journal www.nature.com under the title “Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data.”

This is an important review given that about one-third of the corn grown in the world now is planted to GMO varieties. In 2015 there were 53.6 million hectares of GMO corn grown globally, with 33 million ha of that in the U.S. and another 17.4 million ha planted in Brazil, Argentina, and Canada.

Yet 38 countries in the world, 19 of them in Europe, prohibit cultivation of GMO corn. So who is right, the farmers growing GMO corn or the politicians and consumers in countries which prohibit GMO cropping? What are the agronomic benefits and risks of growing GMO corn?

The Pisa meta-analysis addressed five questions. including the effect GE has had on yields. The researchers found: “our study indicated that GE maize hybrids increased yields by 10.1 per cent.” The study found a wide range of yield increase, from 5.6 to 24.5 per cent depending on the hybrid and its GMO traits.

Stacked hybrids which offer both weed and insect resistance provided the highest yield increases. This should not be surprising considering it is estimated insects are responsible for a 31.2 per cent yield loss and that weeds cut yields by 10.5 per cent in corn globally.

Second, the study found GMO actually improved the quality of grain corn. Mycotoxins were 29 per cent lower, fumonisin 31 per cent lower, and thricotecens 37 per cent lower.

GMO corn had 59.6 per cent fewer damaged ears from insect attacks, which is likely the reason for the decreased infection levels. Since mycotoxins are toxic and carcinogenic, the study concluded: “The lower mycotoxin content in (GMO) maize grain can help to minimize the exposure of humans to health hazardous toxins through the diet.”

Third, on the question of the use of crop protection chemicals, the study found the adoption of GMO herbicide-tolerant crops resulted mainly in a shift in which herbicides are used, while GMO insect-resistant technology has effectively reduced the number of insecticide applications.

The authors noted this finding was similar to previous work by other authors which found GMO in corn reduced herbicide usage by 10.1 per cent and insecticides by 45.2 per cent.

Fourth, the study found genetic engineering for insect resistance to be very effective. The study focused on the control of the western corn rootworm and found there was an 89.7 per cent improvement in control of this pest compared to non-GMO corn.

Importantly, the study found GMO had no significant affect on the majority of the non-target organisms’ families.

Finally, the meta-analysis looked at the impact of GMO technology on biomass decomposition. This is important since the decomposition of plant residue affects soil quality and plant nutrition. The study found no change between GE maize and their isolines.

Limitations of the analysis

It is important to note this study only looked at GMO corn. It did not provide any analysis of other major GMO crops, such as soybeans, canola, and cotton.

Second, the analysis concentrated on the agronomics of GMO corn. It was primarily a look at the benefits and risks this technology offers farmers.

Many anti-GMO advocates have claimed this technology has been forced on farmers by industry. However, this study provides scientific evidence of the benefits this technology offers farmers. These benefits are more likely the reason farmers have adopted GMO, and why 12 per cent of global cropland is now planted to GMO crops.

This is the first meta-analysis that evaluates GMO from an agronomic viewpoint.

In their conclusion, the authors stated that 21 years of field data analysis revealed GMO corn offers farmers increased grain yields, improved grain quality, and a decrease in insect damage. They also note modest or no effect on numbers of non-target insects. They found growing GMO corn reduces dangerous mycotoxin levels in grains.

In short, planting GMO corn can lead to increases in income to the farmers and a reduction of health risks to consumers of maize.

As I mentioned earlier, there will always be differing viewpoints and even opposing scientific studies. But by looking at all peer reviewed studies together, you get a balanced consensus on the benefits and risks. In this analysis of thousands of GMO corn studies, the scientific consensus is clear. Genetic engineering provides agronomic, environmental, and toxicological benefits to the farmer, (and indirectly to the consumer through an increased supply of higher-quality, safer corn).

This is a message that GMO corn growers need to share with consumers. The scientific consensus is clear. GMO corn is technology that we are wise to use.

About the author

Columnist

Gerald Pilger's recent articles

explore

Stories from our other publications

Comments

  • Mike Ricci

    I wish they had tested the glyphosate levels in the corn and made that public. That is my one concern with GMO corn (Roundup Ready versions) is the glyphosate can be taken up by the plant and becomes part of it. Eventually it is incorporated into whatever food substance is made out of it.

    • RobertWager
      • E. Sandwich

        Nope. This is the same captured organization as the U.S. EPA who allowed Monsanto to hide their own studies that show glyphosate causes cancer just before they approved it over the objections of their own staff toxicologists.

        • Nathan Harris

          Please post proof of your assertion, otherwise it’s just opinion or worse.

          • E. Sandwich

            All the proof was exposed by a FOIA request to the EPA which caused the monsanto science to be exposed to the light of day.

            Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA … Glyphosate-induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.

          • Nathan Harris

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/
            Excerpt;
            After almost forty years of commercial use, and multiple regulatory approvals including toxicology evaluations, literature reviews, and numerous human health risk assessments, the clear and consistent conclusions are that glyphosate is of low toxicological concern, and no concerns exist with respect to glyphosate use and cancer in humans.
            Excerpt;
            Glyphosate has undergone repeated and extensive review by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 1993), the European Union (EC 2002, Germany Rapporteur Member State 2015b) and the World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (WHO/FAO 2004b, WHO/FAO 2004a). With regard to potential carcinogenic effects of glyphosate, the unanimous outcome of these reviews has been that the data provide sufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate should not be considered a carcinogen. Genotoxicity studies with glyphosate, conducted under conditions stipulated by internationally accepted testing guidelines and GLP, as reviewed in 2000 (Williams et al. 2000) and recently updated (Kier and Kirkland 2013), indicate that glyphosate clearly does not exhibit the properties of a DNA-reactive genotoxic carcinogen. This lack of mutagenicity rules out an important concern for carcinogenicity.

          • E. Sandwich

            That is a Mosanto sponsored paper. Sometime Monsanto ghost wrote the science and had an “independent” scintist publis it undr their own name.

            I’ll go with the Monsanto science that they tried to hide. Maybe you will bet your life on the junk tobacco industry kind of science dis-information.

          • Nathan Harris

            If you call that extensive review of scientific studies junk science then there’s no hope you value actual evidence over the fear mongering you are perpetuating. It’s published by;
            PubMed Central® (PMC) is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM).

          • Peaceful Warrior

            One of the ways Monsanto creates junk science is to commission a study of studies that are cherry picked to support the Monsanto agenda while ignoring the science that shows harm. This is the same thing the tobacco industry did to deceive people about the truth. Monsanto internal documents that were released in lawsuit discovery show the discussions about having these junk science reviews created. They named specifically mentioned Greim, the author of this isrtudy, as a go to scientist for this kind of junk science.

