Frankencitrus Coming to a Store Near You?

A new ruling is expected to pave the way for genetically modified citrus to enter your local stores—but a loophole allows the food industry to keep you in the dark about the nature of the fruit you’re purchasing.
The Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) is getting ready to do an environmental impact statement on a genetically modified citrus tree. If past experience is any guide, the government will most likely approve this latest GMO experiment.
Here’s the rub: the trees are treated with a genetically modified virus that makes them resistant to citrus greening disease, which has caused major problems for citrus growers in Florida. But according to the government’s definition, neither the trees nor the fruit will be considered genetically modified (an assertion that is patently absurd), so once again consumers will be in the dark about what kind of food they’ll be eating.
This increasingly seems to be the direction food companies will take. As we reported previously, we are in the Wild West of genetic manipulation, hacking, and experimentation. Government funding for projects using CRISPR, a gene-editing tool, has skyrocketed in recent years, and there’s a mad dash for patents that use the technology.
Soon, it seems, most of the products on store shelves will be genetically modified in some way—but consumers will have no way of actually knowing, and not simply because of the sham labeling bill that Congress passed in 2016.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
Congress: “More Crony Medicine, Please”
Guilty: Monsanto, Global Villain
Supplement Advocates Are Losing a Champion in Congress


  1. Pretty much everything on a store shelf is already Genetically modified. The difference is that we are getting better at this. Thus are more accurate and quicker than in the old days of modifying only by selection.

    1. Synthetic biology could never exist by cross-breeding and natural selection alone due to built-in checks and balances. Genetic engineering bypasses those checks and balances. Short-term gain, long term unintended consequences.

      1. What are these “checks and balances” you are referring to and what are the long tern unintended consequences?

    2. Still trying to confuse people about the difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding, eh, Eric? Haven’t they updated your Ketchum propaganda play book yet? (It’s getting old, man…)

      1. What is getting old is your preference to remain ignorant of the safety of the results. Especially as you are familiar with the accidental Gmo sweet potato that we have been eating for over 8000 years. Try coming up with something better than the shill ambit.

        1. “Let Nothing Go,” eh Eric? Still getting your 5 cents per post from the biotechs? How long will it take you to make your rent this month?

          1. Actually, I ignored your other post as completely worthless. Still can’t break free from using the shill gambit of ignorance. Pathetic.

          2. Calling a spade a spade isn’t gambit, Eric, you poor tired shill. Is that all it takes to sell out your integrity?
            Well, that’s ten cents you made replying to me. Care to make it 15?

          3. Calling a spade a spade is fine. If you have evidence it is a spade. You have none. You are just a piece of garbage that lies because he has no evidence. Biotechnology has been used safely since the introduction of GE insulin. Eaten safely since the sweet potato as modified. It is being used safely in Bangladesh. Same for papayas, and with corn and soy here. BT cotton is a great success in India. You are a loser that will keep on losing when citrus is saved here.

          4. I’ve been watching you troll social media in order to promote and defend the agrochemical/ biotech industry for years now, Eric. That’s pretty strong evidence right there. Why don’t you have the common sense to change up your name once in a while? Do you think people don’t notice the same propagandists promoting and defending the likes of Bayer, DOW, Monsanto and Syngenta for years without calling it out? Sorry, Eric, but spade is a spade, and you’ve shown us all that spreading corporate propaganda and pseudoscience is what you do 24/7 for years now.

          5. Dumb suggestion. Be like ted. Change your name once in a while. Sheesh. Telling the truth is not evidence of taking money from any body. And the “”pseudoscience”” has a pretty long and impeccable safety record.

  2. They have poisoned everything we eat and drink. Killing us off a bit at a time. Giving us diseases big pharma can make money on and doctors and hospitals. What a world.

    1. The only consolation is that Trump and his cronies do not eat organic and are getting poisoned right along with and probably faster than the rest of us.

