The fact is, there has never been a single study on the human safety of these products. Any implication to the contrary is a pure fabrication. Make the corporate apologists produce a single study, and they can not. The important point is this. Among scientists, the scientific community is deeply divided as to whether these foods are safe or not, so the burden of proof is on industry. And so far, the corporations have failed to demonstrate the safety of these foods on humans through a single study.

GMOs don't increase yields as well. Phil doesn't know what the friggin' hell he's talking about. GMO producers could care less if people get sick off these toxic products. They'll just turn you over to the healthcare system that doesn't have a clue about all the mystery diseases GMOs cause. The burden of proof for human safety is on the industry. Phil just enjoys having sunshine blown up his bum!

^Those are exactly the sorts of "anti-GMO" idiots I'm talking about: a combination of half-truths, outright falsehoods and insult.

Anyone who categorizes all GMOs as one thing to be afraid of is harming their own cause: as I said in my intro, so much crying wolf when there are many beneficial GM products is far more likely to lead to something harmful being accepted, while blinkered zealots try to deny starving & vitamin-deficient people the tools to help because they are incapable of any kind of rational discernment.

..and the blanket statement "GMOs don't increase yields" is meaningless, as GMOs are not a single organism or a single change. Some most definitely give increased yields; others allow for similar yields while using a fraction of the pesticides; yet others give characteristics that are not available without genetic modification (e.g. the golden rice project, which grows rice with increased levels of beta carotene, a vitamin A precursor: vitA deficiency kills more than half a million children a year). To lump all these together is sheer ignorance, and there is no point in trying to argue with people who can't even be bothered to find out the first things about what they're arguing against.

You're a brave man bringing up an issue like this, Phil. It's one where there are lots of people touting what they think is truth, as you say. I probably know nothing on the issue, but assume the lawyers for Monsanto have looked at the risk of what Neil is spouting and decided to keep going. That being said, GM weighed all the risks when they decided to not fix the key slot, so you never know where this ends up. Another question may be, if more food can be produced, how does it get to those who need it? Nice parody, though.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

Where is Vegan Minstrel when we need him or her???

I agree with Timmy, it took guts to take a position on this issue, which ranks right up there with immunization shots and fluoridation of water in terms of controversy. Unfortunately, both sides present arguments that seem to have merit to people like me who don't have the knowledge needed to judge which side is correct. So we're left wondering. Anyway, in view of the OS used, this was a true parody, something not often seen on this site. Very well done!

Would anyone buy a product labeled WARNING: MAY BE TOXIC! No way! Not for me, my wife, and my children. If fast food restaurants are forced to list saturated fat levels in meals and calories, and cigarettes have warnings about carcinogens, then GMOs need to be labeled with similar warnings.

Oddly enough, what drew me to this subject matter was an anti-GMO campaigner who has made a dozen or more specific claims about GMOs, and at least that many against Monsanto. And all of these claims, without exception, were shown to be false: in some cases vast overexaggerations and in others simply fabrications. Then I saw Neil Young repeating things I knew categorically to be wrong, and using these falsehoods to try and prevent research into things that could save literally millions of lives.

It's not bravery that makes me stick my head above this particular parapet, it's humanity.

@"Facts" - I'll reiterate what I said above: anyone who treats all GMOs as being the same thing doesn't know what they're talking about, and damages their own case because of that. While each of those statements might be accurate for one GMO, all of them are inaccurate for most. The technique itself does not introduce any toxins, cancer-causing agents or anything harmful; because one modification may be a pesticide, and that needs to be tested to make sure that it doesn't leave residues in food; however, there's no point in testing for pesticide residues if the modification was, say, beta carotene production or nitrogen fixing. Genetic modifications are very specific, as gene mapping is now pretty much complete for many different species and insertions are very precisely manageable. To throw out the entire technique because you don't trust Monsanto or are worried about residues from pest-resistent plants is akin to denying humanity all dentistry because you don't trust Steve Martin's character in Little Shop of Horrors or don't like the sound of the drill.

Again, Phil doesn't know what he's talking about: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964

Linking to globalreasearch.ca is much the same as whale.to - you're going to have to do better than conspiracy theory sites full of bizarre and weird rubbish.

Phil is a pill.

Phil is a liar. His PM David Cameron stated in 2013 that he WOULD allow his own family to eat GM food. How much GM food to date has Cameron fed his family? ZERO!!! He again pushed for GMOs politically in 2014 to gain votes, but doesn't practice what he preaches. Many of the royals are against GMOs as well. Swallow that shallow Phil.

We are honored to have PM Cameron's personal chef join us in today's rousing discussion.

@"Monsanto is Evil" - if you think I'm a liar, please provide some proof of what I'm supposed to have lied about. To follow that with Cameron's eating habits is a bizarre non sequitur.

It's very likely both Cameron and I have eaten some form of GM food, and fed it to our children, too. There aren't any that are the toxic carcinogens some people seem to believe against all the available evidence. And what about GMOs that have nothing to do with Monsanto? Are they OK?

When you say "many of the Royals", presumably you mean the Prince of Wales who despite his expensive education was obviously never taught critical thinking & espouses all sorts of unscientific woo.

How naive can someone be? Ignorance be thy name Phil.

As my papa used to tell me, "son, ya caint polish a turd!"

@GMO Blues - that's kind of amusing. I know more about the genetics involved, and a lot more about the testing involved than you realize. Anonymous insult really doesn't help your cause: it just makes me feel that the anti-GMO brigade are staffed with cowards who think conspiracy theory sites constitute evidence.

Smitty - I guess you haven't seen that Mythbusters episode, then?

You can put the Monsanto brochure away now! Lab studies and the word of a company that makes carcinogenic pesticides is reassuring unless you look at independent studies on GM food fed to animals over the last twenty years which resulted in damage to kidneys and livers. Add that pesticide resistance by corn also means weeds capable of adapting to GM protection and thus the need to develop even more powerful carcinogenic insecticides. Hospitals have treated many people since the late 1990s that ate GM food. Treated for mystery diseases involving the stomach, kidneys, livers, even lungs. The United States has a responsibility to lable all GM food and allow consumers to choose those or go to organic. It is a consumer basic right, Phil. Monsanto might not be evil, but it also is not going to tell the truth about its GMOs and pesticides.

For the uneducated, the Mythbusters aren't real scientists but amatuer engineers that have been proven wrong on several topics many times. Anyone that takes their word as gospel is as ignorant as conspiracy theorists that make outrageous claims like man didn't land on the moon or 9/11 was an inside job!!! British aren't that smart though and have like four TV channels.

@Seriously - But they did successfully polish a turd. All other points you make are irrelevant. I really ought to have realized by now that trolls generally have no sense of humour, and are so witless as to be unable to recognize wit. @Sally - I assume you're referring to the much-quoted Seralini study? Nobody who understands how to run these sorts of studies gives it any credence whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair - if you mean any other one, please give a bit more info.

"Treated for mystery diseases" therefore GMOs are the causal agent is faulty thinking in the extreme. There are untold thousands of environmental factors that have changed in the past few decades, people are living longer and healthier lives than at pretty much any point in history. The responsibility to label GMOs is reasonable - the knee-jerk banning of all of them is not.

Phil, as usual, just believes anything Monsanto says. Anything genetically modified is subject to mutation. How do you know that GM foods won't mutate or already carry within them toxic elements harmful to animals and humans? The studies on animals fed GM foods (ex pigs) proved internal damage and yet their meat was still sold to consumers. That should have been illegal. Europe doesn't care, fine. But I'm a U.S. citizen and demand labeling and Federal oversight. I don't want to take the risk of mutated food intake. Most people in the western world are already pushing for more organics, not lab experimental theoretically safe mods.

Yanks, please forgive Phil. He is what we call a nutter ;-)

Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. Can't be arsed to feed the troll as he's not going to listen, anyway.

But if it's only Monsanto you're scared of, what about the golden rice project? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice - a GMO that has nothing to do with big business, could save hundreds of thousands of lives yet because people like you insist that all genetic modifications are scary and dangerous, those children will die. I hope that makes you feel happy & righteous.

You can stop your self-righteous indignation Phil. Millions oppose GMOs and you are a lone crackpot here.

In other words, you can't answer the question. There probably are millions who oppose GMOs, given the lies people like you tell, it's easy to get millions of people to believe rubbish. But while simplistic idiots treat all genetic modifications as equal,and scaremonger about Monsanto even when they're not involved in the production of said organisms, it's obvious to anyone who can think who in the debate actually knows what they're talking about.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

A few years ago, there were sixteen countries that had total or partial bans on GMOs. Now there are at least twenty-six, including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia. Significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about sixty other countries.

Oh, FFS.. any site that includes the Seralini study as a list of its "scientific studies" is showing that it doesn't care about the science, only about anti-GMO activism; other ones in that list are simple scaremongering, or not about GMOs at all (glyphosate is the world's most widely-used weedkiller, and arguably the safest for humans: if you really want to ban its use, try and find anything remotely as good that isn't considerably more toxic, or explain how you're going to replace the millions of tons of food lost to weeds)

Countries instituing blanket bans on GMOs are a bit like ageing rock stars singing songs about them.. just shows that the activists and scaremongers are getting the upper hand. GMOs are not one thing, each one is different, the different modifications meaning different organisms: even if there were a study showing one of them as harmful, it would mean absolutely nothing about all the others.