          • Nathan Harris

            You fail to accept the evidence that shows glyphosate to be safe when used according to label, and have no science that proves it’s not. Always defaulting to, Monsanto made it up, provides you no credibility. Sorry, but real science beats fear mongering every time.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Nope. E. Sandwich posted serious science that Monsanto tried to hide.

            Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen. In addition to IARC, more than 166 scientists signed a consensus agreement in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health attesting to the soundness of the IARC classification.

            A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than the contamination allowed in the food supply.

            The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far rarer. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, bladder, stomach, and esophagus are all up since the introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold. See: Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

            ISSN 1177-4258

            Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

          • A Sad Little Man

            See: Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

            Nancy Swanson’s dodgy correlation graphs. This is your best evidence?
            No wonder you are losing the argument.

          • Where do you think she got the information behind the graphs? Invented, I suppose.

          • He is not disputing the data, just the analyses, presentation, interpretation and conclusions drawn from it.

          • Aah. So you are saying that A Sad Little Man (what a wonderfully appropriate name) knows better than practicing scientists?

          • It certainly appears so

          • oh, cute, Would you like to provide just a smidgen of evidence to support that outrageous claim? Probably not, but i am asking anyway.

          • Damo

            I firmly remember EFFNELL providing that evidence to you in the past, and you dismissing it.

          • Goldfinger

            EFFNELL is an industry sockpuppet troll like you and the criminal thief and imposter “sad little man. Nathan is a logical suspect too

          • Damo

            Sorry, I am a living, breathing person. Leave your masturbatory end product deposit material out of the conversation.

          • OOOH. So clever. What the hell are you trying to say?

          • Damo

            You can’t read?

          • Huh? Is that AL or AI? Either way it makes no sense as a response.

          • Damo

            Any proof, Ted?

          • Goldfinger

            Who is Ted? No one named Ted is posting here.

          • Nathan Harris

            I am a farmer with a real name. Who is Goldfinger? It’s rich you would accuse me of being someone who I’m not.

          • Goldfinger

            I didn’t accuse you of anything. I said that you are presenting here like an industry troll. Other than what you post here I don’t know anything about you.

          • Nathan Harris

            You wrote,
            EFFNELL is an industry sockpuppet troll like you and the criminal thief and imposter “sad little man. Nathan is a logical suspect too.

            Sounds like you are accusing me of being the same. I am not. You definitely know more about me than I do about you, unless you really are a James Bond movie title.

          • Goldfinger

            The more posts I read from you the more I am convinced that you are another agenda driven industry PR asset.

          • Nathan Harris

            You are wrong again, I sense a pattern.

          • First Officer

            The SAS, Shill Accusation Syndrome, is strong in that one.

          • Nathan Harris

            Yes

          • Goldfinger

            Yes, there is a definite pattern in your posts that support my suspicions.

          • Nathan Harris

            I guess anyone who disagrees with you is a shill? Your suspicions are a figment of your imagination. I already told you I’m a farmer. You must live a sad life with all your suspicions.

          • Goldfinger

            Those are your word and they don’t represent my views. You are responsible for your own posts. Together, as a group, they look like the work of an industry PR asset. I have nothing to do with what you post.

          • Nathan Harris

            A sockpuppet troll, and, criminal thief and imposter, were two terms you claimed I was a logical suspect of being.

            Those are your words. I’m not connected with Monsanto or any other chemical company despite what you assume. I’ve purchased many products in my farming career, from various companies but I’m not beholden to any of them. You seem to not understand how agriculture works. You on the other hand sound like a professional protester.

          • Goldfinger

            I call it the way it looks to me from here. I am not responsible for the things you post.

          • Nathan Harris

            Things aren’t always how you perceive them to be. That’s your shortcoming. You have added nothing to the debate, just inaccurate accusations. Congrats.

          • Goldfinger

            Sound like you are talking to your mirror.

          • Nathan Harris

            Like I said, you have nothing. Are you involved in any kind of food production or just criticize those who do? You’re not worth my time.

          • SUNNY

            Why do you keep responding if Goldfinger is not worth your time?

          • Nathan Harris

            I guess I just need to challenge people when they are spreading falsehoods. I like discourse, but some people just don’t contribute much.

          • SUNNY

            Obviously you don’t see the fact that Goldfinger posted the facts. What is it that bothers you so much abut the truth?

          • Nathan Harris

            He accuses me of being a troll or shill for some company. I am neither, so that’s the falsehood. I’m not aware of any actual fact he’s posted.

          • SUNNY

            Maybe you should check the facts he posts for yourself. They are very easy to verify.

          • Nathan Harris

            I really don’t care what he has posted in the past. I was simply responding to his attacks on me in this thread. Why do you care? Never mind, don’t answer, I don’t really care.

          • Oh, but you do care. You don’t like been shown up as a very ineffectual troll.

          • Nathan Harris

            I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Have a good life.

          • Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I may have mentioned that I am a pretty competent reader in six languages.

          • Nathan Harris

            Good for you, but you missed why I was replying to Goldfinger/Sunny who are probably the same person.

          • No. You were not replying to Sunny/Goldfinger. You were replying to me. your exact words were “I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.”

          • Nathan Harris

            It’s apparent it’s not your strong suit.

          • Really? Apparent to whom?

          • Nathan Harris

            You made a comment about my conversation with someone else. It’s apparent to me you failed to comprehend that fact. Have a good night.

          • SUNNY

            If you don’t care then why do you respond to me?

          • Nathan Harris

            Thanks for caring. Have a good night

          • A Sad Little Man

            This is part of the Ted Miner sock farm you are responding to. Expect another account to log on and keep the conversation going. There are 12 of them, easy to spot. They have the same argument and write the same way, down to copy’n’posting the same posts.

          • Goldfinger

            You can choose to believe anything you want to. All I know about you is how you present yourself here, and there is a definite pattern in your posts that support my suspicions.

          • Nathan Harris

            Your problem is you can’t believe that there are countless people both within and outside agriculture that support modern science including GE and other technologies that further modern agricultural progress. The pattern of my posts support modern agriculture and I make no apologies for that. But as I stated numerous times I’m not connected to any of the companies that provide this technology. Your suspicions mean nothing to me.

          • OK. If you firmly remember, you can support your memory with something concrete.

            Personally, I don’t remember having contact with EFFNELL before. No offense EFFNELL. You just are not very memorable.

          • Damo

            Ok, unlike you, I can admit when I am proven wrong. A cursory glance at EFFNELL’s profile does not show his description of why the charts are wrong. However, I do remember it being explained to you not that long ago. Don’t worry, I will find it and post whoever did explain it to you when I provide all the screenshots of statements you claim you didn’t make.