      1. “His daughter Ivanka explains that the family eats fresh, organic meals, which she often prepares for them. His children also oversee the foods served at the Trump hotels, which include vegan, organic and gluten-free in-room dining menus. Whenever possible, the hotels also obtain locally-sourced foods. In fact, their way of eating and living has been dubbed ‘The Trump Wellness Plan,’ which is fitting considering his healthy habits.”

      2. I honestly think YOU are wrong……they can afford the best food with out any chemicals ……….If I were Trump, I would insist on only ”Organic Food”….

        1. But organic food DOES have chemicals. Organic farmers use pesticides just like conventional farmers do. The difference is just what pesticides they use.

          1. Conventional GMO farmers are allowed to have 19 times more pesticide contamination than organic farmers, not only that by they are allowed to use synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers and municipal sewage that is not allowed in organic farming. Most organic farmers use no pesticides and the ones that are approved for organic farming are applied externally and can be easily washed off.

          2. Conventional GMO farmers are allowed to have 19 times more pesticide contamination than organic farmers.

            No. I’m afraid that’s not true. But I appreciate your attempts to lie in order to support your cause.

            …not only that by they are allowed to use synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers…

            And organic farmers use non-synthetic pesticides as well as chemical fertilizers. They just have to make sure they are derived from natural source. But anyone that has made it past high school science knows that Nitrate or Ammonia are the same whether from natural or synthetic sources. And a pesticide is no more safe just because it was refined from flowers.
            Most organic farmers use no pesticides and the ones that are approved for organic farming are applied externally and can be easily washed off.

            Well, that’s just an outright lie… except for the “applied externally part”. That’s true, but also applies to conventional farming as well.

          3. Nonsense. Anyone can look at the USDA organic rules and see that I am the truth teller here. You can spin yourself into the ground but you can’t change the actual facts.
            96% of organic food meets or exceeds organic standards for pesticide contamination. This standard is 19 times lower than the pesticide contamination allowed in conventional GMO agriculture.
            From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary
            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”
            Please save us all a lot of time and take your industry spin and lies elsewhere. Nobody believes you here.

          4. 96% of organic food meets or exceeds organic standards for pesticide contamination. This standard is 19 times lower than the pesticide contamination allowed in conventional GMO agriculture.

            I can’t tell whether you’re intentionally deceiving or just not too bright. But this standard ONLY applies to pesticides that ARE NOT approved for organic use at all. That’s why the standard is so much tighter. This says nothing about the pesticides THAT ARE APPROVED for use in organic fields and what those levels of residue are.
            If you’re going to try & fool people with this, you’re going to have to find a dumber crowd.

          5. As I have already said and you have ignored the fact that most organic farmers use no pesticides and those that do only use them under certain conditions and these natural pesticides wash off the food. Not like many of the synthetic pesticides which must be taken up by the plant to work and can not be washed off. Many GMOs are engineered to produce a pesticide in every cell of the plant. All the food made from this GMOs carry a dose of pesticide in every bite of the food.
            You can keep spinning your industry propaganda and lies until you are blue in the face, but you can not change the facts with your lies and everyone here sees through those.

          6. As I have already said and you have ignored the fact that most organic farmers use no pesticides and those that do only use them under certain conditions and these natural pesticides wash off the food.

            No.. I didn’t ignore it. I said that was an outright lie.

          7. No it is the truth. You can make all the claims you care to, but you can not provide one legitimate citation to support your lie.

          8. Of course… just like you can’t provide one legitimate citation to support your “lie”. The organic industry has lobbied to keep from having to report pesticide use the way conventional producers do. So, no one can provide that citation.
            But unlike you, I have worked directly with organic farmers for 2 decades. And now I represent an organization that lobbies the Indiana legislature on behalf of Indiana farmers…organic included. And it’s because of this experience (which you do not have) that I am confident in stating that 1) all farmers use pesticides “only under certain conditions” and 2) most organic farmers do, in fact, use pesticides.

