Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health

The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population. On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa today. [Note: typos corrected from Jan 16th, see details]

While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked past a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.

The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber

Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.

This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.

Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto incentivizes farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to also use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. For example, they only provide warranties on the approved herbicide brands and offer discounts through their “Roundup Rewards” program. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)*

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

  1. The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
  2. Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
  3. The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin, damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
  4. Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984 that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo).
  5. The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.
Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.

“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins

Photo by Robert Kremer

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.

Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

  1. The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
  2. Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.
  3. Long-term Field 2.jpg
    Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.

    Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.

  4. Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!

Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.

*The earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate.


  1. Jeffrey,

    I am a high school math teacher trying to have a conversation with our science department and, in particular, with our biotech teacher who is to me rather ideologically attached to the wonders of GMO foods. She recently included the response to one of my queries with the comments of a “real scientist”, a biotech professor at UC Davis, Denneal Jamison-McClung who did not comment on the article but had this to say about you,

    “I am unable to open the article without registering with this group, so I will not be able to read it. However, I will say that we know of Jeffery Smith, his anti-GM claims, books, etc… He is making a lot of money (basically a career) out of scaring people. As a marketing consultant turned activist, he has the skill sets to slickly target the “environmentalist” crowd and convince them of his propaganda. He has no scientific training or credentials. I can assure you, his claims have no empirical foundation and should not be incorporated in classroom teaching of science. With more mature students, you could potentially use the information to discuss the ethical connotations of people making a living by lying/selling pseudo-scientific information. However, I would advise against exposing students to material that is clearly in the realm of personal belief and has not been validated by rigorous scientific peer review.”

    There seems to be more than enough info out there for me to carry my own with these people, but I am not so much trying to prove them wrong as to stir the pot at least in this small corner and get some valid discussion going. Would you like to be copied on any email, so you, too, can see how difficult it is even on a high school level to have a discussion devoid of the kind of ad hominem attacks that our “real scientist” connection at UC Davis so glibly makes.

    Keep up the good work, Jeffrey. FYI, my biggest concern is the destruction of our millions-year-old genetic heritage. It seems all at critical risk to me.


    Ray Teurfs

    • Thank you for posting this letter. It’s a classic example of several tactics used by biotech PR companies, which I describe on pages 252-253 in Genetic Roulette (see below). I’m not suggesting that this professor is lying, rather that he has been the victim of a well-crafted campaign that leaves him closed to the real evidence of harm.

      Here are 3 of the 10 tactics described in my book, which are used somewhat in the statement:

      Sweeping dismissal. When biotech spokespersons are questioned about the book’s contents, the strategy is to avoid responding to specific details. Instead, they use a sweeping dismissal to try and discredit the whole thing. Terms such as a “bunch of rubbish,” “unscientific,” “anecdotal,” and “largely discredited” may be bandied about.

      Haven’t read it. Some may also claim to not have read the book in order to avoid being questioned on details.

      Personal attack. When authors or scientists are personally attacked, it can signify that they have a particularly strong argument or evidence that can damage the industry position. Rhetoric used in the attack may suggest that the biotech critic has ulterior motives such as selling books or a personal philosophy or religion that is the “real” reason they are taking a stand. The strained logic implies that on the basis of misguided motivation, one should dismiss all the evidence. If this were applied to the profit-driven biotech companies, then we should likewise dismiss their claims.

      He also draws from this fourth tactic, invoking peer-review rather than a particular organization:

      Invoking of scientific organizations. When confronted on specific issues, advocates sometimes invoke the names of one or more scientific or governmental organizations, claiming that they have thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. The implication is that others with more knowledge have already looked at this and found no problem, so you don’t have to.

      As for what you can do, I would first establish whether your colleagues are open to changing their mind. Be explicit in the agreement before presenting the evidence. If they were shown evidence of harm, would they be willing to admit that GMOs are unsafe. And would they be willing to scrutinize the details of arguments made to the contrary? If they can’t get past this point, don’t bother. If they are willing, you may want to show them the online film, Everything You HAVE TO Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods, If they have more interest, then you may want to ask them to either read the first chapter of Seeds of Deception, or do the quick scan of Genetic Roulette as described on the first page.

      No need to CC me, but do let me know how it works out. Good luck!

    • Ray,
      Thank you for your courage to speak out. You are wise and responsible beyond your age. Do not be discouraged by those who object. In the end they are the losers, real losers. Unfortunately, they will influence some others. At age 74, I have educational credentials (Ph.D. in genetics) and experience, and have experienced many rejections. It is not something to lose sleep over. There are thousands who are out there who are and will be receptive. On those we need to spend our limited energy. Good luck and God Bless you for your courage and maturity.

