When you read headlines like these, you may be confused. Should you get angry, or laugh? Monsanto as a sustainable agriculture company? Monsanto truly has decided to market itself as a ‘sustainable agriculture’ company despite spending billions to provide the world with destructive, carcinogenic chemicals.
In a study issued by Yale University, the latest answer to GM crop contamination has been revealed by biotech – genetically modified amino acids.
“Scientists have devised a way to ensure genetically modified organisms can be safely confined in the environment, overcoming a major obstacle to widespread use of GMOs in agriculture, energy production, waste management, and medicine.” [1]
A former senior scientist from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been speaking out against GMOs, but his voice is especially noteworthy among the many scientists who talk about genetically modified organisms. Why? Because he studied the impacts of altered crops on the environment. Read on to find out what this expert has to say about a genetically modified world and the ‘pesticide treadmill’ that biotech has us all running on.
People like to talk nasty about Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s CEO, and obviously a shareholder. The same goes for Bill Gates. He purportedly owns millions of shares of Monsanto stock as well. But who are the real owners of Monsanto? The answer might be shocking.
Biotechnologists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed a ‘kill-switch’ for genetically modified insects. It is meant to assist corporations in controlling genetically modified organisms set free in the wild. But just the same as with all other GM creations, this has yet to be risk-assessed, and is already being heralded as the next ‘terrific scientific development.’
A Danish authority has now declared glyphosate a human carcinogen and says “don’t use it.” Will this declaration begin a rash of warnings from around the world?
Monsanto may have asked the World Health Organization for a retraction when one of their agencies declared glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide, Roundup, ‘probably carcinogenic,’ but they are going to have to start begging others too.
Hillary Clinton, former first lady, and current Democrat hopeful for President, has a new name in Iowa: “Bride of Frankenfood,” and it has been dubbed her moniker for good reason.
Clinton has some deep ties to biotech, paraded her support of GMOs more prominently than any sane person should in a 65-minute keynote appearance at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) convention in San Diego.
When genetic engineering was just a frontier science, the possibilities it presented were portrayed as positive and innovative, especially for agriculture. Make crops grow fuller, faster. Eliminate the need for pesticides. Make more food available for bigger populations. However, from its onset, genetic modification has raised questions over the safety of the process and outcome, as well as crossing boundaries of nature and morals. Especially as the experiments become more bizarre.
How long should it take for a carcinogenic chemical to dissipate, water-down, or disappear before you consume the food it is sprayed on?
There is no definitive scientific test proving that Monsanto’s Roundup chemicals break down after being sprayed on your food. Dr. Stepahnie Seneff summarizes the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet in this way:
Are you in favor of labeling Monsanto’s Roundup-drenched genetically modified crops? Perhaps you’re concerned after realizing that it was in fact Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that was linked to cancer by the World Health Organization?
According to the mainstream media, you must be ignorant.