          9. You made a false claim. I called you on it. I don’t believe a word you say, because I have seen you spin and lie for the GMO pesticide industry for so long that I don’t think you even know what is truthful anymore, if you ever did.
            So the big important lobbyist now has time to troll the internet for the “Let Nothing Go” project… give me a break and run along and try and sell your industry lies somewhere else. No one is buying them here.

          10. Tell me where I can find U.S. standards for allowable organic pesticide residues in foods.
            Oh, you can’t?
            Hmm…I guess you made that up, huh?

          11. I never made any claims about organic pesticide residues in food. These are natural substances that are used occasionally by some organic farmers is certain situations and they are easily washed off the food.
            Nice straw-man distraction by yet another industry PR bot with a disinformation agenda and working for Monsanto’s “Let Nothing Go” program.

          12. You said organic standards for pesticide residues were 19 times lower than conventional.
            You’re unable to back-up your statement, so once again you’re lying.
            And by the way, the judge issued a harsh rebuke against the plaintiff’s attorneys for their poor job with the so-called, “Let Nothing Go” program. Try to keep up.

          13. Yes I did and it is the truth.
            Read the USDA organic regulations and educate yourself.
            I don’t need to back up my statement because I posted the source here.
            Keep trolling, Porky. That is all your capable of and your lack of honesty is perfect for posting industry spin and lies.

          14. Smart readers can see that I already have.
            Take your troll drool somewhere else. Nobody believes a word you say here.

          15. The smart readers can see that you never back up your statements because your statements are lies, Ted.
            Enjoy your trip toward the dustbin of history!

          16. You look like a nasty troll, dude.
            Who’s TED? You must be out of your troll mind.

          17. It’s always entertaining when you break out the sockpuppets, Ted.
            Which one are you going to use after you finish using “Wally” to upvote “Peaceful Warrior”?
            You haven’t used “Sparkle Plenty” lately.

          18. Looks like you are going to show us your crazy delusional BS again here, Porky.
            Your TED diversion is old moldy and nobody cares about your contrived BS propaganda.
            How are things down in the dustbin of history?

          19. The fact is agricultural biotechnology continues to grow. Your efforts to stop it have been utterly ineffective.

          20. I have no tried to stop biotechnology.
            I want to see safety studies done before GMOs are released and I want them labeled like they do in 64 other countries.
            Troll on…

          21. The so-called safety studies that you claim to ask for don’t exist for any food from any form of plant breeding. You’re just employing a variation of the, “JAQing off” logical fallacy, Ted.
            Doesn’t look like you’re going to get your labeling, either.

          22. That’s what all the other Monsanto “Let Nothing Go” trolls say too. It is another phony agenda driven false equivalency argument because GMOs are not just any food.
            The conventional food we eat has been tested by evolutionary forces for thousands of years and have been consumed for millenniums with out harm to humans.
            GMOs are cobbled together in a lab from the genes of unrelated organisms and they have not been through evolutionary pressure and they are released to the environment with out any safety testing.

          23. Nice copy pasta, Ted. Posting the same factually-incorrect stuff thousands of times doesn’t magically make it correct.
            You really need to get off that, “Let Nothing Go” silliness. The plaintiffs attorneys got spanked by the judge for barfing up Gary Ruskin’s invention. Time to let it go.

          24. All the smart people know that you lie continuously. That’s why you never back up your claims!

          25. Nope. Smart people don’t waste their time backing up anything for agenda driven Monsanto “Let Nothing Go” trolls.
            I think I’m done responding to your troll nonsense.

          26. “…Let Nothing Go…”
            Spoken like a true Gary Ruskin sycophant.
            “I think I’m done responding to your troll nonsense.”
            In other words, you’re switching to another of your sockpuppet accounts.

          27. Yep, making a poor attempt at playing victim right on cue.
            Have you started gang-flagging my posts with all your sockpuppet accounts yet?