    • thats very interesting. IMO, your teacher is a ‘corporate shill’ whether they know it or not. Most likely, they have just been indoctrinated by this incredibly powerful corporate system we live in. It is UNBELIEVABLE how many people dont see that GMO’s and this chemical society we live in is killing us and our environment.
      Luckily, there is a growing number of people like yourself who see the implications to this all. Keep spreading the truth and keep in mind, most will deny, refute or attack but there will be that one or two people who listen… and that is all it takes.

    • I’m not quite sure why your colleague(?) is quibbling with Jeffrey Smith’s qualification and partisanship. The facts and research are stated by Dr. Don Huber, a widely recognized authority in the field.

      But then maybe it’s because psychologically people who strongly believe something are more likely than not to ignore facts to the contrary, as per this article at the Boston Globe:

  2. An individual does not have to be a scientist, to see the damaged burned out/diseased fields; nor a nutrition scientist, to see the drastically lower minerals in the charts. What they do have to have, is the ability to explore the possibilities, that result from this data. It helps if they realize the import of lowered nutrition, in all our common foods, when it is eaten and starving your bodies of needed minerals. Thinking out of the box, so to speak. Thinking in the box means you only “see food, tastes good”, so “all is right with the World”. Resulting in dismissal of any facts that prove the contrary and discounting the people that believe there is danger.

    It also falls under the prejudicing of the common people, that since they do not hold a degree and work in a laboratory, that they are unable to know facts of their eyes. Discounted because they do not have that framed paper on the wall…

    In times past, we ate foods to nourish our bodies and to gain satisfaction after hard labors. We knew what was in the plants, because we had control over what we did to grow, process and cook it. We *knew* the importance of taking good care of our fields, soil, animals and plants. We did not need degrees other than “common sense” and “logic”, garnered from experience and “passed down knowledge”. Now, we have to trust the authorities and regulatory bodies to do this for us. They are failing drastically, allowing themselves to be influenced by greed and misrepresentations, allowing themselves to be “persuaded” by “words” from unethical Corporations.

    Time passing “reveals” the lies and corruption, by the facts that are shown in the light of day. Many years this has been going on and now it is showing what the “fruits” of misjudgment and unethical practices truly are. I refuse to accept the “truths” of these Pharmaceuticals as logical, other than they are logically killing us, while telling their “sweet lies”….

  3. Not only is there concern for our health and environment, but there is concern over the bullying effects Monsanto has taken for its own globalization. Wikileaks provided us with some insight on the matter when it was made public that the Eu should be dealt some “pain” over the refusal of gmos. Not to mention Monsanto hired mercenaries Blackwater aka ze in 2008-2009 especially to control anti gmo groups. Furthermore Monsanto is in Africa today exerting unheard of pressure on bishops in Africa to accept gmos according to cardinal Turkson. Monsanto can be found in almost every single corner of the world pushing their interests and wares on innocent, unsuspecting people or on completly unreceptive people. One of the problems is that big corps can give huge amounts of money to political interests and that in turn makes political entities bound to big corps. There needs to be a limit law set on how much can be invested to political parties and interests and it should be on the lower end of the monetary scale in my opinion.

    • Even in States where donations are limited and must be declared above very low amounts, Ministers of Agriculture are under enormous pressure from the science academies and even some farmer organisations to ‘get with the program’.

      Ministers in the West want to be seen to support their Universities, for professors and students who specialise in GMO technology, the prospect that their work will be unwanted is frightening indeed, and it doesn’t take much self-interest to start forming virulent attitudes towards those questioning or indeed opposing much of the GMO push.

      In Australia, political donations were quite limited until recently, but the Howard Liberal Government changed that like most else to be more pro-big-business, more pro-corporate by allowing large undeclared donations and allowing corporations to divide donations in tricky ways to obfuscate them from their paid in full political connections. For all it’s heated rhetoric at the time of the legislation, Labour did not change the laws when they came to power, their first term, a few years back.

      Even with strict laws Corporations find ways to make Ministers and Governments “feel some pain” because of the massive imbalance of resources between them and anti-GMO. Anti-GMO of course potentially have the Power of the people behind them and that scares the crap out of Monsanto and all the AgSci departments who see GMO as their meal ticket.

      In the post war period much of the AgSci in Asia was done by a handful of Australian scientists and pioneering Engineers turn hydrologists etc all for no royalties and mostly at a small cost to the taxpayer. Now we see this massive push to spend taxpayer money in Universities on redistributing farmer’s assets, national heritage and our health to the worst and wealthiest corporations on earth (like Monsanto). You wouldn’t read about it once. Orwell would smile.

  4. Thank you so much for your work. These mega giants and the government have created a food production system that is wholly unnatural and dangerous, for our body and environment. And because the corporations and government are virtually one and the same (we even have Monsanto reps/lobbyists on our USDA advisory boards) there seems to be no one big enough, nor wealthy enough to take this issue on, it is overwhelming.

