I will still avoid all GMOs. I am willing to pay extra to do so.

I also eat only organic foods. I know there is no more nutritional value, but I am trying to avoid the trace pesticides and herbicides present in all non-organic foods.

It costs more, but it's my choice.

Did he find shilling for GMO companies to be more profitable?

Ridiculous.

It's not at all ridiculous to suspect that someone is motivated by greed, it's a common human emotion that drives behavior a lot.

Newsflash: I am a PhD environmental scientist. Decades of experience. I have pushed hard for environmental reforms of all kinds, remediated contaminated resources, and helped engage communities in the efforts. I have directed an environmental science college program and sent dozens of graduates to the workplace to continue the battle.

I have never received on god damned dime from Monsanto or any similar company. And I fully support the use of GMOs as food.

So, go ahead and follow the money. It leads elsewhere.

I have an opinion one but not the other

Do you think their practices are good for agriculture?

You can't really separate the business from the science when talking about Monsanto because it's science in the service of business.

That's true for everything else too but agriculture is critical in ways that few other things are.

How much do you really know about the science? I mean really know with up close experience?

How much of the insight into lives saved by GMOs do you have? What alternatives do you offer?

Is your groundless fear worth the compromises?

Genetic modification is being used in the pursuit of a monopoly, those always end badly.

You can't support the science without supporting the business practices that drive that science in a particular direction, with different priorities different approaches would be tried but the priority of Monsanto is to get and maintain a monopoly.

I don't know that much about genetic modification, more than the average American but only as a layman. What I do know pretty well is people and the people at the top of the business pyramid may not be psychopaths but they have been trained and trained themselves to act that way, it's almost unacceptable not to when you get to that level.

Nothing personal, just business.

It's all around us, everywhere you look at the top of the corporate and business ladder is corruption and venality. There's plenty of that at lower levels too but it's punished and frowned on there rather than being rewarded and lauded.

I'll leave you to that.

I'll leave you to that.

Only the willfully ignorant pretend that there is some inviolable wall between science, economics, and the social lives of people. Scientists (and all people) have biases, money talks, and we humans have to live among the results.

If the environmental science program you lead pretends that science exists in one sphere, and economics and social pressures exist in entirely separate fields, it is a poor program, doing a disservice to its students.

And, ON-Edit: any comprehensive examination of the science of GMO's would show that just a few of their negative primary impacts have been to make the pollen and root exudates of Bt-engineered plants toxic to non-target lepidopterans, thus reducing the efficacy of Bt as an organic pest control while harming beneficials including some important pollinators. Additionally, the engineering of various herbicide-resistance into crop plants has caused chemical usage to skyrocket, increasing water pollution and damaging soil life.

2nd Edit: I have been active in or at least cognizant of the anti-GMO movement for at least as long as this guy, and I've never heard of him before now. Who is he and why should I care about his sudden epiphany? Without touching a search engine or other reference, I can name the people who have really started and sustained this movement: Mae Wan Ho (Institute of Science in Society), Peter Montague (Rachel's Health & Environment Weekly), Vandana Shiva (too much to name), D. Samuel Epstein (same), Dr. Alfred Putszai (can't be sure of the spelling - I really am doing this without a reference).

These people have only deepened their resistance to GMO's as their knowledge of and experience with GMO's has grown.

-app

has benefitted anyone on the planet could have been done with less stress/damage to the environment and society using organic methods.

Using the 4-crop rotation and organic fertilizer is better for the crops, water supply, soil and humans.

GMO's rely on a 2-crop system, pesticide and chemical fertilizer.