          • Goldfinger

            Do you really think a practicing scientist would need to steal a photo from another persons facebook page to create a phony profile account, EFFNNELL?

          • Just a thought, perhaps if you ignore the photo he will stop using it, I personally think the photo really suits A Sad Little Man.

          • Goldfinger

            You don’t seem to understand that a criminal thief sockpuppet hiding behind a stolen photo has absolutely no credibility. He won’t stop using the picture because the fake phony only created the profile to troll and harass truth tellers who’s truth he can not refute. He is not only a sad little man, he is also a sad excuse for a human being and he uses way more oxygen than he deserves.

            So, EFFNNELL, Whose sockpuppet are you? Who pulls your strings? It is likely the same person with the sad little man troll profile.

          • Personally, I judge people on what they write, not on their avatar picture or their username and I have seen well thought out arguments from A Sad Little Man that you are never able to counter.

          • Goldfinger

            You and sad little man are the same person, EFFNNELL. You are both sockpuppet trolls. Nether of you have any credibility.

          • We are clearly different people. I find it amusing how desperate you are to find out who A Sad Little Man and TED are, you have accused just about every pro-GMO poster on Disqus of being them.

          • Goldfinger

            Sockpuppet sticking up for his own criminal sockpuppets. Cute, EFFNNELL. Everyone sees though your sleazy desperate game.

          • You are wrong Goldfinger, I have no sockpuppets, I only have this account.

          • SUNNY

            You are not believable.

          • S.G.

            No different than you imbeciles accusing just about every pro-science poster on Disqus of being Ted. Talk about desperate. lol

          • A Sad Little Man

            Stoppy, I have never accused you of being Ted. Ted is dumb thinking no-one can see through his sockpuppet charade, but you are even dumber.

          • S.G.

            Hahahahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh!

          • SUNNY

            Look a his upvotes. Both criminal thief bandits.

          • S.G.

            Pathetic, isn’t it?

          • A Sad Little Man

            None of the authors of the paper is a practicing scientist.
            That is why it is so incompetently done.

          • Are you a practicing scientist?

          • A Sad Little Man

            I don’t have to be to make your claim wrong.
            You implied I couldn’t know better than practicing scientists, but the paper under discussion has no practicing scientists involved with it. So the point is moot.

          • You are quite right that the topic (I would not call it a paper) under discussion has no practicing scientists involved. Gerald Pilger calls himself a columnist – not even a journalist. Anyone can be a columnist, no expertise necessary.

          • SUNNY

            That is a lie.

          • SUNNY

            That is a lie.

          • A Sad Little Man

            The authors are:
            The owner and a consultant at Abacus Enterprises. Neither practice science.
            The President of IFOAM, the organic industry’s international marketing arm. Doesn’t practice science.
            A computational geostatistician at a Saudi-owned oil company. Not a practicing scientist.

          • SUNNY

            Sorry to break it to you, fake guy, but A computational geostatistician is a scientist with very specific training a skills for doing statistical analysis of data like the government epidemiological data that was used in this scientific analysis that you seem unable to dispute with valid counter analysis of data that shows it is not done correctly.

            Industry PR operatives always try to fake their way through discussions of science by sleazing the scientists and ignoring the science.

          • A Sad Little Man

            A computational geostatistician is a scientist with very specific training a skills for doing statistical analysis of data like the government epidemiological data that was used in this scientific analysis

            No computation geoststistics is building models based on sparse drill well data to work out the probability of specific rock formations and oil deposits in the ground. It is more software writing than anything else, and nothing like the science of epidemiology.
            You are still wrong. This paper is still junk science.

          • Verna Lang

            The trouble with your phrase “practicing scientists” in relationship to the Swanson article is that it should read “scientists from an unrelated discipline playing at being life scientists.”
            Did you look at the author list of the Swanson article? (the numbers following the names correspond to their affiliation):
            Nancy L. Swanson1, Andre Leu2*, Jon Abrahamson3 and Bradley Wallet4
            1 Abacus Enterprises, Lummi Island, WA, USA
            2 International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, Bonn, Germany
            3 Abacus Enterprises, Lummi Island, WA, USA
            4 Crustal Imaging Facility, Conoco Phillips School of Geology and Geophysics

            Please tell us why we should believe 2 people who work at Abacus Enterprises, which specializes in:
            Optics
            Lasers
            Imaging
            Lidar
            Remote Sensing
            Optical Design
            Those are physical science disciplines. No biological knowledge needed.

            The others are an organic activist and someone who works in another physical science field.
            Those authors did not have enough background and appreciation of the life sciences to even know just how wrong they were when they were mangling the data.

          • Are you a practicing scientist? That is a scientist who is actively pursuing some kind of scientific endeavor.

          • Verna Lang

            Currently practicing? No. I got my PhD in Biochemistry in the 80s. I still keep up with the reading.
            Do you not see the problem with none of those people having any training in the areas that we are supposed to take seriously in that article? The arbitrary trend lines on their graphs alone do not fit the actual trend of the data.
            Would you feel comfortable with an orthopedic surgeon doing a complex antenatal heart surgery in utero? After all, both are medical doctors and they share much more background knowledge than the physical and life sciences do.

          • OK. I’ll accept that you have PhD in something or another thirty years go. I have a BSc in mathematics and psychology from nearly fifty years ago. So what?

          • Verna Lang

            That means you are as unqualified as the people who created those graphs. You are equally unqualified to interpret them. Otherwise you would have some questions about why there was no latency period for the development of liver and other cancers according to Swanson et al. For example, lung cancer has about a 30 year latency period between the start of the smoking habit and the diagnosis of cancer.
            Then there is the biggest problem of all. Correlation does not equal causation. Repeat that until it sinks in.
            And what is with the start of the y-axis for glyphosate and percent crop adoption? Bouncing around between 0, -40, -10, -8, -20, -25. It’s almost like they had to force a correlation by being creative.

          • SUNNY

            So prove your claims, Verna show us how the analysis should have been done and why it is Wrong. Show us examples. Not gossipy snobby put downs of the scientists who did the heavy lifting that you can’t refute with your trite gossipy industry spin and propaganda,

          • Verna Lang

            My claim is that it should not have been done at all. There is no way to correct spurious correlations, unless you are creating them for humour.
            Did you know that you can get an almost perfect correlation (99.79%) when you choose the start of you axes just right and graph “US spending on science, space and technology” against “Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation”?
            Beautiful correlation, but utterly meaningless, just like Swanson et al.