  5. We have a worldwide nutriitonal disaster in the making right now. On the one hand we have this promotion of a product that actively neutralises nutritional content in food. On the other we have the intention declared, by government bodies on both sided of the Atlantic, to make simple nutritional supplements illegal if not tested like drugs at hugely unaffordable cost! Alongside that, the broad usage of toxic substances and the hyperselling of powerful drugs, that also destroy the body’s nutrition, for everything from psychosis to “the blues”. Is there some collusion or coordination here? It is very hard to conclude otherwise. We are heading rapidly for a world where the populations are permanently sick, permanently “in need” of expensive drugs to help repair the effects of simple malnutrition. That is a terrifying prospect, and one that we need to take action against before it really is too late.

  6. This is a fine compilation of the harmful consequences of Roundup and Roundup Ready, GM crops which human nutritionists, physicians and veterinarians should all take note—and support organic farming and organically Certified foods for humans and animals alike!

  7. I would say that history will remark on this folly, just as it has on previous human errors, but I sadly wonder if, at this rate, there will be enough humanity or wisdom left to even write this history. Will greed or lack of pure common sense be the meaning, marker, and legacy of humankind?

    • Nothing to do with Science, but with the use, corruption, complete submission of Science to financial interests. It is politics and finances that are to blame, power concentrated in a few hands.
      Without Science, we would still be in the Dark Ages.

      Let us not shoot at the wrong target…

      • I’m sorry, but science does not get a free pass when it knows what the outcome is. It, too, must stand and face the music. Monsanto did not just stumble over the formula for glyphosate in the doodling of someone in their marketing department and guess what it could do.

        I think that the much more likely scenario is that they paid scientists good money to develop it and the scientists did exactly what they were paid to do — like the politicians — knowing full well — like the politicians — what the goals and potential outcomes were.

        No, this abomination could not have come into being without the active collaboration, ala Mengele, Shiro Ishii etc, of scientists who knew damned well what they were doing and did it anyway. This is the natural result of giving too much weight to evolution … it dehumanizes people to the same level as livestock — which makes starvation experiments … even global starvation experiments … acceptable. The eugenicists have not changed their pre-Hitler goals and they are winning.

        If you think being gradually deprived of nutrients so that you are fatally susceptible to previously insignificant events isn’t bad enough, ask yourself what happens when the GMO purveyors decide not to produce the seed stock for even a single season. Remember … the farmers who use these seeds cannot save them for next year — not because they don’t know how to save seed, but because the seed is sterile and will not sprout.

        Move the game pieces forward just a few years to a time when the percentage of acres planted to GMO +RR crops approaches 90% or more, worldwide. What would the US food market look like if GMOs were suddenly withdrawn? Now THAT is power … and it’s in the hands of only a very few individuals: all of whom have access to the doomsday vault and virtually none of whom are accountable to the people they would be starving to death.

        Here’s the drill. GMOs are released and allowed to proliferate until there are few to no pockets of unadulterated foodstuffs. Then the seed is withdrawn. Inside of 24 months 85-90% of the planet is allowed to die off. That’s okay, though, it’s only ‘survival of the fittest’ playing out. The GMO stuff can’t re-seed, so it can’t pollute the good seed being withdrawn from silos and vaults around the world. Voila! No more brown people … and not many of any other color, either. Just enough to support the new feudal system.

        If science wants to take credit for bringing us out of the previous dark age, it will have to take credit for plunging us into the next. I am increasingly convinced that we are headed for the 6th great extinction … and it will be by our own hand.

        Yeah … I’m crazy and I can prove it. But you don’t have to be psychotic to see this coming. It’s enough to realize that the only reason science portrays itself as mankind’s servant is because it’s too soon to reveal itself as its master.

  8. I’m intrigued by the comment from the biotech professor and as a consumer I have a question for her. Since the harms of GMO foods have not been rigorously studied- why have they been feeding them to us? Shouldn’t the harms have been studied before putting them in the food supply and not giving the general public any sort of labeling? I’m speaking as a CONSUMER, not an environmentalist. . . I wonder if she gets that- that most people in general wouldn’t want to eat this stuff, and certainly wouldn’t buy it if given the choice. I’m sure biotech can do some great things- but what they’ve done to our food supply is disastrous.

  9. A high proportion of genetically engineered crops are grown to feed farmed animals. The single most important step in rebuilding the productivity of our land and slowing the use of GE crops is to stop raising animals for food. This would drastically cut demand for GE crops, free land to lie fallow, break down the Round-Up and recover its fertility, and starve Monsanto. A diet based on whole plant foods is the healthiest for people and would have huge impact on climate change. Leave behind the devastating animal foods.

    • Some places where the weeds have become tolerant of glyphosate [Roundup], the glyphosate herbicide is replaced with 2,4-D [main ingredient in Agent Orange]. I would like to see all herbicides eliminated along with the foods that have been genetically engineered to produce the Bt-toxin [pesticide].