          28. Nope. Smart readers see that you have lost on the issues and need to pull out your old moldy phony TED diversion to try and change the subject. You live in a dumbed down PR designed world and can’t tell the difference between up and down. Poor ineffective lonesome joe.

          29. You said “Conventional GMO farmers are allowed to have 19 times more pesticide contamination than organic farmers…”. “Pesticide residues…”. So, yes…you made claims about organic pesticide residues.
            The truth is that because organic companies have sypuccessfully avoided pesticide regulations, they are free to “contaminate” produce as much as they want. They are allowed infinite more pesticide contamination because there is no limit.
            So, please…stop lying. Your just not very good at it.

          30. You can spin yourself into the ground, but the truth is that organic food is the cleanest most pesticide free food on the market today. It might not be perfect, but it’s the best we have.
            It looks to me like you industry “Let Nothing GO” program operatives are trying to spin the narrative and redefine the perception of truth.
            Another group of religious bigots.

          31. You can spin yourself into the ground, but the truth is that organic food is the cleanest most pesticide free food on the market today.

            Well…no, Ted…we’ve gone over this. There are no residue limits. There is no testing. There is no data so you can’t possibly say that.
            So call it spin…call it a “narrative”… call it what ever you want. But it’s still the truth. But I get it… that doesn’t matter if it doesn’t back up your misguided ideology.
            But WTF does religion or bigotry have anything to do with the conversation?? Do you even know what those words mean?

          32. My name is Wally, troll.
            All the rest of your post is PR scripted disinformation echo chamber BS.
            Organic food is the cleanest most pesticide free food on the market today. It might not be perfect, but it’s the best we have.

          33. Yah…your name is Wally like my name is Cher. And no one buys the rest of your crap either.

          34. So you say. Who are you?
            We all know you are an industry troll who is likely part of the Monsanto “Let Nothing Go” program. Is that why you persist in the face of your exposure as an industry disinformation echo chamber PR bot?

          35. Sure thing. That is why most of the pesticides used in conventional GMO agriculture are banned in organic farming.
            You seem to have a serious problem facing reality.

          36. LOL… no, Ted. Most pesticides used in conventional farming are banned in organic agriculture because they are synthetic. Period. That’s all. There is no criteria about them being better or safer for people or the environment. Just that they have to have originated from a non-man made source.
            For someone who seems to spend all waking hours promoting organic agriculture, you know shockingly little about it.

          37. I’ll pay attention to what the USDA rules actually say and ignore the spin and lies from a know GMO pesticide industry troll who doesn’t even know who he is talking too.

          38. Good! I encourage you to read the USDA rules. They clearly outline the requirements around organic production, including a complete list of pesticides used. I’m quite sure you’ll find me to be correct.
            But then… you already know I’m correct.

          39. I have read the USDA rules and posted some of them here. You can keep spinning and lying all day for your corrupt industry but you won’t change the actual facts I posted.

          40. Great! If you are familiar with the USDA organic regulations, then it should be quite easy for you to point out, specifically, what I said that is wrong.

          41. I have told you that I don’t provide any information to industry trolls like you.
            Educate yourself. Everyone else already sees that I have posted the truth.

          42. I have told you that I don’t provide any information to industry trolls like you.

            Yes… you have told me that. And I’m still quite confident that you don’t provide this information because you can’t. You are so uneducated in the topics you comment on that you wouldn’t be able to recognize reliable information if it was handed to you.
            But you’re close on one thing… Everybody sees… And that’s not good for you.

          43. You are delusional as usual. Live in your little made up fairy tale world if that’s all you have. I’ll be ignoring your troll drool from now on, troll boy.

          44. Sure thing, Ted. If believing that helps you sleep at night, then you go right ahead & believe that.

          45. Where does anything say that the standard for pesticides is 19 times lower for organic versus conventional?

          46. Peaceful posted the source already. Try to keep up so you don’t need to ask stupid questions.

          47. Really, Ted, you posted it under your Peaceful Warrior username? Where? I don’t see anywhere in the organic regulations about conventional allowed to have 19 times the pesticides of organic.
            It is not a good idea to lie about organic regulations when talking to someone familiar with those regulations.
            Why must you lie to prove your point? I would think that you would be aware that smart people don’t trust liars.