"In fact, as a recent study by agronomists from the Department of Agriculture, Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota shows, there’s nothing obsolete about four-crop rotation. It produces the same yields, it sharply reduces the toxicity of freshwater runoff, and it eliminates many of the problems associated with genetically modified crops, including the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds. It’s also simply better for the soil. A four-crop rotation using conventional crop varieties, along with much lower applications of fertilizer and herbicides and some animal manure, works every bit as well as the prevailing monotony of corn and soybeans."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/crop-rotation-and-the-future-of-farming.html?_r=0

Then there's India where farmer's committed suicide because of getting trapped in Monsato's fucked up web

"The film follows a plucky 18-year-old girl named Manjusha, whose father was one of the quarter-million farmers who have committed suicide in India in the last 16 years. As Grist and others have reported, the motivations for these suicides follow a familiar pattern: Farmers become trapped in a cycle of debt trying to make a living growing Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bt cotton. They always live close to the edge, but one season’s ruined crop can dash hopes of ever paying back their loans, much less enabling their families to get ahead. Manjusha’s father, like many other suicide victims, killed himself by drinking the pesticide he spreads on his crops."

http://grist.org/industrial-agriculture/bitter-seeds-documentary-reveals-tragic-toll-of-gmos-in-india/

Their big biz strategy of going after small biz owners who save seeds is despicable. Its hurts small family farms and their lawsuits against ANY of us who may adjoin their big agri-biz farms (I'm in No. IL) means we walk a terrible line trying to keep our practices secret against their monstrous litigious machine.

GMO seeds hurt people. Badly.

Like me.

If you buy Monsanto seeds, you buy into the agreement.

I totally support and admire your choice. Stay with it.

If they want to create a scene in a farming community they go after a high profile organic producer and accuse them of poaching their seeds. Cross contamination is incredibly high in our area - its inevitable.

NONE of us small farmers can possibly hope to win in a case like that. Monsanto (and others) have legal resources we cannot ever tap. Its a way of forcing us out of business. My sister runs our local green market and I'm one of her suppliers. I've already had people looking at my "neighbor's" plot, suspiciously close to ours. If I didn't also run a horse boarding biz (with 40 uber suspicious wealthy women clients questioning ANYONE on our property) I presume they'd already have samples of my seeds for prosecution.

"Stay with it"? And you say you are a PhD in this? What the fuck? You know we are obliterated in this arena.

Monsanto and their ilk are killing us out here.

so that anyone who eats has to pay them for the privilege, period. Lest anyone forget that it was Bain Capital and its minions who helped finance this menace in our midst. It's no accident that Monsanto has major operations in SE Idaho... the heart of Romney-ville.

My question regarding GMOs is really very simple.

Can you predict with 100% accuracy what chemical processes will occur within an organism that has been genetically modified with the DNA of two different organisms belonging to two different Families and precisely what long term effect those chemical processes will have on humans who consume such organisms?

Same question for two different Orders?

Same question for two different Classes?

Same question for two different Phyla?

Same question for two different Kingdoms?

I agree, GMOs could feed the world. Since I have and can afford more options than starving people, I prefer a more conservative approach to GMOs.

... that occur within you -- the target organism?

You're going to get hungry very soon.

So I have no problems with those.

I see no point in being a guinea pig in Monsanto's grand experiments. How you feel about it is your own choice. I've made mine.

I can certainly understand people who cannot afford to do otherwise doing so, though.

I even grow a lot of what I eat, especially corn. I don't buy much in the way of corn, soy beans, canola, cottonseed, or papaya. I do, however, grow unmodified heirloom corn in my garden. It's yummy. Completely organic, too.

Very soon I expect to cease all consumption of salmon. Can't be too trusting of labeling these days. And despite the promises, I guarantee the GMO versions WILL escape into the wild. It's not a question of if but of when.

I find it very easy to avoid GMO food without much trouble. I've learned to ignore the fact that there's no labeling by avoiding most foods that are heavily produced via GMOs.

Until you can tell me with 100% certainty all effects of GMO food forty years from now, I will choose to abstain.

Since I cannot be certain of the effects and my life can move along easily without ever consuming a GMO, why should I?

Damn. This discussion is going absolutely nowhere. You have nothing substantial other than the assumption -- against a preponderance of evidence --- that all GMOs are bad.

Please cling to your beliefs.

Why should I take an unnecessary risk that is so easily mitigated? You can offer no reason for it.

I make a living over risk management and this is one risk that is so simple to mitigate it's almost madness not doing so.

But I also see immense potential for harm if mishandled and I'm really concerned that shortsighted greed will end up causing something truly catastrophic.

I would be a fool not to be concerned about this potential.

Edited for speling.