  10. Re: the teacher & school: First red flag — your school has a BIOTECH teacher? Who needs that? The Centennial farm I grew up on (owned by the same family for more than a hundred years, actually 150 by the time I came along) never needed anything but the knowledge of the land, plants and animals that we always had. Our local school system was an “agricultural school” and the FFA (Future Farmers of America) was a part of life. It wasn’t until the advent of “scientific farming” in the 1950′s, with its advocacy of artificial fertilizers and weed killers that things started to go bad. Now, that farm is part of a giant agri-business farm, and produces acres of corn and soy only, with no rotation, which are bioengineered and nutritionally empty — lacking in minerals, as is the soil. Ammonia is no substitute for healthy manure! The bees are dying, the weeds are hostile and the people are fat and sick. This would not be the case if great-grandpa was still farming there, growing his own animal feed and applying the manure to the fields. A “biotech” teacher is just a giant marketing/propaganda tool for brainwashing the young to continue destroying the land and the people. Why not a Sustainable Agriculture teacher?

  11. Seriously? I’m sorry, but a plant pathologist shouldn’t be quoted as making a comment on human diseases. You don’t have the training. Frankly, what most of you seem to forget is that with a growing population if we STOP using herbicides you’ll stop eating. How’s that for nutrition?

    • Well, what will we be eating if and when the crops fail, and all of the soil is full of toxins, and the nutrients are out of balance? Thank God I learned how to grow my own garden!
      “You are what you eat” is a cliche that stayed alive throughout generations because it is full of truth. I don’t think that it makes any sense to discount someone’s beliefs or research just because their certification is in another area. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if soil is lacking a certain nutrient, then so will the plant grown in it. So it is with human consumption. If a food is lacking in a certain nutrient, the person will not receive that nutrient from the deficient food. Seems like simple physics to me. You could replace that with a certain toxin that is present in the soil. . . so will it be in the human that consumes that food. A lot of subjects overlap and people spend a lot of time doing research without getting a degree for it. “You don’t need a reason nor a 3 piece suit to argue the truth.” -Brett Dennen

  12. Given the drastic increase in plant disease, reduced nutrient update, and other negative impacts associated with glyphosate, I’m having a hard time understanding why farmers would use this product. After all, we’re not talking strictly about externalities here, degraded plant health and lower productivity would have a direct negative financial impact on the farm. And yet farmers continue to use glyphosate, overwhelmingly in fact (I think something like 90% of soybeans and 75% of corn in the U.S.). Why?

    With the average age of farmers in the U.S. at around 55, most would have worked for many years prior to the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops and thus would have ample experience farming without glyphosate. Why would they consciously choose to use a product with such destructive effects on the health of their crop and, consequently, their financial security?

    Monsanto Makes its Move on the US Floor Special, “In the fall of 2010 the HELP Committee recaucused, approving the heavily Monsanto lobbied S. 510 bill. This bill is pending consideration by the full Senate. The House of Representatives also passed a companion measure, H.R. 2749, on July 30, 2009. Restricting sale of non-sterile seed, the bill further limits backyard gardening and redefines the term “organic” to include the use of fertilizers.

    Just looking for one thing on Monsanto lead to another. And there were more things, but just go to the top one if you want to see other things that they have been up to.

  14. kind of hard to argue with idiots. harder to produce food without round up than with. crawl out of your townhouses and go to real farms to see for yourself instead of to a zoo, they are not farms.

  15. The article states that Monsanto requires purchasers of Round-Up Ready seeds to purchase name brand Round-Up. This is 100% completely false. It makes a person wonder how many other statements in this article are false as well (to my estimation most of the article is pure scare tactics). Glysophate is a very safe and effective chemical when used properly. For all those who think different, I would encourage you to visit a farmer and see for yourself.

    • (Monsanto incentivizes farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to also use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. For example, they only provide warranties on the approved herbicide brands and offer discounts through their “Roundup Rewards” program.

      Kill the soils microorganisms and the soil is dead! 10% good 10% bad and 80% neutral microorganisms waiting to take sides of which 10% takes a stronghold on the soil. This residue of chemicals can cleaned up by using EM-1 and restore the soil completely.-

  16. Even after being aware of GMO’s for some time now, blogging about it and taking both personal and professional action against it, it still never ceases to amaze me just how short-sighted and downright GREEDY some human beings can be. Not only are we trying to raise awareness of these issues for our own readers, but we are proponents for growing as much of your own food as one can as well. We’ve just begun offering Heirloom Organics Seed Packs which are non-hybrid, non-gmo seed collections for individuals as well as community gardens and urban farms. Healthy eating all!!

  17. Ya know, I wondered what happened to the infamous “Agent Orange” created and infesting the world by the Dow Chemical company, and I was just told to look into that “antibiotic soap” that is so common now, it does look a little orange now doesn’t it…oh yes, Mansanto is the Dow Chemical company….hmmm…could there be something to all this? Oh, never mind, after drinking all that fluoride in my water all these years, I don’t have much impetus to fight back….such a shame

  18. (Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)

    This paragraph is not true at all. Last year I seeded RR Canola and was able to spray any glyphosate I wanted to on it. It is not in the agreement that Monsanto branded glyphosate must be sprayed on a RR crop.