          48. Your mental health issues are out of control again, headcase. Paranoid delusions only make you look sicker.

          49. It’s right in front of your face. All you have to do is simple math and it will be clear. I suspect you won’t accept the facts because they conflict with your industry propaganda agenda, but there there are and all the smart readers can see it for themselves.

          50. You must have done the complicated math, because you have yet to prove to anyone that conventional is allowed 19 times the pesticides that organic does. Some particular pesticides are banned, but the rates of application of unbanned pesticides are unaffected by organic regs. Also, there is no penalty for spraying banned pesticides, except the loss of your certification.

          51. Threre are two things I can’t fix. One is your mental illness and the other is your stupidity.
            I posted the info from the USDA. I’ll pay attention to the reality of that and ignore the spin and fiction of a GO pesticide industry troll.

          52. Muttering at your mirror won’t help those serious mental health issues, headcase.

          53. I believe that he is reffering to 5% technical limits of synthetic pesticides that USDA allows on organic produce. That is his claim of 19-times more pesticides.

          54. Yes.. that’s exactly what he’s referring to. It’s a disingenuous claim at best.

          55. Good try Jason. Pesticides and GMO’s have destroyed the old brain boy. Go back to sleep.

          56. If insults are all you have, at least try to make them clever, ok? Feel free to show anything I’ve said to be wrong.

          57. Pyrethrin is not approved for organic farming. Only conventional GMO farmers are allowed to use that pesticide.

          58. That is a lie. It is allowed in organic production. Why do you have to resort to lies?

          59. Nope. It is no longer allowed to be used on organic agriculture, so now it’s only allowed to be used in conventional and GMO farming.

          60. Come on, headcase. We all know you are mentally ill, but that doesn’t mean that people need to spoon feed you facts that you can look up for yourself. You should stay up to date on the latest orgnaic certification rules or else keep your mouth shut.
            Better yet see a shrink soon. Your paranoid delusions are bringing out your anti-social tendencies, and it looks really ugly and pitiful.

          61. So you don’t have a citation. I guess that means you’ll be shutting up now.

          62. I don’t provide anything to industry PR troll bots. Same goes for psycho headcases.

          63. What does your personal life have to do with anything? Do you or don’t you have a citation?

          64. Nope, another lie from Ted Miner. No matter how many different usernames you use, Ted, it is still a lie.
            Or you could show me where in the regs it says that it is banned.

          65. Your mental illness is getting really bad again. You are spewing your paranoid delusions here again. There is no TED and every word I wrote is true and easily verifiable.

          66. No need. You have done a great job of demonstrating it for us, headcase

          67. There you are. Your delusions are preventing you from seeing reality.
            Get some help, headcase.

      3. You mean the libs and their cronies don’t you? All those rich, crooked ones?

        1. Trump should be stuffed with GMO’s like the rest of us. Include his brats also.

    2. Complete conspiracy nonsense with no evidence of a single death due to our food supply being “poisoned”

      1. Since cancer causing glyphosate-laden GMOs were introduced serious medical issues like Non Hodgkin’s lymphoma, bile duct cancer, Kidney and renal pelvic cancer, urinary bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, not only that but also hypertension, stroke, obesity, diabetes, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal infection, autism, Alzheimer’s , and Parkinson’s. All of these have increased dramatically since cancer-causing Roundup laden GMOs were introduced without any long term safety testing and purposely hidden from us in the food supply.
        See: Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

        1. But that data seems to indicate that many of these diseases were on the increase before the introduction on GM crops. So if they were already increasing and continued to increase after the introduction of these crops, what is the reasoning for blaming GM?

