monsanto is the largest producer of genetically modified food. They are responsible for agent orange and hold high positions in the FDA. They are protesting against monsanto.

basically, Monsanto has its hand in every politicians pocket. oh and GMOs

This short video is all you need to understand

Nothing is wrong with Monsanto. They're just a big corporation so everybody is on their case. Plus people don't understand the science of GM, so they listen to ignorant secondhand opinions from hippies who got their ideas from crystal skulls. The fact is we have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years. Monsanto has made huge advances in food science, achieving crop yields of unprecedented size, and enables this food to get to your table at a cheap afforadable price.With global population expected to grow by 40 percent in the next few decades, agriculture will need to become more productive and more sustainable in order to keep pace with rapidly increasing demands.

Nothing is wrong with Monsanto. They're just a big corporation so everybody is on their case. Plus people don't understand the science of GM

• Yes, you do not understand at all, we get it. I hope one day you will learn Genetically Modified, and Genetically Modified Organisms is apples to oranges. Genetically Modified could be skewed as cross pollination/crossbreeding hybrids. Genetically Modified Organisms is injecting a modified organism into the genetic makeup of a living organism. Then you have monsanto saying its all safe, we are trying to save the world BUT we need to make sure we write this bill that prevents any lawsuits against us when problems do start to arise.

[deleted]

What makes a piece of DNA "insect"? The fact that an insect uses it?

Also, physical threats are against the rules of this subreddit.

[deleted]

Violent and delusional? How very efficient.

The "not-natural" argument isn't a particularly strong one, given both of us are communicating over an electronic network, and that we live in a world of cars, aeroplanes, medical care, skyscrapers, and so on.

What GMO plant is currently using "insect DNA" incidentally?

Some do indeed have an irrational dislike of all GMs. But there are many of us who simply want GMs labeled so we can decide for ourselves if the modifications and ensuing safety trials meet our standards for consumability. As it is, trials periods are ludicrously short, like 60 days (how the fuck can you gauge long-term health consequences in 60 days? Any fool knows you can't) and they slap 'FDA approved' on it without even really knowing what it might do to the human body. This is what the educated consumers among us have a problem with. I'm happy to see people trying to improve the food supply and solve hunger problems, but I want to know that legitemate long-term studies have been done before I ingest that stuf, and I want it labeled so that I know to check up on the testing methods in the first place. I am not okay with being Monsanto's guinnea pig.

stop saying GM's when it is GMO's that are at the heart of the scandal.

I was using GMs as an acronym for 'genetic modifications.' GMO is a redundant phrase because only organisms have DNA, thus only organisms can be genetically modified. Plus, I was using the more generic term because many people seem to have an aversion to the entire science of geneticsm (the people saying 'don't mess with my food' or 'stop GMOs'), which I find a bit ludicrous. It's the labeling and testing we should be trying to affect. We have no business trying to shut down an entire branch of science. There's a panoply of helpful information coming from that field. People need to focus on specific issues, not sweeping generalizations.

Although i appreciate the simplicity in what you're trying to say, it is flawed and miss-leading... You act as though they are modifying food and and people are screaming leave my food alone... it is not that simple, they are taking an ORGANISM (who knows what it is) genetically modifying it THEN injecting it into the DNA of our food. this IS playing god in scientific terms and should be unacceptable on all accounts.

So, you feel guilty every time you kill a piece of food, put it in your mouth, and grind it up into tiny bits for your own sustenance? Why not? That's a living organism that 'knows what it is,' as you say. Why should a scientist experimenting with it for the sake of improving the food supply feel worse than you who are eating it as food?

By that logic, almost all of the science of genetics is playing god. But that argument will only work against fellow mystics, not empiricists. Scientists do not care that mystics think they are playing god (especially those of us who don't believe in god). Without the god aspect, scientists ARE just modifying food, and we see nothing wrong with that. It's the potentially adverse health affects that some of us see a problem with. The modifications NEED to be tested more thoroughly. Frankly, I don't see why GMO testing is any different than pharmaceutical testing, which can take 5-11 years to get approval. GMOs, on the other hand, have some loophole that allows for trial periods as short as 60, and any fool knows you can't gauge long-term health consequences in 60 days. THAT is a problem.

I like how your entire response is nothing but you on the defense from the opinion part of mine... You were wrong about simplifying all GM/GMO when you clearly didnt understand what you were talking about, but i suppose you need to feel like you won something here.

I don't want to be a dick, but I think it was you who didn't understand what I was saying. I have indeed used the redundant acronym GMO before, myself. But I puposely used the term GM here because I was trying to indicate that people were being to broad in their condemnation of all things genetically modified. The term GMO is generally used to refer to genetically modified seeds/agricultural products, but during the rallies we had people with signs like 'Stop Playing God' and 'Leave Nature Alone.' This suggested to me that they would rather see scientists stop messing with genetics altogether (and your last statement about god leads me to believe that you are among them), and that simply is not going to happen.

If they wanted to accomplish something, they needed to focus on the testing and labeling, and the mis-uses of the patent system, not spew hatred about all things genetically modified (hence my use of the term GMs, rather than GMOs). Do you understand now why I used that acronym instead of the more cliche version? If not, then I can't help you. I've explained it the best I know how. I'm not sure why you think I would feel the need to win some personal battle with an anonymous stranger on the internet, but if that's your bag, you can have it. Have fun with that. You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm going to continue to use the phraseology that I find appropriate to the discussion athand, and it's my opinion that GM was the right acronym to use there, not GMO.