If you cannot understand that simple premise, I suggest you go back to school and try learning something about the subject.

It would seem that Phil is in complete denial of any and all facts that refute Monsanto's claim that GMOs and its pesticides are safe for humanity. Ample evidence has been provided and yet Phil rejects any study and any nation that has lead to a ban or partial ban of GMOs. We're talking about almost half the world's nations with billions of people. GMOs are thus empirically suspect as safe for human consumption. Phil has dug himself so far into a hole that he can't get out. He has been discredited and disgraced. So calling people stupid or scaremongers is his only way to save face. Face facts Phil, you lost and your scientific evidence is a Monsanto pamphlet. Could it have anything to do with Monsanto's relationship and bribes to the UK? Now there's food for thought!!!

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

I'd like to have a scientific conversation with Phil over density. I'll start with his head!!!

Monsanto produced Agent Orange for the U.S. military. Their pesticide-coated seeds are truly frightening. GMOs can cause tumors.

@James - no, I just haven't seen anything that stands up to any scrutiny that shows them as dangerous, and have read many studies done by people with an obvious axe to grind and doing the most ridiculously OTT things to try and show harm (like feeding neat Roundup to rats over extended periods to try show the toxicity of glyphosate.. except that if you fed any agricultural chemical from manure onwards to rats in that sort of volume it'd be harmful. If GMOs and glyphosate were anything like as toxic as you're making out, it would be trivial to show innumerable appropriate studies showing that toxicity. But there simply aren't, and it's not through lack of trying, either.

@Schoolboy - you need to stay in school a little bit longer if you consider that link to have anything other than handwavy "ooh, this could be dangerous.. I have nothing to back this up, but it could be"

"Doctor" G - Sayting "GMOs cause tumours" is a very definitive claim, so presumably you can cite evidence for it. Agent Orage isn't relevant, and pesticide-coated seeds are only "truly frightening" if you're a pest.

According to reports, individuals who consumed GMO’s also experienced the following side effects: Increase in allergies Increase in antibiotic resistance Problems with endocrine system Disorders of the reproductive system Increase in aging symptoms Cancerous Tumor growth

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/07/genetically-engineered-foods-hazards.aspx

Weird science? No, bad science!

First globalresearch.ca, now mercola.com? All we need now is whale.to for the full house of wacko conspiracy theorist sites.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
"First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust."

So the fact that nearly half the world has bans or partial bans on GMOs means nothing to you or the facts that there are proven cases of animal and human harm from GM food intake? You are just trying to save face by stating that anyone who disagrees with you or Monsanto is a conspiracy theorist! You're the Looney, Phil and denial is not a river in Egypt!!!

That a lot of countries have banned GMOs means that pressure groups knowingly indulging in fraud, telling lies and whipping up fear have succeeded. It isn't "saving face" to suggest that anyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist, but those who disagree with me use conspiracy theory websites as "proof" they're right. If you have "proven cases of animal and human harm from GM food intake", show me your proof and I'll believe you if it stands up. But I warn you, if it comes from mercola, globalresearch or whale.to, it only weakens your case further: things posted on those sites are simply not proof. Similarly, if it's Seralini (and so far *every* time an anti-GMO activist has claimed "proof" of harm, it has been either directly or indirectly quoting that thoroughly discredited piece of work).

Try reading that Slate article above, and you might realize your "proven cases" are no such thing.

Phil knows better than eighty-six nations about GMOs!!! Eighty-six nations and their scientists, agricultural specialists, health authorities, and citizens! Among those nations are many from Europe. Too bad the UK is in bed with Monsanto and Monsanto is under investigation for bribes. Phil has been in total denial of the cases reported repeatedly about animals harmed when fed GM foods and physician reports of GM intake by humans which affected their organs and ability to cope with bad side effects. Everything is a conspiracy to Phil who appears to be a nutter. Probably a recluse too.

I think the Mad Cow Disease affected Phil; that, and global warming 8-))

So it's anonymous lies, ad hominems and attempted ridicule rather than evidence? Utterly pathetic, but I'm not surprised. It's very clear in the various nations that have banned GMOs that it's pressure groups and politicians, not their scientists or agricultural specialists that are the motivators. Thing is, stuff that's "reported repeatedly" isn't necessarily true, especially when it comes to GMOs. So, evidence, please, or STFU.

Phil, you are irrelevant. Your critics have spoken, provided proof, and all you do is respond with denial and conspiracy accusations. The world is against you, so YOU STFU, you daft prick!

Proof? Rubbish. Mercola & globalresearch can never, ever count as proof of anything: there is zero credibility for either of those two sites. The other link above similarly does not have any proof of harm, for a start it's making claims about a pesticide & claiming it's a GMO, and its second link is Seralini's pile of crap: if you can't come up with something which actually provides any evidence from a reputable source, then you frankly have nothing to substantiate your assertions of harm. I repeat, evidence or STFU.

Phil, in America you would be considered a lobby-supporting left-wing Demoncrat in the pocket of evil Monsanto. But you don't have to move because Monsanto wants to move its HQ to UK. How convenient considering your neighbors in Europe have bans on GMOs. But who ever said the British had common sense? Chamberlain thought he pacified Hitler with a piece of paper. Look how that ended!

https://sleuth4health.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/screen-shot-2014-01-04-at-9-57-11-am.png

https://draxe.com/genetically-modified-foods-gmo-linked-tumors-allergies-early-death/

Phil, in my opinion, has been unjustly reviled. All he asks for is more research into genetically modified foods, the object being to eventually allay world hunger. Phil is no shill for Monsanto. I am very sensitive to corporate power, so I'm no pushover. I rarely comment, but in this 2-week + of squabbling, I'm going to the heart of the matter -- the parody. 555.

@No Frankenfood - what did I say above about all "GMOs linked to tumours" articles deriving from Seralini's discredited research? Did you look to see where that article came from? Oh, yes.. right there at the bottom.

@FU Phil - you consider that "proof"? Really?

@RW&B - odd rant, including what actually looked like an attempt to godwin this comments thread. How I might be considered over there is irrelevant: I'm interested in verifiable evidence rather than lying, scaremongering hyperbole.

Thanks, Al, but I'm not asking for "more research" as such: firstly, I'd like the anti-GM brigade to acknowledge that GMOs are not a single "thing", that each has its own individual properties: many have been shown to be perfectly safe, doesn't mean they all are; if they actually did by some freak of chance find one that did cause tumours (and not by feeding neat Roundup to rats to supplement a diet of GMO corn), it would mean nothing for any other GMO. Secondly, whatever you may think of Monsanto (and there have been some seriously over the top lies told about them, which many people take as fact just because it's Monsanto), what about the GMOs that are nothing to do with them, or any other business, for that matter? I notice nobody above has said why golden rice is a bad idea:it could be saving millions of lives, and the only dangerous thing about it is fanatics burning the crops.

I agree with Al, my guru on all/most matters political. This is an inappropriate (and ineffective) venue for ranting about GM or any other issue. It is a great venue for congratulating Phil for another of his excellent, if contention-provoking parodies - that part seems evidence-based.

... one born every minute!

http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/monsantos-gmo-corn-banned-russia/

It appears that Phil is not naive nor in denial but is most easily swayed by industry sponsored studies on GMOs vs independent studies. Of course no company wants to admit that it's products are harmful or even potentially harmful to human beings. Phil chooses willfully to believe in company approved industry authorities with invested interests over health authorities that have had to treat GMO sicknesses and diseases up to and including cancer. Reasonable people and nations have reached the right conclusions that GMOs are a grave risk and have therefore banned them. Or does Phil honestly think he knows better than nearly half the world on this issue? Maybe someday people in the United Kingdom will wake up, but right now Monsanto owns them. The rest of Europe rejects GMOs, leaving the U.K. the odd man out. Phil is a citizen of the minority, not the majority. So in conclusion, let Phil eat his GMOs and say prayers for him that he doesn't get cancer or any of the other 32 conditions GMOs cause.

Theodore, if GMOs do cause all those conditions you claim, surely you can quote the proof? I will be swayed by evidence of harm, not by credulous politicians falling for scare stories and made-up, fraudulent claims. It should be easy if they're as harmful as you make out: all I've asked for is proof of the harm you claim is being done, yet nothing remotely credible has been posted so far.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

They make an awful lot of claims on that site, none of which are backed up by any appropriate published evidence. Anybody can write that sort of article and make those sorts of claims: they say (without proper citation) the American Academy of Environmental Medicine thinks, an organization already described as "illegitimate" by quackwatch (and a quick view of their website shows a whole range of quackery). The article talks about all these "findings" yet provides no evidence for any of them.

Compare with this one: http://tinyurl.com/pc5mkzr

..where every claim made has a link showing what it's based upon. Which would you consider a more reliable article?