  19. This is sooo horrible. I was completely in the dark about what actually goes on. I feel I need to read so much more about this.

    Thank you for this wealth of information and the awareness it created in my to be responsable towards the universe.

    Many thanks

    Michelle Debono, Malta

  20. I think this is a little bit of a twist on some real facts.
    Any pesticide that is overused or not used with an Integrated Pest Management approach has the potential have resistance build up in the plants that it is targeting. This is why chemical applicators are told to use more than one pesticide and encouraged to rotate pesticides just to avoid this situation.

    When Round-up is applied to Round-up Ready crops (corn, etc.) round-up is not the only pesticide applied, you are encouraged to apply other pesticides in conjunction to avoid resistance. You aren’t required by Monsanto to “only apply Round-up” to their Round-Up Ready crops, this is a completely false statement. Pesticide applicators are not indiscriminately applying large doses of pesticides to anything that grows as they imply. If you have purchased pesticides recently you will understand that they are EXTREMELY expensive and because they are, applicators are sure to follow the directions to the letter so that they don’t have to end up applying a second application later or overapplying and causing reduced yields. (this costs more money and reduces their profits further). I have also personally seen an increase in the awareness of farmers that utilizing other means of weed control, in a more environmentally friendly way, is very important. Farmers no longer are ignorant to the fact that pesticides “do kill both beneficial and pest weeds/bacteria/soil critters,” etc. Not too many pesticides are selective and round up (not including Roundup Ready crops) is NOT SELECTIVE, it will kill ANYTHING it comes in contact with.

    In one of my biology classes in College I did an experiment with Round up and different strengths of it with onions. We placed onions with healthy root systems directly into cups with a mixture of Roundup (no fertilizer, just different strengths of Round up) with a control being placed in a cup of plain water and another just allowed to grow in soil for normal root length/health verification. The higher the strength of Roundup the more the plant wilted, roots shriveled up and fell off, and the plant ultimately died in the highest concentrations. All the plants in Round up would have eventually died, but we only had a few weeks for the lab. This doesn’t jive with the information from the article that Roundup CAN NOT kill plants, that the soil borne disease/pathogens kill plants as there WERE NO DISEASES OR PATHOGENS in the containers.

    Do you see why I am so skeptical about this article. Yes Round up reduces the roots, wilts the plant, and can affect soil organisms. ALL PESTICIDES DO to some extent. Drift when spraying pesticides is always a concern and good applicators DO NOT spray on a windy day and they try to schedule it around pollinators timeframes.

    Do I trust ‘any’ company to produce a product that only has the general publics health in mind, absolutely not, we have seen too many atrocities in history to be that ignorant. Making a profit is always the bottom line with ANY company, not just pesticide producers. So in every facet of our lives we need to be wary of claims of having the perfect product that doesn’t have any harmful effects. We should be leading the way for IPM choices that farmers and homeowners can use that are truly effective so that they have an option to using chemicals. This is being done in many Universities. I just went to a cover crop field day where we discussed the different types of cover crops for improved soil health and how good they were at suppressing weeds before the next crop is planted instead of using pesticides or plowing and tilling repeatedly. There are so many ways for us to improve our soils (cover crops, addition of manures/composts, resting the land, rotating crops, reduce-tillage, etc.) that need to be brought to the forefront of our educational efforts in agricultural.

    To be able to produce the amount of food needed to just support the United States, pesticides or some type of IPM approach is going to be necessary. Have you ever seen a field that hasn’t been sprayed, how the plants can’t compete and how weak with reduced yields they become? When these non-sprayed fields are harvested, it is less palatable to the animals due to weed seeds and indigestible weed species, thus reducing the yields in our meat production. I for one am not willing to go to a only plant based diet, I don’t believe we were meant to eat only plants and I enjoy a nice juicy steak…. Mmmm…mmmm. A lot of people not in the agricultural sector will unfortunately take this article as gospel and begin disseminating misleading information. Our urban neighbors need to get back to understanding the production of their food stuffs if they are not producing their own so they have a better understanding of the options available to our few farms.

    Judicious use of any pesticide is warranted no matter if it is a homeowner or a huge factory farm. You don’t see farmers saying, Pour it on… who cares about the consequences… If farms are seeing yellowing and reduced yields in their fields, you can surely bet they are quickly looking for ways to improve their own bottom line and if that means less pesticide use they will be on board. It makes no economic sense for them to continue to apply a chemical that is killing their soils when there are other options. I bet the farms in the photos were scrambling to figure out what was going on and find a way to mitigate it. The soil is there bread and butter.