          • SUNNY

            So you say, Show us your statistical analysis of the same data that show what you claim is true. You keep diverting from the fact that you don’t really have any proof for your phony claim.

          • Verna Lang

            What part of spurious and should not be done at all because it is bogus manipulation to produce a predetermined result do you not understand?

          • Jason

            Oh my god… you are just so oblivious to what you’re saying. She LITERALLY just posted the proof you asked for two messsages ago. 😂😂

            It’s like arguing with a 5 year old.

          • SUNNY

            Nope. She posted spin not any facts that dispute the accuracy of the analysis.

          • Damo

            Do you know how to read, ted?

          • SUNNY

            Please tell us,specifically, where they “mangled the data”. The data came from government epidemiological data. The statisticians used that data to come up with a statistical analysis of that data that shows very high correlations with various increases in medical conditions in the population. You have focused of the gossip about the scientists while ignoring your implied issues with the data or the statistical analysis.

            Please tell us and show your proof with examples that show that your claims are true.

          • Verna Lang

            Did I say the data was wrong? No. What they did with it should have earned them a failing grade in most upper-level undergraduate labs. Pointing out an overwhelming lack of any professional expertise on the subject of the publication is not gossip.

          • SUNNY

            That is a cop out. Your concerns about their expertise dosn’t tell us anything except the fact that you can’t support your claims with any specific issues with the science.

          • Verna Lang

            There was no latency period with any of the cancers that were claimed to correlate with the adoption of GMO crops. Tobacco contains about 70 known carcinogens, yet takes 30 years of latency before the exposure to the carcinogens actually produces the cancer. You are defending a hack job, not science.

          • Jason

            😂😂😂 it’s hilarious that you, of all people, are accusing someone of a cop out. You’re the king of the cop-out!

            Textbook Ted.

          • JoeFarmer

            Pretty much anyone knows more than you. You’re still running your mouth after getting trounced in the mayoral race with a whopping 7% of the vote, the winner got 9x the votes you did.

            But thanks for being the Dunning Kruger poster child!

          • Hello, Joe. What a pleasure to interact with you again (not!).

            How I did in my independent bid to be mayor of Corning has absolutely nothing to do with GM corn.

          • JoeFarmer

            It shows that virtually no one agrees with what you have to say.

          • Not at all. It shows that the two party system is deeply entrenched and that money talks. And that answers my question. If GM seeds were actually so wonderful and safe, the biotech industry would not have to resort to paying incompetent trolls to promote them.

          • A Sad Little Man

            I have no problem with the data. But lots of things have increased over that time. Sales of certified organic food in the US have also increased over the same period. Pehaps they are causing all these diseases.

            My concern is the way the analysis was done. It is completely incompetent and the numbers have been fudged to make them fit.

          • Oh, please! Can you give even one example of a suggestion of a hint that consuming food uncontaminated by chemicals is BAD for your health?

          • A Sad Little Man
          • SUNNY

            Organic food is only about 6% of total food sales. Even a novice statistician would tell you that the chance of that correlation being true is close to zero.

            This is not true for glphosate laden GMO food which is in 80 to 90% of processed food in the market.

            It is obvious that you are not educated in statistics.

          • You truly are a sad little man. It is not difficult to construct a graph showing a supposed correlation between anything you choose. Mad cow disease and leather shoes. Lou Gehrig’s disease and UFO sightings. Etc, etc, and so forth as the King of Siam mght have said.

          • A Sad Little Man

            I didn’t say this was good data, just data. It is of a par with Nancy Swanson’s idiotic correlations.
            This one is better because both the y axes start at 0.

          • Ha ha.

            “both the y axes”???????????????

          • A Sad Little Man

            Oh dear, I can see reading graphs is not a skill you have Elizabeth.
            Yes, both the Y axes. The Y axes are the ones that stick up from the bottom of graphs.

          • Face palm, as they say.

            There are not multiple y axes (at least you know the plural!). There is an x axis and a y axis. Without both of them, there is no graph.

          • A Sad Little Man

            Do you just make up things to write, Elizabeth?
            The graph I posted has a y axis on the left hand side and a y axis on the right hand side. The units on the two are different.
            I am beginning to wonder if you are trying to challenge Stoppy for most idiotic anti-GMO poster on the internet.

          • No. You very sad little man.

            It is possible to have two y axes to denote different things, but if you do not have an x axis, the graph is meaningless.

          • Damo

            Nope, not invented. But as has been explained before, the charts were manipulated.

          • Goldfinger

            Bullship!

          • Damo

            Sure thing, Ted. That’s why there are negative numbers on the graphs.

          • How?

          • Nathan Harris

            Correlation is not causation. Lots of other things have come into common usage in the same timeframe as GE crops. Did they all cause cancer?
            I still go with the scientific consensus that it’s safe.

          • If you are so convinced that glyphosate is safe, would you be prepared to eat a tomato, say, that had recently been sprayed with it? Bear in mind that there is much evidence that Roundup (a chemical cocktail) is considerably more toxic than glyphosate on its own.

          • You clearly missed the part where he said: “glyphosate to be safe when used according to label”

            Do you know of any roundup label that has ripe tomatoes on it?

          • Clearly. I didn’t see that at all. Where did “he” say “glyphosate to be safe when used according to label” whatever that means. I did not see glyphosate mentioned even once.

            If I overlooked something, I’m sure you will be able to quote chapter and verse.

          • What??? its in the comment you replied to.

          • I am not convinced by comments. It is certainly not in the article (unless my eyes are even worse than I feared).

          • Damo

            Are you dense? You asked him (Nathan Harris) if he thought it was safe enough to eat. What does the article have to do with anything?

          • And what was his response? I don’t always see other people’s discussions.

          • Damo

            You are either a moron or intentionally dense.

            Either way, given your non sequitur responses to my comments, no further discussion with you will occur today.

          • Same old, same old Damo. You have nothing to contribute so you resort to calling me a moron.

          • Damo

            No, you are a moron and continue to provide proof.

          • Damo

            Are you purposefully stupid, or is it just an accident.

          • S.G.

            Please don’t ever use “Safe” and “glyphosate” together. There is no amount of glyphosate which should be considered safe for human consumption. None! RoundUp was designed to work hand-in-hand with Monsanto’s gene-manipulated and there is a tremendous amount of misinformation, manipulation, deceit, bias, bought science, conflicts of interest etc. going on. You bozo’s have taken the hook, line and sinker. Just remember though, your beloved industry does not care about yours or your loved ones health either.

          • A Sad Little Man

            Stoppy, you don’t ever let us down do you? Here is another post of a whole lotta wrong.

            Roundup was first sold as a herbicide more than a decade before the first RoundupReady crops were on the market.