Just give it a rest already, Phil. You keep disqualifying everything presented and imply that you know better than nearly ninety nations than fully or partially ban GMOs. What evidence do you have that you are more qualified than those people in those nations to claim that GMOs are totally 100% safe in view of the fact that not one scientist will guarantee with absolute certainty that GMOs do not cause anything. Any genetically modified organism can mutate or cause long lasting effects given time. Btw, not a lot of folks want to eat foods that have come from pesticide coated seeds! Weeds will overcome that coating in time. That's a given. Europe, in general, is not GMO friendly. U.K. has an interest only due to Monsanto wanting to move their HQ there. If anyone has been lied to, it's you!!!

Phil, can you elucidate further? If you have to look up that word, then you're not half as smart as you think!!!

@Bystander: please stop with the strawmen & inaccuracies. If you can read & understand what I've written, please reply to that rather than what you want me to have said. I am confident in my disregard of every single link that has been posted above, because they are all basically worthless: unsupported at best, or based on discredited research. If there is harm, find some proper, peer-reviewed research that shows this - if there is harm on the scale you assert, it should be very, very easy to show. If you're worried about GM crops mutating, you should be happy that the licence conditions don't allow replanting, though there is no suggestion that GM varieties are more likely to mutate than ordinary plants - it's another scare based on nothing. Re pesticide coated seeds: you end up using a lot less pesticide that way.. if anything, they'll have lower pesticide residues than conventional ways of killing pests. Why is that not a good thing?

You haven't read the article I linked to, have you?

@Perry - about what do you require further elucidation? (I'm so pleased for you that you've recently learned a new word and wanted to try it out, but you'll need to be a bit more specific)

Phil: I admire your humanitarian impulse to feed the starving of the world. I have not investigated the studies of consumption of GMOs, but I will make this general observation: When Nature tinkers with DNA, it is a long-term evolutionary process based upon adaptations and felicitous mutations to new or changing environments. Evolved organisms fill a niche over time. Engineered DNA tinkering introduces sudden new organisms into what Nature has not formed as a waiting niche. I find this disturbing in the long term. That is why I previously thought that, out of an abundance of caution, you were calling for rigorous, objective, independent testing to dispel the 19th century image of the mad scientist, playing God and creating monstrosities. I am not impressed that 90 nations have restrictions on GMOs. Let the long-term studies begin, although I fear that would be like proving the negative -- that GMOs do not cause harm.

Talk about your modern day corporate stooges!!!

Al, there have been many independent, long-term studies: the GENERA database, for example (http://genera.biofortified.org/ ) is a searchable database of an awful lot, from all around the world, including source/funding info so it's fairly easy to see industry vs academic/government studies. There is little doubt that the process of genetic modification is of itself safe: there is no measurable harm of any form caused by the act of modifying a plant's genome. This is not the same as saying all genetic modifications are safe: as I have said above, each one is different, and needs its own testing to ensure safetly, and treating all GMOs equally is more likely to lead to something dangerous slipping through the testing net. Tests on all GM organisms need to be rigorous and objective, and even after being declared "safe" a watchful eye needs to be kept - this is pretty much how the status quo is for sensible countries round the world.

If you're wiondering what the "science" behind the "GMOs cause cancer" Seralini trial that keeps getting regurgitated by people such as those above, here's an easy-to-understand takedown: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/08/my-take-on-the-gmo-causes-cancer-study/

@Use your brain - please, provide some evidence that you know how your own works before you demand the same of others.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/doctors-confirm-first-human-death-officially-caused-by-gmos/

While looking into GMOs I discovered this: http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-bt-toxins-found-kill-human-embryo-cells/

@"Man killed by GMO": Please check your lies before you repeat them: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/gmodeath.asp

Steve - you obviously haven't read the various links I've given above: I'll repeat this one for you (look at item 3): http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

This is getting pitiful: surely someone from the multitudes claiming GMOs cause harm has some actual evidence that stands up to five minutes' inspection?

How can Monsanto claim GMOs are safe when authorities like the FDA only require tests of ninety days??? That's not enough time. The only foods proven safe are organic. When shopping, I always try to buy organic by label. I eat healthy and teach my kids to eat healthy. I don't want my family exposed to potentially dangerous GMOs because they are not natural, but created. The human body wasn't meant to process genetically modified anything. It is possible just as smoking, but not necessarily beneficial. If people would just stop spending billions on making weapons and excessive plastics, the entire world could be fed. GMOs are not required IMO. All I can say is go Green to be safe. GMOs are scary. And if they are really safe, why are there so many people in the world against them? I'm no expert, but there are numerous videos of what GMOs do to animals like rats, sheep, and cattle. They produced huge cancerous tumors and wrecked their internal organs. Why would anyone choose to risk that type of danger?

You're trolling, right?

Phil, I shop at Sprout's here in California. They have the Non-GMO blue and green labels on their foods. I would tell US residents to just look up healthy eating stores in their communities and call them to verify labeling. Btw Phil, aren't there similar healthy food stores in UK that do similar labeling?

Rib, labelling food with a "contains GMO" tag is meaningless from a risk perspective: as I keep repeating, they're not one single thing, all having the same effect. In some cases (especially if you're vitamin A-deficient & it's golden rice), they can be positively helpful. That being said, if you don't want to eat GMOs because you've been worried by all the scaremongering, then that's your choice if food is so labelled. But it's a long way from that to preventing other people eating GM foods which could help save lives.

Actually Phil, I said the opposite. Here in California there are Non-GMO and Organic labels, so people wanting to eat that way can. I agree with you that most foods already contain GMOs. I'm quite sure I eat them everyday :)

Don't buy into the falsehoods of evil Monsanto. Phil is just parroting their misleading studies that are company sponsored. There are incidents all over the world of GMOs causing sickness and independent studies that conclude that GMOs are a grave risk. Anyone with a brain would logically ask why most of the civilized world has bans or partial bans on GMOs. Phil is acting illogically. He believes the propaganda of the enemy. Don't buy it people!!! Keep you and your children safe! Buy organic!!!

Rob (and sorry about the "Rib", just noticed the typo), sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention :-)

Holly - maybe you'd like to quote some of these "independent studies that conclude GMOs are a grave risk", because I've yet to find any that showed what has been claimed for them. And please don't lie about what I've written: this is the problem with the knee-jerk anti-GMO brigade: they lie, commit fraud and are generally deceitful in the name of something they believe to be right.

People know, Phil. Out in the Mid-west a farmer died after eating meat from sheep tested with GMOs. Probably didn't make the news on CNN, FOX, or MSNBC, but it happened. And the fact is undisputed that most civilized nations ban GMOs. If they went through all that trouble, something must be very wrong. That's just common sense. I didn't lie nor misrepresent Monsanto which is being sued all over the world. You are the one peddling deceit. Try being honest.

GMOs HAVE GOT TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, Holly, if you didn't lie, tell me where I have been "parrotting company-sponsored misleading studies". Have you heard the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"? Could you please show the evidence you have to prove that whatever genetically-modified sheep killed the farmer, because it sounds like a zillion other unfounded claims that get bandied around Facebook and passed on uncritically by those who want to believe.

It isn't "common sense" to believe politicians have come to a reasoned conclusion in banning GMOs: they've simply reacted to pressure groups rather than evidence. They do that sort of thing all the time. And saying "Monsanto is being sued all over the world" is also a lie. Unless all these court cases are in secret, unpublished and known only to the select few who have been told TEH TRUTH!!1!1

If you want proof of lies and fraud, check out the links I've posted above.

@Protester: oh, look, lots of exclamation marks. I must have been wrong all along..
(That was sarcasm, by the way. Just in case you hadn't noticed)

Hell No We Won't Grow Monsanto's Evil GMOs!!!

What about GMOs that are nothing to do with Monsanto? Or any other corporation?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/news/monsanto-lawsuit

http://naturalsociety.com/scientists-signing-gmo-dangers-hundreds/

Mike, was that first link supposed to show "Monsanto being sued all over the world"? Maybe you should read your links before posting them. And that second one... another completely evidence-free sciency "oh, look, it's got links and everything", except that its links don't actually point to evidence, just other similar articles. One of which is "Hotly Debated: 1240 Scientists Demand Seralini GMO Study be Republished, Will NOT Be Suppressed", which shows how loose their definition of "scientist" is - if you want to know why Seralini's study has been withdrawn, I've already linked to something which explains how bad a bit of science it is in very simple-to-understand language. Nobody who wishes to have one iota of credibility as a scientist would ever call for it to be republished, because it simply does not show what Seralini claimed it did.

Looks like you're outnumbered 7:1 in the ratings, clown. People don't believe you nor Monsanto, which is an evil company. Farmers are suing over their toxic pesticides that are killing their animals and when a farmer says not to eat GMO foods, I would believe him over you and Monsanto anyday. My dad is a farmer and would never use Monsanto anything. You want to argue with my dad? When did you ever work the land? Answer that you Philistine!