They have assured the government that the Salmon will NOT escape into the wild.

That's a recipe for disaster and the modification to the salmon would prove disastrous to native species in the wild.

I guarantee you, one day, some how, this fish will be introduced into the wild, just as the Asian Carp made its way into US waters.

It's becoming clear that many, if not most, species have shared genes over the ages with other orders, classes and phyla, and that these naturally occurring phenomena are still going on to this day. Your own body probably has gene sequences from different species. Hell, your own mitochondria are descendents of bacteria that our single-celled ancestors captured and internalized in a symbiotic relationship, sharing DNA sequences as they coevolved.

Two cattle are the same species. Two chickens are the same species. Two apple trees are the same species.

I specified Family as the starting point. I'm not even concerned about genetic modification within the same genus, let alone species.

If you understand the difference, you are in a tiny minority.

Surely the ignorance that surrounds you must be bothersome.

Genetic modification was required to make sorghum resistant to striga. The resulting sorghum varieties are now feeding millions in Africa who depend on this crop. It's a no-brainer for these people to eat the sorghum to avoid the 100% certainty of starvation rather than turn it away based on the vanishingly small uncertainty about the health implications. Significant investment was required to make this happen. Those who stand in opposition are voicing their preference to have people starve.

All of agriculture comes from selective breeding. Hybrids rock!

I use hybrids in my garden all the time!

Again, I understand the application and need for GMO food. I am in a position where I do not have to eat GMO food, it is easy to do, and is actually healthier for me if I don't (high carb grains being the largest percentage of GMOs).

It's a personal choice and I don't care much for people thinking I am ignorant of the science behind GMO food as a reason for me not eating GMO food. It's absurd to suggest such a thing.

I have other things to do rather than constantly check to see if somebody responded to a post I make on DU.

every possible allergen and label them when they're genetically inserted into other foods.

I don't have a problem with GMO's. I DO have a problem with the fight to prevent labeling requirements. Let people make up their own minds about the risks they choose to take.

I guess because I don't fear them.

So, make them show what's inside. Absolutely!

I have no issue with genetically modified food.

Roundup Ready corn has been around since I got out of college (that was 20 years ago). The stuff is ubiquitous.

Take off.

not convincing.

We hammer the climate change deniers for having no clue about the science, but we fully embrace the non-scientific attack on GMOs.

Go figure.

are all literally the same genetically. Growing acres of a crop that is all genetically exactly the same is insane.

The only way our species has survived is through agriculture and genetic diversity in our food supply so that when pests/disease hits at least some of the crop will survive and yield seeds that are immune to said pest/disease.

That is basis reason #1

Basic scientific reason #2. GMO's rely on pesticide which poisons our environment

Basic scientific reason #3. GMO's rely on chemical fertilizer which also poisons our environment

There is one and only one reason for GMO's and that is so that large corporations can centralize and control our food supply.

Seen holistically, the entire model is dysfunctional.

And I didn't even get into the issue of water.

GMOs rely on pesticides? Meaning what? Seriously .. what do you mean by that?

Thus the weeds are killed with massive doses of roundup on the fields while the corn and soy beans happily grow.

Unfortunately for Monsanto, they never calculated the fact that eventually, the weeds targeted by Roundup would produce super versions of themselves with an inherent resistance to roundup, making the roundup gene obsolete.

And it's happening. monsanto has to go back to the drawing board over Roundup.

you are speaking of just one type of GMO. Just one.

In the OP, the quote was not talking about that particular application.

There is SO much more to GMOs than this. It is truly a shame most people know so little about them.

I also understand that there is some risk there, no matter how small.

And being a Risk Management professional, I am also aware that mitigating the risk is so simple with no real downside and with an unrelated upside that failing to do so in my position would be a really stupid move.

Most of the GMO foods available are high carb grains. I need to be careful about weight so avoiding high carb grains is wise.

So combining an avoidance of GMO foods with the need to avoid high carb grains is really a no-brainer.

That and I despise papaya.

Then I would agree with Lynas that GMO is a good thing.

I don't believe that is the case though, Monsanto certainly seems to be an excellent example of GMO gone wild in the cause of pure greed.

