This is about GMO not the ethics of Monsanto. Do not conflate the two.

How the genes are rearranged, whether by selective breeding or by recombinant DNA does not matter to the plant or the animal eating the plant. What process is used to rearrange the DNA is irrelevant to the end product. So it is silly to complain about the process.

Gut intestinal microbe system is sometimes called the Second Brain. All kinds of painkillers and alcohol do damage to it. Wheat as well.

That is a very long way of saying that you have all these complaints, but no ideas to fix the situation short of death to billions of humans and/or the restriction of people to procreate. Perhaps you should change your username from freedomforall to oppressionforall.

If Monsanto was smart they'd practically give the seed away and make out like bandits on the Roundup that the farmers would buy.
Instead they make enemies of farmers who could be customers.
All the animosity they have caused when they could have been creating good will.
(Assuming, of course, that the product is safe.)

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm This illustrates two of Monsanto's tactics, first, they file in a remote location from the farmer, typically St Louis, and second, if they don't have an ironclad case, they fail to show, putting the farmer to no small inconvenience. Hence a large proportion of out-of-court settlements and very little litigation, hallmarks of patent trolls.

No current solution that preserves freedom to have as many offspring as desired. Mankind has always had a new frontier of resources to utilize that allowed unbridled procreation. Mankind must continue the search for that frontier and apply processes to reduce waste and rational limits to procreation until benign solutions are discovered. (Rewarding looters like banks and Monsanto must be stopped and allowing a more free market will reward producers ,i.e., no banking cartel, and heavy penalties for political corruption,)

Well, since global population reduction via the deaths of billions from starvation is your goal then your anti-GMO stance is a good way to do it. It's disgusting and evil, but at least you are consistent.

Then the solution to the growing population and food demands is?

Excellent video. It's amazing how many systems are sabotaged by glyphosate (Roundup). Anybody who says that glyphosate is safe hasn't listened to this. Thanks!

Thanks for making that point.

On that we can agree.
The truth is sometimes difficult to discern.
Best to you as well!

LOL... I don't trust the NYT, Fox OR CNN for similar reasons. I like to be open to all sources of 'information,' but I've got an engineer's mind and training and if some 'proof' is emotional or tainted, I can easily label it as 'untrustworthy.'

And I am ALL too accustomed to bloggers and commenters on nearly every site for whom "my data is trustworthy and yours is anecdotal."

As one of my 'Laws' puts it, "Stereotypes don't come from nowhere..." A site like rense.com with a flood of conspiracy theory links does little but decrease its credibility for me...

But for other folks, that's all they need... agreement with their views. Enjoy some of the Laws and 'Lessons" on my site, plusaf dot com.

Cheers!

Poor argument. Things changed. Rather have unhealthy seeds and an extra 100 grains of "cosmetically appealing" corn. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

The issue being discussed is Monsanto's Roundup GMOs.
Keep your Strawman.

I should have referred to such reliable sources as the New York Times, Foxnews, and CNN?
Your opinion about that source does not make the article invalid.
Open your mind and do your own research, or just take the blue pill.

I do not come to the same conclusion. My objective look at the facts sees a company that is willing to illegally buy congressmen to pass special laws to protect its financial interests.
Monsanto is not interested in free market solutions, yet you call their detractors anti-free market.
Unless there is more reliable data I will have to disagree on the rational conclusions based on the evidence.

"If we feed 7 billion people, they'll make 7 billion more."
Chilling. You are against mankind. That's evil

Not in this context. GMO means recombinant DNA. The "gene" for resistance to glyphosphate-based herbicides is entirely artificial. It did not arise in the wild. In fact, Monsanto got a patent on it, and that is the basis of the dispute.

So do ad hominum comments made 'to prove your point.'

:)

Ah, RobertFL, it's not the 'only success story.' Sorry.

One of the interesting byproducts of GMO crops seems to be the frequent reduction in the use of pesticides on crops (a good thing, no?) AND phenomenally increased yields of many crops, kind of making even more of a fool of Malthus every year (is that a good thing?)

abortion also 'eliminates possible' NEGATIVE 'human contributors,' too... but I doubt anyone can/will predict WITH CERTAINTY which flavor is being removed from the gene pool.

If the other side of the example isn't good, please don't use the one side, no matter how warm and fuzzy and appealing it may be.

Thank for your rational points

All cultivated seeds are GMOs