          1. That is the spin from the GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber that you represent here.
            There have been no long term independent studies of the health effects of GMOs on human health. Many health care organizations are recognizing that severe unexplained symptoms that are being reported by their patients get better when GMOs are removed from their diet.

          2. Hold on… no ones spinning anything. I simply stated that the data presented shows the diseases on an upward trend prior to GM crop introduction and asked for your reasoning for placing blame. That’s a question to you. Your trying to dodge that question with unrelated speculation is what we’d call “spin”.

          3. And now you’re trying to change the subject? I made a simple observation of the data…one anyone could make by simply looking at it. I asked for your reasons for the conclusions YOU made. That shouldn’t be hard for you… should it?
            Good that you acknowledge that the data shown in the report are nothing but correlations. We all know correlations are easy to make with most anything. But they mean very little. But as for supporting their conclusions… I’m not so sure. As I asked earlier… if the trend was upward before the introduction of GM crops, how exactly does that support a causational conclusion?

          4. The facts are quite clear and the correlations support the conclusions of the scientists in the study I posted .

          5. Good that you acknowledge that the data shown in the report are nothing but correlations. We all know correlations are easy to make with most anything. But they mean very little. But as for supporting their conclusions… I’m not so sure. As I asked earlier… if the trend was upward before the introduction of GM crops, how exactly does that support a causational conclusion?

          6. Keep that spin going. You’ll be a hero in the “Let Nothing Go” project.
            When correlations have P values as high as these do smart scientists pay attention. Your industry could clear up the issues by publishing ONE good peer reviewed study that shows long term consumption of GMO frankenfoods are safe for humans, but so far they refuse to even do the science.
            I’ll pay attention to all the Doctors who have seen that their patents serious unexplained medical conditions get better or resolve completely when they stop consuming pesticide laden GMOs and switch to a clean healthy organic diet. I have seen these results myself and my return to good health is a pretty convincing argument for me.

          7. But, if the correlations are so strong, then how does one explain the fact that the disease increases are already happening before the introduction of GMO crops?
            As for one “ONE good peer reviewed study…”, doesn’t that go both ways? If these authors feel that these correlations are that strong, why aren’t they following up with the appropriate studies to show causation?? It could be far easier to prove that GM crops CAUSE these diseases (as they claim) than to prove they don’t.
            But, I suspect you already know that which is why you parrot the “one good study…” talking point so endlessly.

            I’ll pay attention to all the Doctors who have seen that their patents serious unexplained medical conditions get better or resolve completely when they stop consuming pesticide laden GMOs and switch to a clean healthy organic diet.

            Well… now you’re just making stuff up. But nice try!

          8. Because you are misrepresenting the data and making claims that are no true. Typical from the hired industry representatives who have been dispatched here to spin the narrative and obfuscate the truth.
            Troll on!

          9. Please explain how a simple observation of the carts they provide is “misrepresenting the data”. And “misrepresenting the data” doesn’t really explain why none of the authors are attempting to conduct the experiments needed to show causation, does it?
            You never seem to have any cohesive explanations why none of your claims ever seem to add up. Why is that?

          10. Nope. I don’t waste my time arguing the facts with industry trolls who will not accept any truth that conflicts with the industry agenda.
            Smart readers already know I am telling the truth.

          11. What “smart readers” can likely tell is that you’re never able to explain the claims you make or why they never make sense.
            But you’re right…it’d be a waste of time for you to argue facts with just about anyone.

          12. Jason is a well known pro-GMO spokesperson and activist. He has been trolling social media articles for years now, defending and promoting the agrochemical/ biotech industry as if his livelihood depends on it. Strongly suspect he is part of the biotech industry’s, “Let Nothing Go” campaign as they desperately try to salvage their severely tarnished reputation.
            (Why anyone would stoop to promoting and defending the corporate interests of Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, DOW and the like is truly baffling. I can only assume people like Jason get something in return for spreading their corporate propaganda and pseudoscience.)