            Glyphosate is one of the safest herbicides available. It is safer than all the herbicides allowed in organic agriculture. Of course there is a safe dose.

            It is you useful idiots from the organic industry that are spreading misinformation, deceit, bias, dodgy graphs and so on.

          • S.G.

            Like I said, “hook, line and sinker”.

          • Nathan Harris

            I can’t imagine a scenario where glyphosate would be sprayed on fruits or vegetables, but I eat those after they have been sprayed by much worse chemicals. Where do you get the information that Roundup is a chemical cocktail? You also claim consumers eat no GE food, which is patently false. Glyphosate like many other chemicals is safe when used according to label.

          • Glyphosate (Roundup) is the most widely used herbicide on the planet. Yet you cannot imagine a scenario where it wold be sprayed on fruits or vegetables.

            Roundup is not pure glyphosate, That is well-known – https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

            Where did I say tat consumers eat no GE food. It is patent;ly false because the poor suckers have vey little choice. What I said was that consumers do not consume GE corn which is either fed to animals, turned into ethanol, or processed into HFCS and other nasty products.

          • Nathan Harris

            GM corn and soy are eaten by consumers in many more ways than you stated.
            No, I don’t foresee Glyphosate being used on fruits and vegetables any time soon. You realize that those foods and many others are sprayed or dusted with much more dangerous chemicals than Roundup? Ever eat apples, grapes, strawberries, potatoes and many other foods? They are all dosed with many more chemicals than GM corn or soybean.
            The supposed cocktail you are referring to is a surfactant used in conjunction with many other herbicides. The weed killer Roundup is Glyphosate not a chemical cocktail.
            Just curious, are you against GE foods altogether, or are you like many people just a Monsanto hater?

          • No. Roundup is not Glyphosate. It’s main ingredient is glyphosate, true, but there are other ingredients. The surfactant you mentioned, polyethoxylated tallow amine, is toxic to aquatic creatures. Then there is also the preservative benzisothiazolin-3-one. And these are what we know about.

            Since Monsanto’s patents ran out in 2000, hundreds of companies have been producing glyphosate-based herbicides. What they add in unknown, because they are “trade secrets”.

            To answer your question, I do indeed hate Monsanto. It has a long history of manufacturing noxious products, and using unethical means to persuade farmers and the general public to use these products, often against their better judgement.

            That said, I am not a fan of GE products either, and do my best to avoid them. I also do my best to avoid any food that has been sprayed with any chemical. (the argument that Roundup isn’t as bad as some others is puerile and totally unconvincing.)

            I repeat that consumers do not eat field corn. The consumers -that is, those who buy the corn from the farmers – do not eat it. They turn it into products – mainly ethanol, animal feed, and HFCS, the leading cause of obesity in the US and any other country foolish enough to buy the processed stuff that is misleading called food.

          • Nathan Harris

            The active weed killing ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate. Surfactants and preservatives are added for obvious reasons, but the chemical weed killing ingredient is glyphosate. You are what I expected, an anti Monsanto activist who is also anti GE. It must be nice to sit in your wealthy position and deny food reliability to millions of poor people around the world. Most anti modern agriculture, anti GM advocates are also population control advocates. Pathetic.

          • Damo

            She has admitted that she goes to poor countries and tells them that there are too many of them and that they should starve.

            Beyond being a liar, she is a genocidal monster.

          • You are a very creative interpreter of what other people say!

            You are also very good at unfounded personal attacks.

          • When you can explain to me how GE technology in the United States provides food reliability for poor people around the world, we can talk more.

            You could start with explaining how GE technology has eliminated hunger in the US.

          • Nathan Harris

            You seriously think hunger in the US is because of a lack of food? That destroys a lot more of your credibility.
            As far as hunger in third world countries goes, you anti agriculture zealots continually try to thwart efforts to provide food for a growing world population. Luckily modern farmers will prevail over your Luddite inclinations

          • I don’t seriously think that hunger in the US is because of a lack of food. I know that 30-40% of what is grown is wasted. I know that there are problems with food distribution. I know that there are problems with the poor not having access to wholesome foods. I know that some school districts deprive kids of lunches if they are unable to pay. Believe me, I know what a great country this is!

            So explain to me how a “modern farmer” is providing food to the world.

          • Nathan Harris

            You are unaware of the $billions in agricultural trade? Who do you think produces all those commodities?
            Honestly, I really think I am wasting my time.

          • The agricultural industry produces those commodities. Farmers produce food.

          • Nathan Harris

            Lol, farmers work in and form the agriculture industry. Where have you been?

          • I realize that this comes down to semantics, but the farmers around here who bring their produce to the farmers market do not form part of the agriculture industry.

          • Nathan Harris

            They might be surprised to hear you make that claim. Agricultural means the culture of growing something from the ground. There are many facets that contribute to feeding the world.

          • SUNNY

            The most valuable ones don’t use poison to raise the food. Calories don’t mean nutrients. Commodity GMO crops have a huge number of calories, but they are often nutrient deficient. Valuable nutrient dense food crops are often raised with no poison chemicals on soils which have been nurtured with composed waste food scraps and manure that have been composted into nutritious soil.

          • Who are “they”?

          • Nathan Harris

            You now want me to interpret your comments for you?

          • No Nathan. I am not asking you to interpret my comments.. I can do that myself. I asked you a question.

            I quite understand if this is difficult for you, but give it your best shot. Who are the “they” who might be surprised to hear my claim?

          • Nathan Harris

            It’s not hard for me, but it seems it’s hard for you to follow along.
            In your comment I answered, I was referring to the only people you mentioned in your comment. You figure it out from that. It shouldn’t be hard for someone who reads six languages.

          • You have not answered anything.

          • Nathan Harris

            Since you haven’t been able to follow the thought pattern, the “they” is referring to the farmers you mentioned. Since they were the only people you referenced in your comment, I thought that was self evident.

          • Anti-Monsanto? Check (with good reason)

            Anti-GE? Check. There are just too many studies that question the safety of the technologies.

            Wealthy position? Check. And I use that privileged position to help the underprivileged in any way I can. What do you do, I wonder.

            Population control advocate? Check.Can you give a single reason why we would want to increase the human population? You seriously think we need more of us consuming limited resources?

          • Nathan Harris

            Yes, you really help them from your privileged position. Your arguments are pathetic. If there are too many people in the world, why are you alive? It’s always people like you who think someone else shouldn’t live or survive. Your ideology nauseates me.

          • I help by supporting a number of international NGOs such as Finca and Heifer. I also support Planned Parenthood, IPPF and the Population Connection. I have volunteered in five countries, teaching or working with endangered wildlife. In two of them, I helped finance micro businesses.