    So while facts are being thrown about in this article and used for very specific reasons, you must ask also, where are the references to the research that they seem to be pulling out of thin air. I am not saying some of this couldn’t be true, I just don’t like articles that don’t share where they got all their information from when they are making such bold statements. If Round-Up isn’t breaking down in the soils as they claim, shouldn’t the writer of this article be going after that topic instead of worrying about an approved Round-Up Ready Alfalfa? It sounds like someone has an agenda that isn’t being clearly stated here and they are using the “sky is falling,” method to get results for what they are after. If Monsanto isn’t holding up their end of their product claims, go after them with real research and make them accountable by all means! But I just feel like this article is trying to use me by feeding me twisted facts and only what they want to include. Just a few of my thoughts.

    • Thanks for your detailed post. My comments:

      I refer to Don Huber’s work and expertise on much of what I have written in this article. He is indeed one of the world’s experts on this subject. So I expect that you may wish to engage directly with Don if you want to go much further.

      The studies done on Roundup in normal soil all show, as you did, that it is deadly. But in sterile soil, it is not. That is the key issue. It is not directly toxic, but works via that perfect storm. That’s why it won’t work when fungicides are sprayed, or when it is premixed with minerals, so it chelates before it is applied. Don gives an 8 hour talk on this—very thorough. If you say that there were no pathogens in your soil, was it completely sterile and devoid of biology? As you know, soil is a massive living ecology, loaded with organisms that could grow to be pathogenic. So just having “healthy” soil does not mean it is free of soilborne pathogens.

      I understand that Monsanto encourages a cocktail approach to pesticides. But my focus here is on Roundup in particular, which is the only pesticide that works the way we describe. It therefore has unique hazards (which, Don points out, are not taken into account in the lack or restrictions by applicators of glyphosate). He has lamented that it can be applied with no training, no protective gear, in bare feet, etc.

      As far as needing pesticides, I refer you to Rodale Institute’s longest running study of its kind, comparing organic with conventional soy and corn, including GMO. Conventional (and GMO) does NOT out yield organic. They are about the same, with organic requiring 30% less petrochemical inputs. In fact, during inclement weather, organic outperforms GMOs, as its plants are more robust. In developing nations, the results are even more powerful, with sustainable methods outperforming other methods by a wide margin. And many do not use pesticides.

      As for my comment that Monsanto forces farmers to use Roundup if they buy RR, that was a mistake, which the webmaster should have corrected. As for lack of citations, it’s not my norm. If you browse the articles in the health dangers section, you’ll see that I do spend those hours putting this stuff in carefully trackable endnotes. I’ve gotten into a blogging style of late, which uses links instead. For this article, as I mentioned in a comment above:
      I was rushing to get this out before the alfalfa decision and before I started traveling, so I didn’t have the time to sort through all the various citations needed to do a thorough job. In addition, Don Huber was also traveling, and he would certainly be needed for the task. So I opted for providing a long list of citations on plant disease, and another on human and animal impacts

      I know it’s not as good as a detailed citation reference, but it’s the best I could do at the time. I hope to get to a fact sheet with references at some point, but there are other issues of higher priority. And I’m still traveling for several more weeks.

  21. A quick search on google for articles on the mode of action and soil half lives of glyphosate and 2,4,D seem to shoot holes in this blog/article.

    2,4, D seems a little safer, since it breaks down quicker. Also, the poison ivy in my yard shrugs off the roundup… 2,4,D will fool you, because the weeds exhibit a quick growth spurt after application – that’s part of it’s mode of action though – they quickly die after that growth spurt.

    There are decades of scientific studies on these chemicals readily available to the interested public. Yes, there are some problems with fusarium or whatever that fungus is called. I’ll agree to that portion of this article – but not much else.

  22. It might be a good time to hire a research assistant who could verify and insert citations while you travel. You wouldn’t even have to rely on a hungry grad student. In this economy there are plenty of unemployed Ph. D.s who would be happy to pick up a few bucks. No sense giving the critics more ammunition when you could inundate them with information.

    I had read one of Don Huber’s papers and wondered about the effect of chelation on nutrient levels in the crops. I appreciated the table but now I want to read the source article.

    It would be interesting now to see studies on the relationship between obesity and the reduced nutrient content in our food supply.

    • I am amazed at the comments of folks who are swayed by a few emails that really have done no research into the facts:

      Fact: The reason farmers use Roundup, GMO traits or any other product is because if makes their live easier, it works, and it makes them money. Any farmer I know is a stewart with their soils as that is their lifeline. It isn’t by accident that the reason that such a high percentage of their crops are GMO. It is because they WORK. Believe me, there isn’t a love fest for Monsanto out there for other reasons (which is a whole other conversation altogether), but deep down farmers know their products work. In the last 5 years or longer, if you drive the country side and look at soybean fields, they are 90% improved in weed control because of Roundup. If someone develops a non GMO soybean or another herbicide that works as well, farmers will use it. Corn yields have improved dramatically in the last few years mostly because of GMO traits that help control weeds and insects. That is the way the market works. For all you people that are drinking the anti GMO cool aid, just wait until the world population explodes in the next 50 years and food becomes tight. Egypt is just the tip of the iceburg for what will happen when food is short and expensive. Organic farming is not going to sustain world growth. Go check the prices of organic groceries vs. conventional groceries. Most people cannot afford to pay that premium. And they are paying a premium for bascially the same product. Except organic allows you to eat more bugs. (They won’t hurt you though).