          13. Flattery will get you nowhere, Rob.
            And the only thing I’m defending is modern agriculture from the lies that you & your ilk are so willing to propagate. One must wonder what is so important to you that you feel the need to lie over & over to defend it.

          14. Nobody can explain anything to someone who’s income depends on his rejecting the truth.

          15. Okay…Are you the same Jason that fμcks himself like Linda Blair from The Exorcist with genetically-modified zucchinis every night?

          16. I would argue that smart readers can see who is able to discuss normally like a human being on an important topic and who is only parroting industry talking points and replies aggressively and quite offensively each time when asked for explanation of gaps in his/her argumentation line.

          17. Yes. Please talk to your co-workers Eric, Jason, and joefarmer and teach them this important point.
            Fact is, no one can have a fact based respectful argument with a Monsanto “Let Nothing Go” troll.

          18. Yes, thank you for a very nice example. It is very convenient to call somebody a troll instead of discussing the evidence. How come that some of so called “trolls” use their real names and most have open discussion history, unlike so called “truth tellers” who almost exclusively hide behind nicknames and have secret posting history. Go figure.

          19. Trolls are part on Monsanto’s business plan. Their “Let Nothing Go” troll program was exposed in documents uncovered during a lawsuit discovery. Everyone always knew they hire anonymous trolls but these documents prove what everyone knew was true. You live in Central Europe. Are you part of the Monsanto “Let Nothing Go” program too?
            It is a public service to expose industry trolls.

          20. Besides – even if Monsato hires such trolls it does not imply that everyone with different pooint of view is necessarily a hired troll. Also this article and discussion has nothing to do with Monsanto. It is not even about GMO plants! Neither is it about Monsanto product!

          21. Everyone who regularly posts on GMO chemical industry focused articles is aware of who the industry trolls are. If there is ever a question most of them have open comment histories that inform the truth. You haven’t said if you are part of Monsanto’s “Let Nothing Go” troll program.

          22. It is only the agenda driven industry “Let Nothing Go” operatives that are unable to have a respectful fact based conversation. You have demonstrated that you are part of that program. I’m not going to waste my time with someone who rejects any facts that conflict with the industry PR agenda.

          23. Are you trying to say that “Let nothing go” is as real as Easter Bunny?
            It does not happen often, but time to time we agree on something.

          24. Ok, I understand that it must be difficult to admit it and I appreciate your honest attempt. These two sentences betrayed your true colors 1)…” “Let Nothing Go” operatives that are unable to have a respectful fact based conversation..” and 2) …”figure that out for yourself,troll boy”…
            I personally dont mind your offensive language but either you or your supervisors should know that being offensive is the easiest way to loose any argument.

          25. Once again, Ted, it is too late to go back in time and limit the studies that show that GMOs are safe to just one. You will have to settle for thousands, instead.

          26. You know Jason is a Monsanto kind of guy, has all his word laid out before him and knows exactly what to say, go away shill.

          27. This is worded oddly.. Are you talking to me? You are referring to me in the 3rd person and then suddenly seem to be speaking directly to me. Which is it? Why should I go away? Shouldn’t somebody point out when trolls like Ted are trying to deceive?

          28. There is no TED posting here. It looks like you who is doing the trolling here.

          29. If, as you claim there aren’t any long term independent studies of the health effects of GMO’son human health, how can you be so sure that all that really is connected to GMO’s and not to the sales of organic food, which also increased dramtically over that same time period?

          30. The organic food diet is what has caused the huge change in health for many people. Getting rid of the cancer causing health debilitating glyphosate laden GMO diet makes all the difference in the world. Smart Doctors are beginning to see the truth in this and their patients are regaining their health because of it.

          31. Because I understand statistical significance which you are apparently uneducated about.

          1. That’s your opinion, you are obviously a shill. You know to many things, I won’t call them facts because they are not. They’re are real facts they show what the real poisons are and they are the GMO’s they have put into our foods. The elite want to kill most of us off so they can have the world to themselves. I bet they don’t eat the supermarket crap like we do, and I bet you don’t either.