            Do you know what ideology nauseates me? The idea that having a bible in your hand gives you the right to insist that every pregnancy be carried to term, no matter what the circumstances. And then take that further and deny funding to any family planning clinic that so much as mentions abortion, as the US has done under every GOP administration since Reagan.

          • Nathan Harris

            You’re really out on a tangent now. Have a good evening and life.

          • Yes, I am out on a tangent. But you are the one who brought up ideology. And you have no answer.

          • Damo

            To quote your favorite poltician, Trump, “WRONG!”

          • First Officer

            What were these unethical means to persuade farmers, et al, to use their products. I know of not a single farmer that did not use their products voluntarily but i do know of a couple that went out of their way to steal them to use them.

            By the way, we owe our LED lights to some of the early work done by Monsanto. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of that work was also applied to solar panels.

          • Really? Please explain. Monsanto has assisted in the development of LED lights and solar panels?

            I’m not saying you are off your rocker, I’d just like more information/

          • First Officer

            google lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/LED%20Monsanto%20MV1.htm

          • I have to question the use of “successful”.

          • Damo

            If RoundUp was sprayed on veggie plants they would die.

          • A Sad Little Man

            Yes. There is that too.

            Where did this Elizabeth Whitehouse appear from? She has made hundreds of comments on GE crops and seems to know next to nothing about farming, biology or how to read graphs.

          • Damo

            She has two accounts, both with the same name. I ran across her a few months ago when she was singing the praises of cover crops and no till (which I agree with), but insisting that industrial farms do not use it–only organic farms do. Of course, I was quick to point out that herbicides made no-till possible. Of which she then accused modern industrial ag (her words) of stealing it from organic. I produced a paper that showed that wasn’t the case (started in the 1950s with herbicide usage as I said). She just ignored my post and continued to repeat her lie.

            Since then she has been posting regularly and been quite the peice of human excrement about it.

          • Nathan Harris

            I suspect she is an anti Monsanto crusader, trying to pass herself off as an agricultural expert. She attacks Roundup as a “chemical cocktail” when in fact she is referring to POEA, a surfactant. Here is what her own article link states about POEA;
            The EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recognize POEA as an inert ingredient. Derived from animal fat, POEA is allowed in products certified organic by the USDA. The EPA has concluded that it is not dangerous to public health or the environment.

            These pro organic zealots will say just about anything to further their agenda of destroying commercial agriculture with little concern with how that would harm millions of people worldwide. They are hard to ignore, but should be.

          • Damo

            In fairness, she has admitted that the bulk of her information has come from state extension office compost workshops, so she may be being mislead by people who have a reputation of being knowledgeable.

            Of course, when it comes to GMOs, I think she is a Google University graduate.

          • In fairness, I have admitted no such thing.

          • Damo

            Lol, you either forget or are a liar.

            Don’t you remember telling us all that you were using an illustration from a compost workshop as a source? Or how the compost workshops trump my education and experience?

            What is it about you anti-science idiots that cause you all to lie.

          • You do realize that if I refer to a compost workshop, it was one that I gave, not one I attended.

            I’m still waiting to find out about your education and experience. You are remarkably coy about sharing details.

          • Damo

            Lol, this is the first time you ever mentioned giving a workshop.

            If you are the one giving workshops, someone needs to call Cornell, because they obviously don’t know that a semi-literate racist is in their employee.

            You can continue to lie about me never telling you about my education and experience, but if you insist, I can provide screen shots of those conversations as well.

            I am beginning to think you have serious problems with your mental state.

          • i do not give the workshops as a representative of Cornell, although I work closely with both the Co-operative Extension and the Waste Management Institute.

            Apart from personal experience and a lot of reading, my expertise in composting comes from a course at Maine Compost School, developed and presented by the University of Maine, their co-operative extension, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Maine State Planning Office.

          • You are something else. And that is not a compliment.

            I am not an “employee” of Cornell in any way. I volunteer to disseminate their scientific findings in my role as a Master Gardener.

            I am more than literate. I speak six languages and can read another four of five. How about you?

            If you want to call me a racist, you will need to provide just a smidgen of evidence.

            And I would love to see those screen shots you talk about. But I’m not holding my breath.

            You are a phony on every level and a rather nasty person to boot.

          • Damo

            I am not a phony, you are.

            I will provide you with screen shots, of your messages, just give me sometime, since it takes a while for me to drudge through all of your comments to find the lies that are pertinent to what I want to show.

            Within a week, you will have the lies exposed.

          • As I said before, if I used an illustration from a compost workshop, it was one which I gave, not one which I attended.

          • Damo

            Sure thing.

          • Goldfinger

            You will never get fairness from Damo or the other industry PR asset trolls. They are here to push the industry agenda to promote Monsanto’s 4.7 billion dollar glyphosate business not matter the consequences to life on this planet.

          • I know that. You know that.

            But I will continue to discredit them in any way I can. It’s not difficult.

          • Come on, now, Nathan. I did not link to that. I did not link to anything.

            But yes. I would be happy to destroy/change commercial/industrial agriculture which is doing considerable harm to millions of people worldwide.

          • Nathan Harris

            You most certainly did, it’s from this link you provided.
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

            It’s rather rich that you don’t realize I’m using your own info to discredit you.

            Attempts to destroy commercial agricultural and being disingenuous is deplorable. It’s a good job many of us are working diligently to provide food for the growing masses, because they would surely be out of luck if they had to depend on your ilk.

          • OK. I did link to Scientific American. But using that to discredit me? Come on! Did you not see this paragraph:
            “Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.”

            Tell me how “commercial agriculture” is providing food for the growing masses.

          • Nathan Harris

            I answered your question. It’s a waste of time responding to you. Your ideology is nauseating. You would rather have people starve than accept the fact that agriculture is doing all it can to feed a growing population. Enjoy your long weekend, too bad you couldn’t care less about the less fortunate than you.

          • You did not answer my question because you do not have an answer.

            GM corn, or soy, does not feed the world. They are both profitable commodity crops, not food. Small farmers growing indigenous crops for local markets are what feeds the world.

            Just BTW, what do you do to help the less fortunate?

          • Nathan Harris

            If you think 7.6 billion people can survive without modern agriculture you are more delusional than I originally thought. All types of agriculture contribute but to dismiss modern agriculture as unnecessary is close minded and ridiculous.

          • I do think that 7.6 billion people can survive without “modern agriculture”. Certainly they do not need contributions from the US. Some assistance with getting good seeds, and efficient irrigation would help, but that is not what the US offers.

          • SUNNY

            Yes. Giving people the tools to help them feed themselves is not a sustainable business practice.