Cameron has a valid point. Even if Phil argues over GMO safety, Monsanto IS being sued over its pesticides by farmers. Animals have died and people poisoned by the toxicity of their products. In a battle between a farmer, a company, and scientists, I'd probably listen to the farmer when it came to food. The FDA has failed us too many times, scientists argue amongst themselves, and the company only has its best interests in mind ( the bottom line). I don't shop as well as I should, but thanks to Phil there is lively discussion. Perhaps I might try an organic diet for a while. It can't hurt. Europeans tend to be more health conscious than obesity ridden America. Am surprised that Phil doesn't mention the merit of organics for a balanced view.

BOOM-BAH-BOOM-BOOM-BAH-BOOM-BOOM-BAH-BOOM-BOOM-BOW-WOW-WOW-WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get the message, Philly-dilly-dally? That settles it! GMOs are bad news!

Theodore, what valid point does Cameron have? He seems to think that amiright votes have something to do with how good ones argument is, he resorts to ad hominem and irrelevant anecdote.. "Organic" is a distraction & a whole different kettle of fish. Not going there on this thread.

GMO stands for Genetically Mutating Organism. Your so-called plan to feed the Third World with GMO crops is actually a world conspiracy by the richest nations to poison the poor and decrease the world population by 2050. At that point a world population of 12 billion cannot be sustained and all major Earth resources will have been depleted. How can you not see this? Monsanto is the facilitator of global murder. Face it, the Mars fantasy of colonization and Terra forming is never gonna happen. NASA scientists came to that conclusion in 1999 and have been playing games, advancing the ideas while relying on corporate evil entities to carry out the global extermination via GMO propaganda. Every type of animal that has consumed GMO food has developed massive internal degradation leading to cancerous death. Rats, pigs, sheep... the evidence is undeniable. All efforts to label these killer foods is being blocked by the secret world government. Obama is part of the conspiracy and so is UK. God help us all!!!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/the-genetic-conspiracy--are-genetically-engineered-foods-dangerous.aspx

Well, the conspiracy theorists are out in force, now. Still no evidence, though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2380985/Is-GMO-CORN-making-sick-How-woman-discovered-widely-used-ingredient-caused-insomnia-chronic-nausea-headaches.html

How do you explain the Indian suicides due to Monsanto pesticides?

Since genetically engineered foods were introduced in 1996, the United States has experienced as upsurge in low birth-weight babies, infertility and an increase in cancer. Agricultural tech giants like Monsanto have restricted independent research on their crops, which is legal, because under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable. The studies that have been conducted link genetically modified foods to a vast array of diseases—and long-term effects have yet to be measured.

You done did it now, Broh!!! Hell NO we won't grow GMOs!!! Bad for the Earth, bad for humanity. Oh Clueless One... when will you ever learn???

@Jane - whenever a newspaper runs a headline "Is xyz?", the answer is usually "no, but we're printing the story anyway". One person deciding that GMO corn is the cause of her problems, then failing to prove it doesn't count as evidence of anything whatsoever. And if GMO corn is so bad and so prevalent, why aren't there literally hundreds of millions of these cases? The number of people eating GMO corn products now is probably in the billions, and one inconclusive Daily Mail article about one person is what you put forward as an argument? Can you not see just how weak an argument that is?

@Raj - I account for it by saying it's a complete fabrication: the suicide rate of Indian farmers has decreased since the introduction of GMOs (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220388.2010.492863, http://agbioforum.org/v12n1/v12n1a02-herring.htm - there are many more debunking this myth). Note that I'm not saying that Bt Cotton caused this decrease in the suicide rate (correlation != causation & all that), but it couldn't have caused an increase as no increase has been observed.

@Amanda - again, correlation != causation: there are a million other changes in lifestyle, pollutants, diet etc. which on other days get blamed. There have been literally hundreds of studies now, carried out by independent, academic institutions & governments (as well as industry), none of which have shown a causal link. I've linked to a database of them above if you would actually like to review some evidence for a change.

Surely there is somebody out there who has got something to show that GMOs are actually bad? Not conspiracy theories; not just-because-Monsanto's-evil, not "governments have banned them so they must be"... but actual data showing that even one genetically modified organism has caused actual harm. Has everybody made up their minds based on an echo chamber of fabrications?

http://www.thenation.com/article/twenty-six-countries-ban-gmos-why-wont-us/

I think Phil needs to know the difference between what the human body has the ability to process versus what the human body was made to process. If Phil thinks consuming corn with pesticide residue is healthy, his wife should spray his food with Roundup every meal. That is what Monsanto does. Why else does that company block independent studies of GMO foods and also bribe officials internationally to accept its pesticides and GMO crops? Tobacco companies used to claim that cigarettes were safe and had no link to lung cancer. But we all know how that ended. GMOs have the potential to mutate over time and cause major side effects to the human body up to and including cancer. Allergies and respiratory failure are also tops. No parent would feed Roundup to a child, so pesticide imbedded corn would seem to be a logical risk. Same for soy, sugar beet, and other products genetically manipulated by Monsanto. Their plans have nothing to do with feeding the starving masses. Monsanto and other biotech companies are messing with human food consumption overall. NASA doesn't allow any GMO food for their Astronauts. Think Phil, think. Stop being the poster child for global ignorance concerning the harm GMOs can cause. And FYI, another reason GMOs are banned in many nations is concern over the effects long-term on human reproduction!

Why? Again, no evidence of harm, just an opinionated piece filled with assertions of it. A repeated theme "the case against GMOs has strengthened", and it probably feels like that in the unchallenging echo chamber of anti-GMO groups, yet surely by now the case against GMOs ought to be able to show actual harm rather than ridiculously over-the-top scaremongering about potentials - e.g. in that article, it talks about the Bt toxin being found: Bt toxin is used far more widely and at far, far higher levels in "organic" agriculture, because spraying the Bt bacillus is "natural" - if you're worried about Bt levels, it might be a good idea to look there, first.

But why should anyone read your links, when you obviously haven't read anyone else's?

Geoffrey, why should I believe you? Especially when what you're saying is provably untrue: if Monsanto blocked independent studies of GMOs, I wouldn't have been able to link to a database containing hundreds of them, that's public, searchable and contains funding details. Why do you people never check your "facts" before parrotting them?

Phil, I just explained what you said to my five year old son. He said you were, and I quote, "A poo-poo head!" I fully concur!

Well there you are, Phil. The science here is so settled that even a five year old gets it. But I guess if a guy will still offer facts and logic (none of which have been rebutted, BTW) despite all that name-calling and despite the fact that he's been outvoted 76-8 on a song parody site ..... I guess there's just no convincing him ............ Which is why we have no other choice but to call you even more names and hit you with even more one-bombs

Shut your hole, you dullard!

Right, some pissant parodist knows more than the governments of almost half the world that ban or partially ban GMOs because they are a health risk.

It may very well be that a "pissant parodist" knows better than nearly half the governments of the world. At least he is thinking independently, rather than being impressed by the political decisions of governments. Those decisions are based on political necessity and they can easily be wrong. Among the political pressures are the fears of a scientifically illiterate electorate. As an example, school boards in America are influenced by the 42% who believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago. And, contrary to Copernicus and long-settled science, 25% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Whatever you say brainwashed Phil. By what authority do you dare criticize the governments and citizens that reject GMOs? How can you deny the effects of GMOs on animals? How can you deny that pesticide-laced corn seed is dangerous? You are nothing but a pawn of Monsanto. When starving Third World farmers even reject GMO crops, that says a lot. So screw you, atheist robot. You're one evil MF!

Hey UK atheist, what does your bastard belief system have to do with GMOs? If you want stats, less than 50% of all in UK believe in God but DO believe in Heathenism, Satanism, and Paganism. Oh wait, add the half a million that believe in Jedi Knights!!! No wonder your stupid population believes in GMO lies. Forget God Save the Queen. Replace with Help Me Obi-Wan!!! What losers! Hope Monsanto moves its headquarters to UK as they plan. Phil can get off the dole and work for them as a spokesman. He's probably a pencil necked four eyed geek with bad teeth anyway.

I just recalled the os for this

@"Reject GMOs" - you ask "by what authority do I dare criticize the governments & their citizens that reject GMOs?" - basically because the evidence is unequivocal. I'm the only person in this thread who has actually *provided* evidence, links to literally hundreds of studies that you've ignored. If GMOs have the effects you claim, provide the evidence and I'll change my mind. But so far nothing has been posted on here that isn't retracted, fraudulent or outright conspiracy theory - and, unlike you, I've actually checked every link that has been posted in this comments thread, so I *know* what I'm commenting on.

...and please, if you're going to attempt ad hominem, at least do it with a little bit of wit and brainpower. Those are simply pathetic.

"Reject GMOs" and "Atheists must die" (Rob) seem to think that I am Phil, operating under a pseudonym. I am not Phil, but I know who you two are. In character and intelligence, you are not good enough to lick Phil's boots.

Wrong FT, I already gave my opinion way back on this thread. I eat and drink GMO. The aspartame in Diet Coke daily is enough!!! Stop associating religious themes with me. My only advice to Phil at this point would be to stop feeding the trolls. Btw, basing character on verbal posts online is not accurate by any means. Do you know me or Phil personally? Nope. Bad call.