It's all about the Benjamins.

I believe the consumer has a right to know i.e. labels. Also I think GMOs could go far in helping world hunger. But I'm also open to further research.

If GMOs are so great, why the monumental efforts to block the right to know if they're used?

It's real easy to oppose GM food when you have easy access to plenty of food. When a person and their children are starving there is probably little worry about how the food came to be.

Not until it's CRYSTAL CLEAR that the particular GM strain has been tested, evaluated and risk-assessed to be safe.

Under these conditions, plus full disclosure and labeling, I'm fine with GMOs.

...

This includes everyone from big agra to grandmas propagating new rose bushes in their back yard.

Not all progress has depended upon a profit motive.

Not by a long shot.

But those funding sources are not without their own set of problems. Plant varital patenting is not fundamentally different than patenting any other intellectual property. Should we do away with those laws too, or do you want to cut off our nose to spite Monsanto?

There are plenty of incentives, including feeding the poor. The only incentive that is taken away is grotesque profits. We would actually be opening up a lot more avenues of research for anyone to be able to do their own research, instead of regulating it to monolithic corporations who sit on their asses then buy up a patent when some poor scientist makes a breakthrough and they screw him on it.

You know what would be another great incentive for production? Slavery.

...or a better hydrangea, tomato, ornamental grass, or any one of the other 1,000 or so plant patents that are issued every year. Do I have your permission to include those in the discussion without being accused of propagating right wing talking points? Perhaps you think I'm advocating slavery for the development of those things even though the vast majority of them are developed by people in their backyard gardens and have zero to do with feeding hungry people. All of these things fall under the same plant varietal patent laws.

Sorry about that, arguing on the internet and all that. You said yourself why people would do it "vast majority of them are developed by people in their backyard gardens" you think that they are all motivated by profit instead of hobbyists?

Eliminating all patents on life would be a huge boon to small growers. All Monsanto has to do is bring a case to court and it can completely ruin someone regardless if they have a case or not. And if you buy into their seeds they own you for life, because if you try to stop, then you will still have their patents in your fields because that's how growing works, just having a farm next to one with Monsanto crops means that you are probably done for because they will cross pollinate.

Otherwise there would be little point in seeking a patent. Some people turn their hobbies into paying ventures. Not all the companies that market seeds, plants, and bulbs to gardeners have their own people developing new products. Many (if not most) of them rely on backyard gardeners to do the research and development and simply buy rights to their patents. This was the foundation of the original 1930 plant patent law and it still works today just as well as it worked back then to protect the intellectual property of those who develop such things. Now maybe Monsanto and companies like it have found a way to use those laws to their advantage, and they probably have even hired lobbyists to modify those laws in their favor, but that doesn't mean the law itself is all bad and we should cut off our nose to spite our face. In taking down Monsanto we also take down a lot of grandmas supplementing their fixed income with their hobby. It would also mean the US would have to withdraw from the UPOV, which would ultimately have a negative effect on the same growers you might suspect it would help because it's going to limit their ability to export to UPOV compliant nations.

and I believe this is the best course. Patents need a serious overhaul in general, see some of the other posts re: patents for things that don't exist yet. How do you feel about the other aspects I mentioned? there are a couple threads about it going around, one relates a documentary about Indian farmers that are committing suicide because they get indebted to monsanto and there is no way out of it in their lifetime.

Upon reflection the current patent laws regarding plants are a form of slavery, you either buy into Monsanto for life, and you are owned by them in all but name, or you risk getting a lawsuit thrown at you that is impossible to fight because technically they are right, you are growing "their" patents, but only because they released them into the wild, and well, science happened. Think of it like if your neighbor is painting their house, they are very sloppy, but they are using their patented color. They end up spraying half of your house with their paint, and then, after documenting in great detail how much of their color is on your house, take you to court and win because technically they are in the right, and the law supports them.

Here's a question: Why is protecting profits more important than protecting life?

I think some larger conglomerates have managed to modify patent laws to their benefit. Whether this best serves the interests of the public or best serves the interest of companies like Monsanto is certainly debatable.