          • Nathan Harris

            Hmmm… all things that the US and Canada are good at. You just might be onto something.

          • explain.

          • JoeFarmer

            “I do think that 7.6 billion people can survive without “modern agriculture”.”

            That is a perfect example of magical thinking.

          • The magical thinking is that GE crops are contributing to the health of people and/or the planet.

          • Hello Damo. Long time no see. (Not surprising as I blocked you on the last “discussion” we were involved with. I did this in large part because your only arguments were that I was a liar.)

            I am quite certain that I never said modern industrial ag stole the no-till idea from organic.

            You did indeed point out that herbicides make no-till possible – for industrial ag. But you completely miss the point that “organic” is about building the health of the soil, not about increasing the yield of your monoculture crop. And cutting costs.

            Sad little man seems to think that I know nothing about farming, but he is wrong. I have been on the fringes of farming for most of my life. My father was a gentleman farmer and my school holidays were (reluctantly) spent on the farm. My brother raised beef cattle for 25 years and I got to see not only his operation firsthand, but also that of his neighbors.

            Part of his training was on a huge farm complex in South Africa. It was at one time the largest maize producer in the southern hemisphere, although they wisely decided to diversify (pigs, peanuts and early childhood education). I visit every time I go to South Africa and each time my friend Anthony, the farmer, takes me on a tour.

            More recently, my daughter married a potato farmer who also grows corn and soy beans. The corn and soy are GE but the potatoes are not. Matt is my go-to source when I need more information.

            Back to the South African farm. It is

          • Damo

            No, my only argument is not that you are a liar. You lie, that is true, but my arguments are that the lies you tell are easily debunked.

            Yes, you did say that organic originated no till and it was stolen by industrial arguments. As I have shown before, I have no issue with using a screen shot to prove that you lie.

            As for organic being the only one interested in soil health, that is another lie of yours. Many farmers, including those who use chemicals and fertilizers, are concerned with soil health. In fact, I would say most farmers are concerned since it is their livelihood. Also, if organic farmers are so concerned, why is no till adoption among organic farmers almost zero?

            All farmers, including organic, are interested in cost cutting and increasing yields.

            As for the rest of what you said, I don’t care. I didn’t make any statements about your father, and don’t really care what his occupation was. You on the other hand have proven, through your posted comments that you either don’t know what you talk about or you lie. You decide which it is.

          • You have yet to debunk any of my so-called lies.

          • Damo

            Lol, you have memory problems.

          • I am 70, and I do sometimes forget to go to an event I planned to go to. But as I do not – whatever you say – tell lies, I have no problem remembering what I have said in the past.

            If you have been so successful at debunking my “lies”, you should have no trouble giving an example.

          • Damo

            Sure, pick a lie, and I will show where I debunked it.

          • I don’t tell lies. How could I possibly pick one?

          • Damo

            That you don’t tell lies must be your favorite lie to tell, since you repeat it so often.

          • Perhaps. But it costs you nothing to repost a really clever response. You don’t, because you have never posted anything clever, ever.

          • Damo

            LOL.

            I am not trying to be clever. I am trying, and succeeding, at being truthful. You should try it sometime.

          • Yes. Your only argument is that I am a liar.

            No. My arguments are not easily debunked.

            You keep talking about screen shots. How about showing one.

          • Nathan Harris

            “I have been on the fringes of farming for most of my life”

            That is obviously apparent. The fringe element is aptly applied.
            Please leave serious agriculture to those who will actually feed the world. I’m not sure why I’m wasting my time here, I just can’t stand hearing people prattle on while people are starving as they preach from their ideological pedestal.

          • I have already asked you to explain how “serious agriculture” is feeding the world. You have not replied.

          • Nathan Harris

            Does China import food from North America? Is food shipped to less fortunate countries from North America? Who other than “serious agriculture” supplies these commodities?
            Are you purposefully being obtuse?

          • China is quite able to feed its population. It has done so for centuries.

          • Nathan Harris

            From ChinaPower;

            China has become increasingly reliant on imports to offset its domestic agricultural limitations, prompting Chinese leaders to openly reframe their strategy for food self-sufficiency. At the December 2013 Annual Central Rural Work Conference, it was noted that China’s food security needed to be ensured by supplementing its “domestic supply with moderate imports.”

            Over the past ten years, China’s food imports have increased from approximately $6 million in 2005 to $300 million in 2015.
            For over five years, China has been the world’s largest vegetable importer, with soybeans constituting 64 percent of the country’s total vegetable imports in 2014. This drive for soybeans has been driven in large part by China’s rapidly expanding livestock operations, where soybeans are used as animal feed. Arable land scarcity and political emphasis on self-sufficiency in grain and other staple foods has resulted in a lack of agricultural capacity for soybean crops. Almost all of China’s soybean imports come from either Brazil (47 percent) or the United States (42 percent).

          • Goldfinger

            Why are you stalking Elizabeth?

          • Goldfinger

            Where did you appear from? You are using a picture you stole from Ted Miner’s facebook page as your profile picture. You are a obvious crimnal thief and sockpuppet troll. Whose sockpuppet are you? Who is so desperate as to steal the property of another to create a fake persona to troll truth tellers on these disqus threads?

          • Yes they would. But that stop “farmers” from using Roundup to prepare the soil prior to planting.

            And contrary to Monsanto’s claims, roundup does persist in the soil.

          • Damo

            So, how exactly does RoundUp get from the soil to the veggies?

          • Damo

            Ted, do you have any proof? Or is this like when you say you don’t have 12 different usernames, ie a lie?

          • A Sad Little Man

            That is untrue.

            The conclusion of Lankas and Hogan was there were “no effects based on any of the parameters examined (toxic signs, mortality, body weights, food consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, organ weights and organ/tissue pathology).”

          • Nathan Harris

            Scientific evidence means nothing to people who are blinded by ideology and refuse to acknowledge that they are fear mongering. They don’t use logic and reason because they default to ideology.

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Lankas and Hogan was a Monsanto study that the EPA allowed Monsanto to hide as a trade secret. The data in this study is very clear and shows that glyphosate causes cancer. That is the reason they needed to hide the study. The EPA toxicologists refused to sign off on the approval. These are the simple facts. Sad little Man is an industry sockpuppet troll who is using a stolen photo from another persons facebook page as his profile picture here.

          • A Sad Little Man

            Lankas and Hogan was a Monsanto study that the EPA allowed Monsanto to hide as a trade secret. The data in this study is very clear and shows that glyphosate causes cancer. That is the reason they needed to hide the study.