Rob, you are woefully ignorant of Cola-speak. Switch to Diet Pepsi and be rid of aspartame. It has been replaced by sucralose, that healthful chemical which is marketed separately as Splenda. It has given me the power to know both Phil and you personally. Phil is God; you, not so much.

Phil, your thread is infested with loonies!!!

Infested? Enhanced!

Rob is right. A loonie's presence can never enhance, Loony. It can only infest. You're insane to think otherwise.

@Free Thinker - that's kind of flattering, but jumping to unsupported conclusions is kind of what I'm trying to avoid, here :-)

@Rob- :-) I've met these sorts of people a lot (IRL as well as online), people who are so convinced they're on the side of Right & Good etc. that they never even consider anything that might challenge their views, so are in effect incapable of seeing when they're wrong. Textbook confirmation bias.

@Voice of reason: the one thing they can do is highlight just how little there is to support their "evul GMOs" narrative. So far there is nothing at all to show harm from even one, and (at the risk of repeating myself so frequently that people get bored and tune out) they're all different, anyway. You'd think that people who believe something so completely would have something concrete on which to base their views, but it doesn't appear to be the case.

Phil, do you realize that there are 113 replies on this thread? My original two were numbers 69 (question) and 71 (reply)!!! In review, it looks like a classic back-n-forth free for all of craziness! GMOs are in a lot of things like corn, soy, cotton, aspartame, cooking products, etc... so avoiding them would seem futile in a supermarket or dining out. Who here hasn't consumed GMOs or bought them? I live in the US which does not ban them nor force label them. I only advocate labeling so those who don't like them can buy something else. Our health food stores do try (at least in liberal California)! Back to my original question, Phil. Do UK health food shops have any form of labeling for the consumer or is there a drive for such? Also, aren't there more organic foods available in Europe? The whole standing in open air market lines daily for fresh foods thing?

http://elitedaily.com/life/gmos-are-killing-us/

Please take notice
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/theworld/GMO%20Foods%20in%20your%20Pantry.htm

See? The real loonies are still at it.
When introducing man-made food varieties based on genetic alteration into the environment, reasonable, though as yet unproven, hypotheses of doom are enough for some countries to ban their growing or import. The fixation on the fact that the hypotheses have not been proven and to throw caution to the wind are what's "insane," especially for countries without food security. If trying to defuse an endless and fruitless argument with a little nonsense is insane, I am insane.

@Factuator - what facts? Another opinion piece that doesn't say anything of any value, no evidence

@Rosemary Clark - Seralini's "cancer in rats" study has been comprehensively debunked. It's one of those bits of zombie research that should be dead and buried, but keeps resurfacing because people post links without actually having the faintest clue what they're linking to. I've posted links to why it's wrong twice already upthread, but here it is again: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/08/my-take-on-the-gmo-causes-cancer-study/

Seriously, if anyone tells you "GMOs cause cancer", it's always based on the same study, one which has been shown to be worthless.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

Before you call me a liar, see what I said about that page when it was posted higher up. "Prove GMOs can be harmful"? It does no such thing. This is truly pathetic, please try and think rather than reposting piffle.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

Bzzzz! Repetition. Can you not even be original in your "oh, look, tthis doesn't prove anything" linkage? You're not a "truth seeker", you're a lie propagator.

..in other news, this is now my second most commented-on parody, and my second most voted-on parody. Thanks, everybody :-)

Refute this, clown:
http://www.gmwatch.org/home-mobile

PS You do realize that link doesn't actually say that there are any harmful effects of genetically modified organisms? It lists what the potential harmful effects might be, the things to go looking for, so to speak. They also explain what sort of things to do to ascertain risk (which, hey, these guys actually have some idea of what they're talking about, depends on what sort of change has been made to what organism). You might do well to read the articles you link to: you might learn something.

Oh, another one showed up mid-post. So what do you actually want refuted in that gish-gallop of scaremongery bollocks, then, Randy?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547

Shut your gob, Monsanto puppet. Your dustbin replies are invalid. The world has spoken against GMOs. You do not listen.

@Read - with all due respect, that isn't an argument against GMOs: glyphosate is the most widely-used herbicide in the world. and since they stopped allowing chlorate because of its bomb-making potential, the only really effective one that isn't hideously toxic. Note that they say "likely", not that it has been shown to cause cancer.. and the categorization as a carcinogen is at the same risk level as shift work & coffee. If people don't use glyphosate, you're left with things like paraquat & diquat, which are orders of magnitude nastier.

@"The Majority" - no, a very small minority of the world has spoken in a very loud voice; it's very evident that they haven't listened. I suggest you get back to your echo chamber if a taste of honesty makes you so short-tempered.

Phil, I got it! Stop wasting time on these morons and do "ABC" as "GMOs... they're as evil as Mon-san-to!!!" And then twist that using your info. I think you would have a winner!

Ooooh, what a great idea, Rob! And you can write a parody about the flight characteristics of futuristic German crop-dusting flying saucers from the bad old days before insecticide-resistant GMO crops. You can use Schubert's Ave Maria as the OS.
Phil, the pacing of this parody must be horrendous -- 91 1s and 9 5s. If there are any votes in-between, they're too small to see. You really should work on your pacing, man.

If one looks at the GMO argument objectively, neither side has won. GMO haters cannot prove GMOs are 100% unsafe while Phil cannot prove GMOs are 100% safe simply because no one has died... yet. Since it has only been less than twenty years since GMOs have been introduced, all studies are inconclusive since the total saturation point has not been reached. Monsanto certainly is not trying to end world hunger with GMO crops. Like all companies, it is pushing a product line as are all the other biotech firms. Monsanto is pushing GMO food to everyone and pesticide coated seeds to farmers. The company has patented the products and to some extent tried to suppress anything negative from anyone on these products. Monsanto is also guilty of bribing government officials to accept GMO foods, even if their citizens don't want them. As for long-term side effects of GMO consumption, no doctor is screening for them. If a person develops allergies, respiratory problems, and God-forbid a type of cancer from ingestion over long periods, the result is more likely to be a misdiagnosis of origin. This happened with early AIDS which took decades to identify and then treat. Same for cigarettes, once claimed to be safe. From the beginning, it should have been common sense that smoking toxic levels of chemically treated tobacco would not be safe and lead to lung cancer. But the big tobacco companies fought all studies and complaints. Phil can't technically say not one person has died from GMO poisoning. He simply doesn't know. Genetically modified foods are man-made and are unnatural to the human body. They can mutate over time and almost certainly will once total saturation is reached in the future. That is what individuals and nations are afraid of. The risk long-term outweighs the short-term benefits. First world nations do not need GMOs anyway. There are enough health problems already with saturated fats, sugars, etc... While I would not call GMO production a conspiracy, I would say that Monsanto and others definitely have goals to be reached by promoting biotech foods and pesticide-laced seeds. Wait another decade or so and see where we are then.

Well said Bystander! Rational thinking prevails in a thread of uncertainty.

@Bystander: Yes, but... you're still conflating GMOs with Monsanto, and all GMOs when there are a whole spectrum of organisms and modifications. Also, you're concentrating solely on the possibility that there might be risk, and ignoring any benefits. Take Golden Rice as an example: something which could potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives, that has no profit motive or corporation behind it and causes no increase in pesticide usage. There is no credible suggestion that even the most overhyped suggested dangers of genetic modification could cause more harm than the potential for saving and improving lives. The risks don't come anywhere close to the benefits.

Not even I would give that many 1s

http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/Monsanto-corruption-gmo.php

https://conspiracyanalyst.org/tag/monsanto/

Still peddling conspiracies rather than providing evidence of harm. Pathetic.

http://www.gmoevidence.com/

http://www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/

We can only wish that Phil was a Monsanto lab rat. But wait, aren't we all?!?!!! It is also a fact that Monsanto owns UK and has bribed government officials all over the world (especially developing nations) to promote and buy Monsanto products. If GMOs are safe like they claim, why the deception and hush money?

Pick something you think stands up to scrutiny from that gish gallop of assertion and outright lies - at first glance, nothing does, but there might be some a nugget in there somewhere. It certainly doesn't help that every article on the front page of a website called "gmoevidence" is claiming harm from glyphosate which is not a gmo (yes, I know that roundup-resistant plants tend to lead to increased glyphosate usage, but if that's your only argument against genetic modifications, you've not got a very strong case, have you?)

..and the second one, entitled "gmo facts" contains things like "Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe ", which is simply not true. And then, oh yes, goes on to tell untruths about glyphosate, too. Try again.

And if we're all Monsanto lab rats, it's odd that people are generally healthier and live longer than fifty years ago, before all this started. If it's so dangerous to health, how could this possibly be?