I'm not going to defend Monsanto, but one thing I will say that at least some of the charges leveled against them don't seem to be very balanced. The case of the Indian farmer suicides was sensationalized by the film that was released, but that doesn't seem to be all there is to the story. At least one news outlet in India seems to think their financial system is more to blame. Farmers in developing countries tend to be poorly educated and highly susceptible to predatory financial practices. The same thing happened to American farmers for many decades. The product that Monsanto produced doubled yields while reducing pesticide use by 40%. This can't be altogether a bad thing. Now perhaps they were in cahoots with the financiers who took advantage of the farmers, but I just don't see how destroying their customer base ultimately benefits them. I'm not sure we'll ever know the whole story because press freedom is not exactly the same in India as it is here.
http://www.firstpost.com/living/indias-farmer-suicides-film-indicts-us-corporate-greed-482009.html

Personally I think there's going to be a lot more anti-GMO converts after Mark Lynas. GMO is not turning out to be the bogeyman some made it out to be and GMO is beginning to solve problems that traditional farming has no answer for like growing staple crops like rice in areas which can't be used to grow traditional rice and fortifying it with vitamins that are going to save millions of lives. I just don't see the Mark Lynas of the world feeding hungry people and preventing children from dying or going blind from vitamin deficiencies. At some point you have to start wondering who the real bogeyman is. And while I would certainly agree with you that plant patent laws should receive a thorough review, hopefully by someone like Elizabeth Warren who can ferret out corporate greed, I don't think half-baked ideas like scraping all the plant patent laws is going to serve the interests of anyone save those who want to bring down Monsanto regardless of the cost.

You've only given one reason to keep the laws the way they are, and that is corporate greed. You say you're not going to defend Monsanto, then you go on to say that it wasn't their fault the farmers were ill informed, what else could they do but take advantage of them? there are lots of farmers in the world, and someone has to work the fields, and those fields will now always belong to them because that is how plants work, no matter who works the field they will belong to Monsanto. There are tons of reasons to not want GMOs like we don't really need it, the case for them completely dismisses the case against them, we have ways of growing that already takes care of many of the problems that they supposedly solve. It's not a half baked idea to bring patents back to how they were designed, no patents on life. Full stop.

My question still stands, is protecting corporate greed more important than protecting life?

While I'm sure you'll claim otherwise, I don't care to hear about it so I'm going to end this. I'm not going to play those games.

Cheers!

didn't intend to misrepresent anything, I was trying to get a point across that you kept ignoring, which is that handing out a patent on one strain of corn is handing out a patent on all corn. I wish I was over stating it, but that's how it is.

RW talking point goes a bit far, but it certainly is a culture myth that nobody would ever be productive without some profit incentive.

Human history is filled with examples.

Corporations are filing patents on natural genomes that they didn't even invent, FFS!

My barber tries to give me stock tips too

Now that he has further educated himself on the matter, and as he has started to understand the science behind it, he said his previous ignorant position was incorrect.

Can't have it both ways.

I think it's more likely that he got bribed/coopted than that he suddenly 'discovered science'.

With the staggering scale of our planetary population we CAN produce enough food for everyone at present. The food problems are problems of distribution.

Be that as it may, there are some things that are going to come to a screeching halt right quick.

And the main problem is phosphorus. We are running out.

So, we either need some dramatic technical fixes to accommodate the problem of feeding three times as many people as we do now, or we get serious about population.

All indications are that our species has made its decision on population control, so we have got to make some decisions on engineering yield, diet composition, and a couple of other things, or we are heading for a very ugly set of future events. Even if we were to stabilize population, it is a challenge.

If you look at what pre-Columbian natives ate as "corn", relative to what "corn" was by the 1800's, you have to appreciate how engineered our staple foods always have been. There were no Stone Age dairy cows running around in wild herds. We made these things we eat. We always have.

I have absolutely no qualifications to opine on GM food safety. But it is clear, and particularly as we take this huge population into the face of a changing climate, that we have to have the capability to adapt our foods into those changing conditions a whole lot faster than the couple of ten thousand years it took to get things like wheat, corn, barley, rice and soybeans to be what they are now.

You can't just wish away that we face certain choices as a species nor can you wish away the fact that our species has chosen to proceed in ways it shouldn't have.