            I am aware that Lankas and Hogan was a Monsanto study. It was provided to the regulators at the EPA, who looked at it and concluded it showed no evidence of cancer. It was also considered by EFSA and other regulators around the world, who also concluded no evidence of cancer. It was hardly hidden.

            The study 37 years later is still not evidence of glyphosate causing cancer.

            The EPA toxicologists refused to sign off on the approval.

            The EPA toxicologists signed off on approval, otherwise glyphosate would not have been used in the USA.
            You are just a conspiracy theorist. It will be the lizard shape-shifters controlling the world next.

          • Goldfinger

            Nope. Peaceful Warrior posed the facts. You posted spin and lies to obfuscate the truth.

        • RobertWager

          So you believe Health Canada is captured by Monsanto? Hmmm how about the German Toxicology regulatory Agency http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2017/34/glyphosate_assessment__bfr_rejects_plagiarism_accusations-201890.html

          • Goldfinger

            Regulatory agencies are political organizations not science organizations. Many are corrupted and captured by the industries they are charged with regulating. The German Toxicology regulatory Agency is another good example of that.

    • Jason

      The USDAs Pesticide Data Program tested glyphosate levels in soy in 2011. Those are published on their website. The levels were exceptionally low.

      I realize that’s not corn but it’s a similar application to what’s used on corn.

      • Did they test Roundup? Did they read the results of other tests?

        • Jason

          What kind of dumb-ass is that?

          • As far as I know “dumb-ass” is an adjective. Where is your noun?

          • Jason

            😂. Oops…. that was supposed to say “dumbass question”. But in my attempt to edit, I deleted two words rather than one.

          • OKAY!! we’ve got the grammatical error out of the way. But the question remains. Didi they test Roundup?

          • Damo

            You never answered his question.

          • And he didn’t answer mine.

            His question, remember, was “What kind of dumbass question was that?” What do you expect me to answer?

          • Damo

            Well, tell him. You asked the dumbass question, so I assume you should know.

    • Progressives Progress

      Jason is a Koch operative
      Wager is a failed graduate student who trolls the next for Monsanto 24/7

      • RobertWager

        I am always pleased to see my troll brigade attack me personally. Speaks volumes about them. please continue folks.

        • Goldfinger

          Posting the facts about you is not an attack.

          • First Officer

            Robert Wager, MSc, is a professor of biochemistry. We should all be such failures !

          • Goldfinger

            He is listed as a lab assistant by his institution. His duties seem to be comprised of posting industry propaganda on social media articles all over the world. His disqus posting history confirms that fact.

          • RobertWager

            Laboratory demonstrator if you please. I have been a faculty member in the biology dept for almost 24 years. Have a nice day

          • RobertWager

            Say anytime you want to post competing science we can discuss it. Or is ad hominem all you care to do?

          • Goldfinger

            You first. Posting the truth is not an ad hominem. Strange that you think posting the facts about you are some kind of abuse.

    • Rob Bright

      Indeed, you are correct to be concerned. What is worse is that now RoundUp ready is being used as a pre-harvest desiccant (drying agent) to dry out crops more quickly and speed up the harvesting process. Many grain and legume crops, and even sugar cane, are sprayed with roundup just before harvest, contaminating all the products made with those ingredients. It’s shocking and irresponsible how lacking regulations are in this regard.

  • Mr. Pilger, I take issue with several of your statements. Let’s start with this: “The scientific consensus is clear. GMO corn is technology that we are wise to use.”

    There is no scientific consensus, and using GM corn may be profitable, but not necessarily wise. (Just to be picky- saying genetically modified organism (GMO) corn is as bad as saying personal identification number (PIN) number. But, hey who needs to get the terminology right?)

    “After all, how many people still believe vaccinations can cause autism”. There are some, certainly. But from what I read, more people think that GMOs are responsible for autism, so stop blaming the vaccines.

    “Since mycotoxins are toxic….” Well, duh, that’s why they are called toxins. Do you actually know what a mycotoxin is? Can you explain how the genetic engineering reduces fungal toxicity? I can’t, but you seem to be an expert, so perhaps you can enlighten me.

    And all of that leads me to my final point. While I understand absolutely that growing GM corn can produce higher profits, leave “consumers” out of it – no one eats the bloody stuff.

    • Nathan Harris

      GM corn and soy are eaten by consumers in many more ways than you stated.
      No, I don’t foresee Glyphosate being used on fruits and vegetables any time soon. You realize that those foods and many others are sprayed or dusted with much more dangerous chemicals than Roundup? Ever eat apples, grapes, strawberries, potatoes and many other foods? They are all dosed with many more chemicals than GM corn or soybean.
      The supposed cocktail you are referring to is a surfactant used in conjunction with many other herbicides. The weed killer Roundup is Glyphosate not a chemical cocktail.
      Just curious, are you against GE foods altogether, or are you like many people just a Monsanto hater?

    • Nathan Harris

      Sorry, the comment below was meant for your other comment in reply to mine.

    • Damo

      You are the same as a climate denier, there certainly is a consensus on the safety of GE derived food .

      • SUNNY

        No, Damo. There is no consensus on GMO safety. That is an industry PR propaganda meme.

  • patzagame

    pffft…reduction of health risks,lol.

    • What does that mean exactly?

      • patzagame

        According to the article…”In short, planting GMO corn can lead to increases in income to the farmers and a reduction of health risks to consumers of maize.” and “GMO corn had 59.6 per cent fewer damaged ears from insect attacks, which is likely the reason for the decreased infection levels. Since mycotoxins are toxic and carcinogenic, the study concluded: “The lower mycotoxin content in (GMO) maize grain can help to minimize the exposure of humans to health hazardous toxins through the diet”! Thats great…what about ingesting glyphosate residual corn products or Bt toxins? Where are the studies for those health risks?

        • Excuse me, but I thought you were in favor of GE technology.

          • S.G.

            Excuse me, but Patzagame is NOT in favor of GE technology. What makes you think that?

          • I am very confused. Perhaps we should let Patzagame speak for himself.

          • A Sad Little Man

            Herself.

          • patzagame

            I guess what ever you gleaned is wrong.

        • I am no better informed. Do you support GMOs or not?

          • patzagame

            ??

          • It is not a trick question. It is a yes/no question. Do you support GMOs?

          • SUNNY

            Patzagame is real truth teller and warrior for the people who care that GMOs and pesticides are removed from the human diet.

          • If you say so. That is not what I have gleaned from past encounters.

          • S.G.

            ???

        • SUNNY

          Exactly. They want to us to think that a small reduction, not and elimination, of mycotoxin risk is worth the trade off of having cancer causing glyphosate resides and a registered bt pesticide added into every very bite of the GMO food.