Yeah, we've all heard this before. Phil is right and everyone else is wrong. Sound familiar? It should, because brainwashed idiots and nutters alike think this way. If Monsanto told Phil to drink a glass of Roundup with every meal because their 90 day study said it was safe, Phil would do so. Phil also skips any mention of Monsanto being sued worldwide and accused of bribing nations and foreign government officials, health agencies. So how transparent are they? Monsanto is pure evil. No wonder almost half the entire world has bans or partial bans on GMOs. But they're all stupid, right Phil? How about all the GMO fed cancer rat photos and dead sheep testimonials by farmers who fed them with GMO grains? If GMOs aren't safe for animals, how could they be for humans? I read a few years back that if we went back to the moon or Mars that NASA would NOT allow GMO foods to be taken. Why is that, Phil? Not that the UK will ever go to either place...

http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html

It's not a question of "Phil is right and everyone else is wrong", it's about *evidence*: there must be dozens of links above purporting to prove GMOs are harmful, I've followed them all and none have anything that stands up to any kind of scrutiny. It's not me that's the brainwashed one, here. I'm the only one who's actually reading these things: the idiots who posted the links obviously haven't or they'd realize that their ability to use google isn't what they think it is.

I've dealt with Seralini's deceitful "cancer rat photos" above. If you actually read rather than spouted foolishness, you'd realize that.

@Sal - did you read that article? No, I didn't think so. It doesn't contain any reasons gmos are bad for you - just exaggerations and (like everyone else seems to in this thread), treats all GMOs as if they're the same thing and conflating that with Monsanto.

http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/209477-editorial-the-growing-menace-of-the-monsanto-induced-pro-gmo-lobby-in-nigeria.html

An opinion piece. Do none of you read the links you post? (Assuming that there's more than one of you.. a single person with multiple sockpuppets would explain the consistent inability to post anything that constitutes evidence against GMOs) - all you've shown is that there are people who believe Monsanto is evil and (therefore) all GMOs are harmful, but there are people who will believe any old rubbish. That's why you need actual evidence.

I'd say being outnumbered ten-to-one and growing makes you the nutter, mate. And you forgot about consumer rights. GMO foods should be labeled as such for those who wish to protect themselves and their families. Up to 75% of processed food in the Supers are tainted with GMOs. 's'not right.

You mean one person with a dozen sockpuppets? Besides, if I were the nutter and wrong about all this, surely one of these dozen would be able to, you know, actually provide some evidence of harm rather than two dozen links to opinionated rubbish and discredited research?

I'm not against the idea of labelling (though simply saying "contains GM material" is useless, as I've repeated many, many times, different modifications mean different things, some of which will inevitably be safer than others), if food is all adequately labelled and substantial numbers of people put themselves on a GM-free diet, this could provide some real evidence for the safety of GM food (though, again as I've said above, the simple fact that most processed food contains GM material at a time when people are living longer and healthier lives than at pretty much any other time in history suggests where those data may point)

Phil has claimed that we live healthier today vs 50 years ago and thanks in part to GMOs. This is nonsense as GMOs have only been around for half that time and longevity has grown due to more exercise, better diets, organic foods, and the advances of medical and pharmaceutical science with a generation that has learned that being fit is it. Fifty years ago most people ate poorly, smoked heavily, worked high stress jobs, drank more often, and didn't care about exercise. No comparison of 1966 vs 2016! Btw, Phil buys all of Monsanto's crap 100%. Their studies are in-house and unreliable. They use teams of lawyers to block independent studies and coerce third world nations into buying their pesticides and GMO garbage. But still, it is a fact that half of the world has bans or partial bans on GMO products. So again, Phil knows better than world government officials and health agencies. I say he's bonkers!

George, no, that's not what I said. I'll try and make it easier for you: if GMOs were as harmful as you and many others on this thread make out, then as most people (especially in the US) are consuming significant quantities of GM-containing food, health & longevity could not be improving.

That is not the same as saying we are living longer, healthier lives because of GMOs, just that consumption of them is obviously not harming people.

Do you understand now?

I think it speaks volumes that the people arguing against GMOs on this thread are unable to follow simple logic, unable to find any evidence to back up their claims of harm and are resorting to name-calling.

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-going-to-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague-netherlands-international-criminal-court/

^ forget it pal, Phil is a contrarian who praises all things Monsanto, the Agent Orange guys that poisoned our troops. Most British are daft anyway, that's why Monsanto wants to HQ there!

@Oh yeah?
... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2015/12/07/no-monsanto-is-not-going-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/#416f3c002d14
FFS, you're like a neverending torrent of effluvia, never even thinking about checking the truth or accuracy of what you're posting.

Thanks Phil for your igno-rationalization!

I think it speaks volumes that even after Phil makes the point that his opponents are doing nothing but engaging in name calling in lieu of reasoned argument; they immediately respond with more name calling!!

Phil is an owned Monsanto mouthpiece who relies on in-house Monsanto studies for proof of safety. They bribe nations to buy their Roundup coated seeds that kill animals and contaminate the soil and their GMO foods cause a wide range of symptoms around the world investigated by health agencies and experts that support the 80-90 nation bans on GMO products. Consumer rights are also violated by not properly labeling these unnatural Organisms the human body wasn't meant to digest and process. From cancer rats to dead livestock to sick people, GMOs are a clear and present danger to the world. NASA refuses all astronauts to eat any GMO foods, so none are going back to the moon or Mars. If you can't make an educated guess about GMOs and Monsanto being sued around the world for safety violations, you lack the common sense God gave you. Phil has been conned. What about you?

You can't even get the Monsanto products you're complaining about right. And you call me a clown? Another irony meter up in smoke. Rather than name-calling and quoting conspiracy sites, why not try to find something that actually shows harm from any GMO (be it Monsanto or not). You're so blinded by your hate, you don't even realize it's based on nothing.

Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, with the delayed-ripening tomato. Nineteen hundred and ninety-four. 1994, Phil. How does that coincide with your Clinton-era Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Clinton Commie works.

http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/Monsanto-corruption-gmo.php

Bzzzz! Repetition.

@JDRippa - whatever it is you're smoking or snorting, I'd give it up: it's obviously messing with your brain.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

Funny how Phil who thinks he's so smart fails to recognize the Dr. Strangelove movie comments by J.D. Rippa!!! If he can't comprehend that, then he surely doesn't know what he's talking about concerning GMOs and Monsanto!

Nope, never watched Dr Strangelove. It's kind of hard to spot movie quotes in a movie one has never seen. :-)

@K12lv4eva - so, what do you think a 17-year-old open letter contributes to the debate, given that the technology and more importantly knowledge about the technology has moved on so much? Look, these things have been a major part of the food chain for over a decade: if they were that harmful, why can nobody point to any evidence of harm whatsoever? How many of the scientists who signed that open letter would now look at the science and realize many of their fears were unfounded?

Dr. Strangelove is rated number 26 of the top 500 films of all time by Empire and number 6 comedy. Saying you never saw it is like saying you never saw Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, and so on. It shows how little you know about this world. But of course UK cinema is nothing compared to American cinema. We dominate in entertainment too.

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/celebrities-against-gmos

@No surprise - not sure which is the more comedically ironic: that you appear to be thinking that my not having seen a film is somehow relevant to the safety of GMOs, or an American telling me (or *any* foreigner) how little I know about the world.

@Read this Ppl - celebrities voicing unevidenced opinions of GMO safety? Oh, puhlease. And it even includes the OS as though it makes some kind of argument.

https://www.google.com/amp/elitedaily.com/life/gmos-are-killing-us/amp/

You couldn't even be bothered to read that yourself, could you? Hence the google search link.. If you had clicked the link you so carelessly posted, you'd have seen it was an error-strewn piece by someone who really doesn't know what she's talking about.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/ten-ways-monsanto-and-big-ag-are-trying-kill-you-and-planet

"Awareness", huh? You didn't read that, did you? Blaming Monsanto for fracking and the Keystone pipeline is a bit of a stretch, even for the anti-GM crowd. And most of the rest of its "ten ways" aren't much better, including blaming GM for many of the bad practices GM crops reduce. Come on, surely one of you can find something that is actual evidence for harm?

Phil, I know where you're coming from. I wish to remain anonymous because I can't afford to take hits. But a few weeks ago I was standing in line of a major grocery store here in America and got into a discussion with a man about health and nutrition. When I told him politely that around 75% of the processed food in the store had GMOs in them, not only did he get upset, but some other people in line did as well. It was like a mob. A Manager came over and actually told me not to say that in the store. That I was scaring people. I couldn't believe it. It's a good thing that I didn't say anything about Monsanto or I might have faced violence. How insane are people nowadays? GMOs are everywhere. Live with it! What's it been, twenty-five years now???

You'd think people might have realized by now that as almost everyone (especially here and in the US) has consumed something made with genetically modified material and there hasn't been any kind of explosion of death or debilitation, you'd think they might have realized that genetic modification as a technology is safe (NB this is not saying by any means that every possible GM would also be safe - each one needs to be tested). The scaremongers talking about "frankenfoods", poisons, etc. are causing a very real fear, but it has about as much factual basis as a Donald Trump tweet.