  23. Thank you thank you thank you, best thing I have read in a long time. I’m 20 plus years as an organic farmer. All be sending this story out to all my contacts.
    Call out to all Monsanto workers and the GMO field,( find new work.) Seriously people what the hell are you thinking, is your pay worth the cost of the Earth. Wouldn’t want to be you on judgment day.

  24. This move by Harper & Obama(in the last few weeks) to allow GMO’s to be freely grown in North America, while we, the Organic Community have been protesting this for years, shows that don’t give a %@*! about the citizens, environment or the future of our children’s, children !

    This is an assault on the FOOD SOVEREIGNTY of NORTH AMERICA !

    This is a Global crises, in every country, Organic Associations are fighting this. In most European countries, GMO’s are banned. So whats wrong with our Government ? Big $$$ is what this is all about, and MONSANTO is in Harper’s & Obama’s pocket.

    In Organic terms this means only one thing “WAR”

    And the only way we can defeat them is to boycott the food manufactures who use GMO ingredients. In that way, we consumers can force food manufactures to change, or we don’t by their foods.

    Harper & Obama can allow this s%@t, but they can’t force us to consume it.

    And rather than lose profits, food manufactures will conform to our wishes.

    This new Greenpeace GMO list is our weapon, our sword !

    Complete List U.S(Non-GMO

    I would normally say have a good day, but maybe have a “Good Food Day” is more appropriate !

    Also: Bulgaria ? How is it that their leaders, understand what ours can’t begin to fathom ?

    Bulgaria Opposes GMO Invasion in EU, February 2, 2011

  25. Jeffrey,

    I don’t know if you’ve heard of this guy or not, but it’s an interesting approach he’s taking for the cause of Monsanto/GMO. Would like your thoughts –

    First email –

    “Sorry if I said GE should actually be accepted. As organic farmers we need to tolerate GE crops, not accept them.

    We have no right to ban the biotech industry anymore than we could ban things like synthetic, genetically-engineered insulin which victims of diabetes need to survive. We would no more accept biotechnology than we would accept toxins and synthetic fertilizer, but we don’t care if our non-organic neighbors use them. After all, we’re the ones that garner the organic premiums for our hard work. Let them take the easy way out on all fronts and we’ll just quietly continue winning consumers over one at a time.

    There’s no hurry.”

    Second email
    “Please let me help you with this…

    No organic farmer has ever been sued because of cross-contamination. Far from it. The only pushback organic farmers have ever faced is from their organic certifiers who in many cases refuse to certify their crops if they are within a five-mile radius of a GMO crop of the same variety. The certifier doesn’t bother testing to see if there’s any cross-contamination; they just refuse to certify. This began in the year 2000 and, as I describe in my book, it led organic farmers across North America to stop growing organic canola.

    There was of course the case of Percy Schmeiser who was sued for using patented GM canola without license. But that was not a case of cross-contamination. Schmeiser ended up admitting, under a mass of evidence, that he had purposely propagated Round-Up Ready canola on his farm after it arrived there by some means (perhaps as you say by a bird or butterfly). And that he intended to continue growing it without license. This is actually the opposite of what you assume. And, at the end of the day, Schmeiser wasn’t even an organic farmer. So again I stress, no organic farmer has ever been sued because of cross-contamination.

    Farmers have not been destroyed in the Third World. If you’re perhaps referring to the suicide rate amongst cotton farmers in India, the Indian journalist who first broke that story went back and checked his facts and ended up rescinding the story because it turns out the suicide rate amongst Indian farmers is lower than the suicide rate for the population at large.

    Having pointed out both of those facts, I am not suggesting that we just let the scientists do whatever they want with biotechnology. As with any new science, it must be incorporated into the existing social and environmental structure, and it must accommodate all existing economic structures – such as the certified organic industry – along with all of its participants. But the problem isn’t that the scientists aren’t accommodating us; the problem is we’re not accommodating them. And we’re doing it based on faulty assumptions.

    Surely we can be organic without halting the advancement of science. Can’t we?”

    Mischa Popoff
    Author of Is it Organic? The inside story of the organic industry
    Some people won’t like this book, but you will

  26. ACTION PLAN ~To stop MONsanto’s assault on the generations w the real weapons of mass destruction ~ GMO’s

    1) DIVEST MONsanto
    MON is ubiquitous, Boycott the stock & institutional shareholders (Vanguard). Insist that your Educational, religious, financial institutions dump their MON shares. Same w your local & state gov, mutual & union funds. 3/26/11 Stock Price Monsanto (MON) 70.76 0.24. Dow Jones (DJIA) 12,220.59 50.03

    2) OUT Monsatan’s presumptuous life denying Officers & Directors.