Ok so let me get this straight.... You want to show that people are being to broad by being too broad and then you think i am one of those people because i pointed out how wrong your broad statement was... HOLY SHIT this is a new low for reddit.... dont bother responding im pretty sure that hole you dug is too deep to fill, even will all of the bullshit you can muster.

I honestly dont believe I was being too broad. I was refering to all genetic modifications because that's what was being refered to by many of the protestors and I wanted to indicate that the breadth of their condemnation was too great. I was being exactly as broad as they were, not more so. It's futile to condemn an entire field of science, especially one as large as genetics. People need to focus on what is traditionally understood by the acronym GMOs, but many of them are focused on GM in general. You clearly aren't reading my words before you dismiss them. Classic dogmatist. Like I said, if you need to feel correct, that's fine, but I stand by what I said, and you aren't going to use any logically fallacious arguments to get me to say differently. I'm more thoroughly versed in debate tactics than you are, sir. Good luck elsewhere.

Just as I said before, here we have a bunch of unsubstantiated hooey without any source or basis. Just a load of rambling, false nonsense from some stoner dude who probably gets his ideas from crystal skulls.

You just completely disregarded the legitemate reasons I explained for wanting adequate testing and labeling. There are actually valid reasons to be upset with some of what Monsanto is doing. They keep shortening the test periods requierd for FDA approval (now aided immensely by having a former Monsanto lobbyist as head of the FDA), they've immunized themselves against lawsuits for negative health impacts from their GM plants, they're monopolizing the seed industry by financially cornering farmers into using seeds that do not reproduce more seeds, so that the farmers have to buy the patented seeds from Monsanto again every year, they're using known toxins in their weed killers and other pest controls, and they dump tons of money into the political process to stop consumers from getting the labeling that the overwhelming majority of us want. No crystal skulls there; just sound logic. That's not to say that everyone against GMs is using that sound logic, but it is there.

No, you're just repeating lame talking points you heard somewhere, without anything to backup what you're saying, no links to reputable scientific websites (Infowars or Natural News do not count). So, without anything of interest to read, I might as will listen to this.

Hey InfiniteSource nice BRAND NEW ACCOUNT you're serving your corporate overlords well here today, just 1 quick question shill, how do you sleep at night? Does your back hurt from all that hard astroturfing work you do all day for GMO's ?

Well, I don't need to link anything about Monsanto's former lobbyist now being head of the FDA - that's a matter of public record, and you can easily look it up yourself.

The immunization from lawsuits is in section 735 of the 'Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act' of 2013 (H.R. 933). You can also read that for yourself.

Details on how Monsanto financially pressures farmers into a position where they have to buy non-heirloom seeds so that Monsanto can have a monopoly on food production can be found in this new lawsuit where 5 MILION farmers are now suing Monsanto for bullying them with patent law - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110330/04055413695/monsanto-sued-organic-farmers-who-dont-want-to-be-accused-patent-infringement.shtml

Here's an article about peer-reviewed evidence that Roundup contains harmful toxins - http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/325460. But that 'old talking point' that if you have to wear full-body protection to spray your crops with Monsanto's herbicides, they probably aren't good for you - is a damned good talking point, even without the scientific evidence. And of course the fact that Monsanto has been convicted of chemical poisoning with its pesticides - http://www.realfarmacy.com/monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-landmark-case1/

Still think we're lacking in evidence?

EDIT: Btw shill, thanks for helping me bring attention to these important issues. I hope you were well-paid for it.

When you've switched jobs, do you still work for your ex-employers?

When your ex-employer is still funding you, yes, you do.

Here are Monsanto's financial contributions to the House and Senate: http://www.blacklistedradio.com/?p=2222&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Do those contributions fund the organisation that is the House or Senate, or do they go into the pockets of individuals? I'm fairly certain they fund the collective organisation.

It buys Congressmen and Senators, which then ennact laws on behalf of Monsanto. That's how our electoral system works now (since the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the ennactment of Citizens United). Since 2009, when CU passed, the candidate who spends the most money on their election campaign wins the election 85-93% of the time, on both the state and federal level. Monsanto knows this, so rather than risk getting caught actually slipping money into the pockets of individual legislators, they just fund the whole legislation process, ensuring that their will be done when it comes time to pass laws like the Monsanto Protection Act.

So basically what you're saying is that everyone opposed to GMO food was unable to have a whip-round and put together more than a measly $260,000 to "out-bribe" Monsanto? Talk about being cheap!

$260,000 is chump change when it comes to the finances of a major government.

If you think the numbers on the books are all the incentive that major corporations provide to legislators, then you'd better never get into politics. Glass-Steagall was repealed, Citizens United ennacted, and campaign funding organizations like Super PACs were formed specifically so that people with lots of money could buy politicians without leaving a paper trail.

More than 60% of this country's money is concentrated in less than 5% of the populace, so no, the rest of us cannot outbid them. And now that money equals political speech, we cannot talk louder than them either. Wake up, brother. You seem to have a capable brain in that head, but it does no good if you don't dig up the pertinent information.

Besides being a fucking idiot, I did enjoy the crystal skull video I did laugh.

http://occupy-monsanto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/individual_monsanto_federal_position-large.jpg

Ok so let me get this straight.... You want to show that people are being to broad by being too broad and then you think i am one of those people because i pointed out how wrong your broad statement was... HOLY SHIT this is a new low for reddit.... dont bother responding im pretty sure that hole you dug is too deep to fill, even will all of the bullshit you can muster.