"Respected public-interest scientific organizations reject the claim that GMOs have been proven safe. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled 'GMOs, herbicides and public health' stated that new developments 'suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments.' "The Union of Concerned Scientists has raised concerns about the difficulty finding reliable health and safety research on GMOs due to the biotech industry’s efforts to suppress research on its products. Physicians for Social Responsibility has raised similar concerns: 'The FDA doesn't conduct safety testing on GMO crops and doesn't require independent testing. The only testing done is by the same biotech corporations that develop the crops. Moreover, these corporations severely restrict scientists from conducting independent health or environmental safety research, making it extremely difficult to get unbiased investigation'. "The World Health Organization classifies glyphosate, the herbicide in Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen. Herbicide residues, including glyphosate, are found in treated GMO foods that are sold in grocery stores. "38 countries have banned the cultivation of GMOs, including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Wales, Switzerland and many more."

TY Jill Stein. Phil is put in his place.

Jill Stein's lack of any kind of scientific rigour and her pandering to the anti-vax, anti-GM crowds destroyed any credibility she may have had with any thoughtful types. Of course the FDA doesn't do safety testing on foods, just mentioning that as though it were important kind of shows your prejudices.

"The only testing done is by the same biotech corporations that develop the crops." is simply a lie. http://gmopundit.blogspot.co.uk/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html (don't believe the URL... their database has been updated to include >600 now). And you can see who funded which.

The Union of Concerned Scientists on their website are not against GMOs as a technology: they make exactly the same point as I do at the top of this parody when I say "anyone who campaigns against all genetic modifications as if they're all the same thing is going to make it so much harder to prevent cultivation if any are developed which actually are harmful", though not in exactly the same words. They think some GMOs have been oversold, and they're probably right about that, too. But they're not anti-GM, and interestingly enough do not have any evidence that I can find on their website which actually indicates direct harm (though they do talk about some GMOs encouraging unsustainable farming practices, and they're probably right about that, too)

Glyphosate is *not* "classified as a probable human carcinogen", see above on this thread.

Yes, I'm aware that many countries have banned cultivation of GMOs, which testifies to the success of scaremongering as a technique, nothing to do with their actual safety.

So, no, I'm not "put in my place", I'm still waiting for anything that backs up the "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/

Wake up you Monsanto mouthpiece! I see lots of evidence in all these posts. All you do is ignore the facts. You are also outnumbered 11 to 1. The people have spoken. God, you must be thick as a board! Health authorities around the world consider GMOs to be dangerous or at least potentially dangerous. Half the world has bans or partial bans on them. Are you claiming they are all dumb? What do you do for a living besides write goofy parodies? Are you a farmer or health care official? I work in a food processing plant. Nobody I know gives GMOs a safe pass. You remind me of the old crackpots that defended the cigarette industry. Everyone with a brain knows cigarettes are harmful, but it doesn't stop the spread of tobacco smoking. I'm afraid GMOs are just another health risk people accept. I don't speak for all people, but I am with the crowd that tries to eat organic as much as possible and to advise others to do the same. Monsanto products kill people and cause harm. They are greedy bastards that only care about money. I care about people. And if you have kids, it's especially important to keep as many GMOs out of their diet as possible. All genetic organisms can mutate over time. Argue with that. Have a pleasant day.

@Read On: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
..a year after all those "glyphosate probably linked to cancer" articles (when glyphosate was put in the same category of carcinogens as coffee and shift work), the WHO updated their research with more data, the above includes the sentence: "Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet."... so it's now a whole category *less* carcinogenic than coffee. Are you still worried?

@Beverly: Truth isn't democratic, neither is reality. If it's simply that I'm a Monsanto mouthpiece, and reality shows lots of GM nastiness, why has nobody in a couple of hundred comments managed to show any examples of it? Maybe you should get out of your echo chamber and read some real scientific literature on the subject - try almost anything I've linked to in the above page.

It is telling, IMO, that of the people who've posted on this thread, none of those anti-GM types have shown they've read any of the links I've posted above; whereas I've looked at *all*, and there hasn't been a single one that stands up to scrutiny. I'm perfectly ready for my viewpoint to be challenged, and could change my mind: all it would take is for someone to give something that actually proves harm. But all I seem to get here are a bunch of closed-minded idiots who don't seem to know how to make an argument, let alone come up with something that might constitute evidence. "Monsanto products kill people"??? If that were the case, why aren't there millions or even billions of dead bodies? Where is your evidence for that ridiculous hyperbolic statement?

"Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.
By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent
Fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis. The potential harm from pesticides, however, has drawn researchers’ attention. Pesticides are toxic by design — weaponized versions, like sarin, were developed in Nazi Germany — and have been linked to developmental delays and cancer...
The industry is winning on both ends — because the same companies make and sell both the genetically modified plants and the poisons. Driven by these sales, the combined market capitalizations of Monsanto, the largest seed company, and Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, have grown more than sixfold in the last decade and a half. The two companies are separately involved in merger agreements that would lift their new combined values to more than $100 billion each."
The article is a long one. Besides the relatively poor efficacy of GM pesticide reduction, genetically-endowed herbicide resistance seems to encourage greater use of such agents. The article also challenges the promise of bountiful crops as being uncertain, according to surveys in the U.S. and Europe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html

http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/top-medical-journal-warns-of-gmos-herbicides-public-health-21408

Phil, this reminds me of the mercury in fish scare of yesterday. I eat seafood. I didn't care back then and I don't care now. And I eat bottom dwellers too! In God's Old Testament I would have been stoned! Then God made everything clean. I don't think eating GMOs are as bad as people claim.

And here's the next thing anemic minds are gonna be upset about:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/vegans-outraged-as-bank-of-england-reveals-new-5-note-contains-animal-fat-a3407611.html

Gotta love the Brittish government, at least they now how to troll back!

@ Who cares: You don't think eating GMOs is as bad as people claim? On what do you base your "thinking"? You wrote nothing factual. You obviously have no knowledge about the subject at hand. Yet, you have an opinion, or what-everr. Why should anybody care about one word of your comment? YOU don't care. You have some vague belief in God. Takes no effort. BTW, most fish flesh contains abundant selenium. Selenium bonds with mercury. That's why you don't have mercury poisoning. If you did, you'd pray to God to make you clean.

So the Brits now have a 5-pound note with a bit of tallow from animal fat in it. But you, Peter, have a ten-pound head made completely of animal fat.

http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-sued-by-farm-workers-claiming-roundup-caused-their-cancers-1882104874.html

If GMOs are so dang bad, then where's the evidence? Where are the multitudes of sick and dying? Where are all the independent studies that prove they cause harm in a human body? People just "believe" they are bad and belief isn't proof. Go get a job. It will give you less time to sit around contemplating doomsday scenarios! And go eat some fish. There's garbage in most everything we eat and drink anyway. Ain't gonna stop me from living. I'm 47 and in near perfect health. Been eating GMO food since it came out. Why aren't I dying? Scaremongering V facts. Gee, I choose facts.

@"NY Times" - Have to admit that I don't get the logic which says "because some weeds are getting resistant to glyphosate & requiring secondary (& far more toxic) herbicides, then RR-ready GMOs are a bad idea" - cut glyphosate out of the equation, and you're left with more toxic herbicides (while noting that there's an acceptance here that glyphosate is a very non-toxic herbicide). Not going to argue that GM as a technology has been oversold: that's kind of what advertisers do... but to pretend it hasn't given any advantages at all is to ignore reality.

@I care - I don't really want a thread derail (there's enough rubbish on here as it is), but please learn some chemistry if you're going to spout stuff as if it's fact.

@No pesticides - don't know how you plan to eat if no pesticides are used at all. Let me know if that court case actually presents some evidence of harm being caused by glyphosate, but I can't see how they're going to prove it: it's a couple of guys who believe that Roundup is the cause of their cancer. Belief != evidence.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

@Greg - You do realize that's the third time that link has been posted? I'm not sure that any of you who posted it read beyond the word "harmful" in the URL, either.

Phil, use this: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/will-gmos-hurt-my-body/

The last thing I want to do is derail your thread and increase your irritability. While I am not a chemist, I do not "spout." I do have three of many sources for my contribution and this is, after all, in the field of toxic contaminants: the EERC (Energy and Environmental Research Center), CATM (Center for Air Toxic Metals) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). The conclusions from these groups are in stark contrast to both the USDA and PETA. They claim you don’t have to worry about methyl mercury in your fish at all if its selenium content is higher.
According to these agencies, even albacore tuna gets a pass. They point out that, even though albacore does contain more methyl mercury than light tuna, albacore also has a rather high selenium level that cancels out its harmful effects.
According to the EERC, in one of their short documentaries [Selenium and Mercury: The Story in Fish], selenium binds to methyl mercury in an unbreakable bond in the proteins of fish flesh. This selenium/mercury bonding prevents the methyl mercury from doing harm when you eat it. Studies that show that lab animals given equal amounts of selenium and methyl mercury-containing fish showed no adverse effects from the methyl mercury. The lab animals that did not get the selenium showed toxic neurologic effects. I readily admit to not knowing of human studies or the scholarly thinking behind the relevance of selenium/mercury ratio.