          2. Let me make sure I understand this…. Monsanto…. a company who’s only source of income is from feeding people…. is putting things into our food so that they can kill off those very people??
            I’m not sure you’ve thought that one through too well.

      1. Not with glyphosate.
        Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.
        A recent peer reviewed study published on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than what is allowed in the food supply.

          1. I see you have still not got any help for your serious mental health issues, headcase.

  3. Every thing that’s going on in our country [ even other countries ], the greed, selfishness, hunger for power and money, etc, are not being ignored, as God is giving mankind his free will and is watching how they are using it. As most know, we are in the end times now and all of us are going to be held responsible for our actions…unless we change. If we don’t change, big change is coming and believe me. mankind will have wished they had changed. As I have said on other sites, we are not getting away with anything…we are being watched.

    1. Yes, agreed. I am convinced that a great spiritual darkness and deception has been allowed to come over so many people. I ma reminded of the scripture verse where it speaks that God turned them over to a reprobate mind. We are like the last days of Noah living their lives, oblivious to the warnings and signs, and then sudden destruction…..

    1. Yes, They accept mutagenesis for example. The only method of modification they currently reject is GE.

      1. The distinction with organic is between natural vs synthetic. Checks and balances, remember. Circumventing natural laws is how you wind up with unintended consequences that we’ve been witnessing in test animals and their offspring. The thing is, we’re [anti-GE] maintaining that they are not unintended…. it’s fully intended due to lack of caring about biome health for sake of [crony] profit, i.e. Monsanto.

        1. So, basically you are repeating the errors you have already posted and then adding nonsense claiming that there are issues with test animals. In other words you are hoping a couple of outliers coupled with frauds like serralini will outweigh the 20 years is experience by farmers. Those same farmers whose livelihoods depend on accurate decisions. Plus you want us to ignore all th studies that demonstrate just how wrong you are. No thanks.

          1. And you want to ignore and/or trivialize the studies that demonstrate how wrong you are. I’ll stick to the side of conservatism. You wanna be a guinea pig, hey, be my guest.

          2. There are no studies that demonstrate how wrong I am. That is why you have posted exactly zero. Conservatism??? This has nothing to do with politics. And as the safety record is so long and impeccable. Not a guinea pig either.

          3. Go fish. But hey, it’s your delusion. Considering you’re the outsider commenting on this anti-GE topic, its really up to you to present and refute the negative studies, not us.

          4. Wrong again. You made claims regarding the effects of GE crops. You have no supporting evidence. It isn’t up to me to try to find studies that are poorly done, irrelevant, or fraudulent. To back up your claims. Especially when the record of safety regarding the use of biotechnology is excellent.

  4. It is an interesting development. I didn’t know about this project. From the linked APHIS document it is clear that the citrus trees will not be modified in any way, they will be sprayed with a modified Citrus tristeza virus that will act as biological control agent for the greening disease. So I do not see any reason to label the fruits as GMOs, since they are not!

  5. More antiscience, corporate propaganda from a well known proGMO spokesperson and activist. Genetic engineering was first approved for market in the 1990s. We have not been consuming genetically engineered foods for 8,000 years — that is patently ludicrous and as antiscience as one could get. Why you propagandists continue to try to confuse people into believing that selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing is a clear giveaway that your only purpose here is to promote and defend the corporate interests of agrochemical corporations like Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta and DOW, etc.

    1. You should take a look at the provided link. It seems that the ancient farmers who domesticated sweet potatoes used the exactly same genetic engineereing that has been approved in 1990 to shuffle few bacterial genes into the genome of sweet potatoes. The only difference from todays creations is, that they didnt know about it.

  6. So the trees are bad because…..?
    Using crispr to induce these changes is also bad because….?
    Scaring people for the sake of scaring people is what this actually reads like, unless there’s a specific criticism I’m missing in this…

Comments are closed.