"Armyworm is not a primary target of the insecticide produced by the crop, the companies said"

Let me get this straight..your "proof" that GMO doesn't work is because it failed to kill a pest it isn't designed to target?

So you are for dumping millions of more pounds of pesticides on our soil to end up in our waterways? People that are so anti-science just baffle me.

You'd rather have the pesticides permanently in the structure of the food, then?

>dumping millions of more pounds of pesticides on our soil to end up in our waterways

Also, I would point out that the whole point of much GMO, like many Monsanto corn varieties, is to allow exactly that--their corn species can stand doses of pesticides that would kill normal plants. So I don't see how you think that this is all cost free--super veggies with no pesticide. The pesticide is either endemic within the structure of the vegetable as in the Dow product, or there is a whole big bunch more pesticide use going on than ever in history, as in Monsanto areas.

This: ""proof" that GMO doesn't work" was not said.

This: "isn't everything Monsanto et al would have us believe" was.

But knowing this: "Armyworm is not a primary target of the insecticide".

It's not much of a point.

"People that are so anti-science just baffle me." Why is questioning science automatically called being anti-science? If you have a point to make, make it. Putting labels on others is not productive.

Hybridizing produce to give it longer shelf life in lieu of flavor, aroma and nutrition was stretching it. Now we have this GMO nonsense looming over us, and it's going way too far. What the hell did we as people do before this garbage? We don't need this GMO crap and it's going to have dire consequences.

This coming from a pro-science garden freak who cares about the well-being of people. Defending GMO by comparing it to dumping tons of pesticides on the ground is completely irrelevant. There are many farmers and gardens out there that can grow produce, flowers, etc. without the use of dangerous chemicals. The two things are not related.

Forgot the link.

Some people read one blog or article from some anti science nobody and it gets repeated and to the uneducated it becomes fact. Read what credited serious universities have to say about GMO and you will realize your hysterics and screaming the "sky is falling" is silly. More likely though you believe in the Mayan calender or just know in your heart if you go out on a ship you may just sail right off the edge of the world.

It is hard to take anyone serious that believes this nonsense or that Monsanto is the DEVIL!!!! I have learned long ago it is folly to argue with those that are so easily led.

B-rabbit, your post could have had some substance if you had included at least one link to the alleged information you mentioned, any single fact.

Hysterics? I don't think so. Concern? Absolutely.

The above style is a common tactic when one has a weak, indefensible position. With no solid ground or facts to expound, there's no counter-attack available to wield, so you attack the opponent personally. Insinuate that the opposition is blowing the issue out of proportion. Call them a doomsayer, uninformed, or any unattractive, unreliable label. Employ a catch-phrase. If you can close someone up in a labeled box that doesn't concern you, you can put them away with a clean conscience. Distraction can sometimes work if that's all you have.

If you are comfortable putting blind faith in these large corporations, that's certainly your prerogative. On your behalf and that of every other human, I will continue my efforts in trying to ensure that product labels contain the info people need to make whatever decisions they see fit to make, as is currently the case in 61 other countries. Fact.

What is your aversion to having product labels indicate if the product contains GMO ingredients? Would the inclusion of this fact not be more scientific? If GMO ingredients are so great, why wouldn't these companies be proud to indicate their presence in bold writing on the front of packages? Why did these huge conglomerates spend millions (a fact easily verifiable through your source of choice) to defeat the referendum in CA that would have required such labeling? The link I posted above contains a huge number of the actual brands owned by these conglomerates but not all, also easily verifiable through your source of choice.

Belittling or casting doubt upon the messenger doesn't change their message. Anyone reading this obviously has the internet, and is hopefully capable of researching the issue to their satisfaction, using whatever sources they deem reliable.

Go to the source. Visit Monsanto's website where you can read about the "round-up ready" (a registered trademark of Monsanto) seeds they produce with "in-plant tolerance." Fact.

The inclusion of a single fact would help substantiate any possible future posts from you about this issue.

This is a very simple argument. Monsanto doesn't serve GMO food in their facilities. It is in fact, a policy of theirs. You don't need to be a scientist to understand why. Period, end of story.

It is irresponsible to grow GM corn since it could contaminate someone else's OP corn varieties and ruin their seed for next year.