God, all this talk of fish has made me hungry for a shark sandwich. Off to the freezer!

@ Red-Blooded Vegan: Of course I do. A healthy brain consists largely of fat, which doesn't generate itself, you have to eat your way to it. BTW, the only way to permanently reverse brain disorders like congenital epilepsy is a high-high fat diet. And of course, then there's this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/19/big-bums-smarter-children-study_n_6499470.html

Dear Fathead (and I mean that in a good way): African women are noted for their fat asses (steatopygia). The current First Lady of the U.S. exhibits a strong tendency toward this condition, which pleases her husband so much that he omitted the condition for treatment under Obamacare. (The original draft had coverage for fat asses, but that was considered racist. "Fat" was changed to "flat" and now white women's butts can be injected with fat, obtained mostly from your head, for a nominal co-pay.)
But I digress from the point of your link. You may have noticed that Black people are more intelligent than anybody else. Well, we are! For each steatopygic square inch of yo mama, there is a 1-point increase in your I.Q., according to "The Bell Curve." That's why I'm so smart, in case you haven't noticed. And I help it along with a vegan diet of collard greens, turnips, okra, black-eyed peas, corn fritters, and hominy grits. Sorry about your congenital epilepsy.

@Phil's little helper - it's unlikely anyone who could do with reading something like that will ever do so. Sigh.

@I Care - Sorry, I was a bit short there, but selenium doesn't "bond to mercury", as so categorically stated above. Yes, methyl Mercury compounds have a high affinity for Se, which is what causes their toxicity in cells by sequestering the Se from some enzymes, so having an equal amount of free Se as MeHg does mean there's no methyl-Hg left to stop your enzymes working. If you're thinking "but that's what I said", then I apologise for being an over-pedantic chemist, but no, it's not exactly what you said.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/england-wales.php

I've lived through all the scares of fluoridation, mercury, salmonella, e coli, too much caffeine, too much salt, too much butter, etc... but as Nietzsche said "that which does not kill us makes us stronger." GMOs are no different. Daily, consumption of GMO food on average yields 1g. That won't kill you, for sure. Lay off Phil.

Is this the longest thread on AIR?

@Jill - was there a point you were trying to make with that?

@? - no, the "Barney's Dead" parody has been picking up comments on a fairly regular basis for more than ten years, and has twice this number. So give this one another year or two...

Phil, in your first comment you wrote, "...there is no point in trying to argue with people who can't even be bothered to find out the first things about what they're arguing against." Yet, you continue to argue as if you yearn to beat the dubious "Barney" record for longest thread — in "another year or two." You probably can, as you seem to wish, inherit Saturday night's inebriated, capital letters fools. Or you can put in a claim for dignity by ending this 16-month, repetitive link-fest by announcing that you will no longer participate.

Funny someone should ask about numbers. I researched the longest comment threads just out of curiosity. Near as I can tell, this one is #5 in number of comments. The Barney parody is #3 with 366. At #4 is "That Throne" by Red Ant with 240 comments, almost none of which have anything to do with the song. It's mostly a dialogue between Red Ant and someone named Scrawny Johnny. At #2 is "Neopets Lie" by Guy DiRito with 411 comments, mostly about the Neopets website ...... And at #1 is"Hitting on EmiLoca" by Jake A Ralphing, with (are you sitting down) 1347 comments!! Basically Jake and EmiLoca (a parody writer) start spinning this romance novel based on Jake's parody with three or four other writers kibbutzing in. It's the most amazing thing in the runes and annals of Amiright

I will say this. This thread does set a record for most personal abuse directed at an author. Never seen anything close to it at AIR

Isn't that Winx parody even worse for insults?

GMOs -OMG!

@A Modest Proposal - damn, my motivation has been uncovered! But seriously, I would love for one of these anti-GM types to be able to provide something that backs up their blind prejudice, and because of this I have looked at every page linked to. It is very obvious there are some "scientists" with agendas (of whom Seralini is probably the most oft-quoted) who have intentionally done some very bad science, claiming results not born out by their experiments just so that people who want to believe the same thing have a hook to hang their beliefs on.

People have been talking about "post truth politics" in the wake of the Brexit/Trump votes, but the trend towards believing what you want to believe (and resorting to insults rather than evidence when challenged) started a while back & maybe it's surprising that it has taken so long to be the central part of political "debate".

@CML - thanks for that :-) I remember the "Hittin' on EmiLoca" banter kicking off, never realized it got *that* long. That is more than a little bit epic. But re the personal abuse: it's so poorly-done, it's really not worth bothering about. It's more a shame that they are so unwilling to confront the possibility they might be wrong, that they respond with childish invective rather than even read something that contradicts what they "know" to be true.

http://responsibletechnology.org/will-genetically-modified-foods-make-you-sick/

You do realize that "organic" use of Bt toxin, which involves spraying the bacillus onto crops, leaves far higher Bt toxin residues than are found in the many GM Bt variants? If Bt toxin does turn out to be harmful to mammals as well as insects, organic farms are going to suffer every bit as much

Oddly enough, that page claims (with some "sciency" links) an awful lot of nastiness that when one tries to follow the links, don't actually link to anything at all (404 errors from their own website, so it's not possible to see whether these claims of harm have anything to back them up).

So we have another example of Betteridge's law of headlines. Google it, if you don't know what I'm talking about.

http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/Monsanto-corruption-gmo.php

You do realize that's the third time you've posted that link? Has it improved at all in the retelling?

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/top-20-frankenfoods-to-avoid.html

That one is a spoof, right? I'm guessing you didn't actually read it.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_Monsanto_debate.html

You didn't read that, did you? No, I thought not. Tell you what, why don't you try and tell me why I'm going to say it's wrong?

Phil, why don't you give it a rest already? It is clear by the voting and comments left that the majority of people here and by extension the world do not approve of GMOs and do not consider them safe no matter what Monsanto and the other biotechs claim. You yourself cannot prove 100% that GMOs are safe for consumption. You have no clue long-term what the effects will be or have been for a quarter century. No one knows the health risks over time nor the toxicity of pesticide coated seeds. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. You can't fault anyone for trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from genetic mods. God didn't intend the human body to process these Frankenfoods. Monsanto is an evil entity. Why anyone would defend that humanity killer is beyond me. But you have your rights to believe their propaganda and we the others have a right to defend our beliefs. My family eats organic and we prefer not to risk GMO contamination. You can eat and drink all the GMO products you want. Maybe you will live or maybe you will develop side effects up to cancer. You don't know. Stop trying to convince others that you are right and we are all wrong. You are outnumbered considerably.

I am flabbergasted at the thought process of people who will relentlessly attack a person and then attack him again for defending himself. if you want the guy to give it a rest, then YOU people need to give it a rest. He doesn't ever restart any of this; YOU anti-GMO types do. What you really want is to have the last word on this thread, as if that will actually be the conclusive proof that you're right

Ellen, you really think votes on a parody represent some kind of scientific truth? Let alone your extrapolation from here to the world... All I've been asking for, repeatedly is for someone to present something, *anything* credible as evidence for the harm they say is being caused. Instead, I've had link after link to opinion, to outright lies, to discredited pretend "science", and repetition after repetition. This makes me think, as it should make any rational person think, that there is in fact no evidence that GMOs are harmful, that Monsanto is "evil" - because if there were, someone would surely have provided that evidence by now; in return, I've pointed out a database with more than 600 studies into the safety of GM products, which I am confident has not even been looked at by yourself or your similarly blinkered brethren.

You see, that's why I can also be confident I'm right: I have actually looked at the arguments from both sides, whereas you haven't. I have weighed the evidence, rather than credulously believing one side and ignoring the other. Frankly I don't care if there are a few dozen idiots interminably rehashing stupidity: intellectual integrity isn't democratic, and being outnumbered doesn't make me wrong. It takes evidence to change my mind, and none has been provided in any of the couple of hundred comments above which might give me cause to doubt my position.

Maybe Phil is just brainwashed like the global warming folks. They claim scientific evidence but it's just a theory like evolution. No one can prove it. Monsanto is notorious for it's own published studies while hiring an army of lawyers to suppress independent studies of GMOs. They are constantly being sued and a no-brainer is the fact that half the world has bans or partial bans on these harmful products. Phil has been asked to refute the nations and has failed miserably. He also denies that animals have developed cancer tumors and more after ingesting GMO foods. He has demonstrated that he is either in denial or a is a puppet of the bio-technology firms pushing these horrors on people. He is bought, in other words. West Europe largely bans these products but UK has been bought. Phil lives there. He thinks GMOs are safe enough. He rejects the fact that any genetically modified organism can mutate over time. He has blinders on.

C'mon Phil, even Russia AND China have banned GE foods. They believe in Organic and Sustainable or OS food production.

You guys are just pretending, right? There's something more than a little Poe's law-ish about someone who says "just a theory like evolution"

Phil's a Monsanto mouthpiece. What do you expect? Common sense says don't mess with genetically modified foods. They can mutate. Stick with organics. Protect your children. Eat healthy.

I luv Phil's views 😈