    3) Tell Congress & Legislators we WILL have Truth in Food Labeling. We will know if its GMO.
    Publish their responses.

    4) Petition & Agitate

    5) Pray Psalm 19:13 & James 2:20 Faith without works is DEAD

    6) Charge MON with sedition & treason

    7) Class Action suits

    8) Educate & Demonstrate (Earth Day 4/22/11)
    “The Future of Food”, “Food Inc.”, “Monsanto Food Wars –The Global Uprising Of The Farmers”, “Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No”, “Monsanto Indian Farmer Suicide”, “Must-see documentary about GMO”, Frankenfood, GMO, Polyester, Agent Orange, Terminator Seeds, Aspartame, DDT, rBGH milk, RoundUp Ready Crops, Genetically Modified & Engineered Foods, etc…

  27. Too many things are beginning to tie in that add up to some of what I had been thinking of the very worst, off-the-wall conspiracy theory fantasy. Every indication is that industry and corporate business have been used to suborn governments, science and major consumer products with the aim of sterilizing the planet. GMOs, for instance, is targeting the core DNA of the planet, or perhaps a better term would be “the major forms that DNA takes in Terran life.” Obviously I’m no scientist. It’s now out in the biosphere, and GMO plant’s DNA is eight times as likely to transfer to the weeds that grow by commercial crops as natural genes. I’m not sure how likely that is in absolute terms, however as there are now weeds that “Roundup Ready” themselves, it’s far from impossible. Those “super weeds ” have been found on roadsides hundreds of miles from where they began, and that’s it: done deal. At least some GMOs have also been shown to sterilize some humans, and this is on top of the organ damage, in some cases resulting from e.Coli in the intestines picking up the glycophosphate-producing gene, which functions just fine in the intestines.

    Then there are the toxic vaccines and weaponized diseases, some of which almost seem to have been created as an excuse to hit the military, which is given no information at all and no choice, with more toxin-laden vaccines. Add in chem-trails, which are still denied by the vast majority of scientists and populace, as well as the government. Those are acidifying the soil in forests and farmlands, causing respiratory diseases in humans and animals and spreading toxins like aluminum and barium into the water tables of the NATO countries, at least. How far that will spread is unknown, but the sheer amount of material necessary to do this is astounding! So is the entire list of poisons used in making chem-trails.

    Even these are a relatively small part of what appears to be an effort to sterilize the earth. I’ve begun to wonder about nuclear power plants. The potential dangers have been known from the beginning, but shortcuts in construction and skimping on designed safety features are rampant, and now it turns out that regular maintenance has also been neglected. Just the one site in Japan has permanently raised the ambient radiation level of the planet, though it’s far from through, and already another three reactors have broken open. The U.S. alone has over 400 plants, all of them more than 25 years old, and their operational lives have been “extended”. How much repair, improvement and so on is involved in extending them is very suspect. It seems to me that many if not most of them are destined to fail nearly all at once, or perhaps over a decade or so – no time at all.

    Lastly there are the FEMA camps (which really do exist) and the “D.U.M.B.s” – Deep Underground Military Bases, an unknown number supposedly kinked by underground train and communications systems. The former would be for we peons, the latter for the ‘elites’ and their support personnel, I suppose. Until I found the info on those shelters I had wondered how the ‘elites’ who’ve been driving the destruction intended to avoid it themselves. Last I heard, an artificial life-support system still couldn’t be made self-sustaining for very long, but systems like the DUMBs look to be designed to last for decades at least, though it would take many generations for the earth to heal to where people could live on most of it. if after all this it can heal at all.

    There seem to be some scientists here. Here’s a question from a reasonably intelligent ordinary person: There are more and more and more things like this that I’m running across all the time. I’m in my mid-fifties and I’ve been a chronic pain patient for 28 years; it’s now chronic intractable pain thanks to the U.S. Drug War and the profitability of criminalizing the sick and helpless (and the money to be made with civil forfeiture laws used against doctors old enough to have amassed some property and savings). I don’t have all that long to live no matter what happens. My children and grandchildren, however, still have to live on this planet.

    My childhood was full of “Duck and cover”; my early youth with “Live for today; tomorrow they may Push the Button.” Now it seems that “The Button” was pushed long ago, one small increment at a time, over decades. Is it too late to change the outcome?With all the propaganda put out by governments and corporations, if there’s a difference, how would anyone know?


  28. Alrighty so I am convinced these new allergies in my family are clearly caused by I had some serious gastro intestinal now sure it was my diet…

    I am curious as to what oil’s would be safe to cook with…that don’t burn up as quick as olive oil..

Leave a Comment.