Our current agricultural path involves making decisions to change our behavior or adapt our food to the consequences of it. I hope we can change our behavior, but we need a plan B.

Yet kudzu being a non-native plant to North America took over the South.

Being a scientist I am sure you have seen what happens time and time again when a non-native plant or animal is introduced to the eco system and most times the results are not good. I even remember seeing recently in the news about the problem of GM plants that made it out of the fields and onto public and private lands and now cannot be removed by standard means.

Humans only eat about 3 percent of all known eatable plants, fruits and vegetables, we have a whole lot more we can eat before we start monkeying around with nature.

For a 'leading environmentalist' he seems to lack some basic understanding of quite a few facts, one of the most obvious posted here is that people are not starving because of a lack of food, we produce more than enough to feed everybody. It's a matter of their ability to pay to get it.

that he was a founder of the anti-gmo movement.

Big GMO has proven itself unscrupulous over and over again.

This is just more of the same phony corporate -- Genetically Mutant Crap is OK -- bullshit propaganda , with zippo cred.

How totally freaking Republican is that?

Just like everything else that you can eat that is harmful, it is not the DNA


Your comment exposes a level of ignorance which is frightening.

We don't read the codes of the DNA we ingest.

That post is really pretty insane.

The whole scientific process with regards to GMO's (as well as pharmaceutical drugs and many other areas) is completely corrupted by the money thrown to support pro GMO studies. The FDA is overrun with industry lobbyists, former execs and wannabe execs. US scientific funding is next to nil for studies that might find fault with GMO's. And if you do happen to publish something critical, you can look forwards to being harassed, blacklisted, and fired (if non-tenured).

As many reservations some have about GMOs -some more well-founded than others- we may soon depend on them for our survival.

Ie Monsanto's Roundup is altering your gut flora...and not for the better.

Institute of Bacteriology and Mycology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Leipzig University, An den Tierkliniken 29, 04103, Leipzig, Germany, shehata@vetmed.uni-leipzig.de.
Abstract
The use of glyphosate modifies the environment which stresses the living microorganisms. The aim of the present study was to determine the real impact of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. The presented results evidence that the highly pathogenic bacteria as Salmonella Entritidis, Salmonella Gallinarum, Salmonella Typhimurium, Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium botulinum are highly resistant to glyphosate. However, most of beneficial bacteria as Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus badius, Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus spp. were found to be moderate to highly susceptible. Also Campylobacter spp. were found to be susceptible to glyphosate. A reduction of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract microbiota by ingestion of glyphosate could disturb the normal gut bacterial community. Also, the toxicity of glyphosate to the most prevalent Enterococcus spp. could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum-mediated diseases by suppressing the antagonistic effect of these bacteria on clostridia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412

Gut Flora just could be the key to many diseases and disorders...

http://www.economist.com/node/21560523

The overwhelming majority of objections to GMOs are based on fear and misunderstanding of science.

Especially since many genes tie to other genes...

And they can spread in the wild thus propagating the patent.

Horizontal gene transfer happens in nature, so the GMO plants we've engineered could've happened naturally, under weird circumstances, admittedly.

i farm over 200 acres, and i know what i'm talking about. monsanto is the ENEMY of any farm that isn't a multi-state conglomerate.

any study that makes them look good is a result of bribery, and not worth defending.


they should be stopped. by this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

the same folks that brought us...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat
The reason paraquat is such a widely used suicide agent in third-world countries is due to its widespread availability, low toxic dose (10 mL or 2 teaspoons is enough to kill) and relative low cost. There are campaigns to control or even ban paraquat outright, and there are moves to restrict its availability by requiring user education and the locking up of paraquat stores.

ANNNND mixed them into napalm...

The chemicals themselves had no color, the names refer to colored stripes painted on the 55 gallon barrels to identify their contents. Much smaller amounts of other herbicides were also tested, including Agent Pink, Agent Green, Dinoxol, Trinoxol, Bromacil, Diquat, Tandex, Monuron, Diuron and Dalapon. Agent Blue was an unrelated herbicide based primarily on arsenic used to kill rice plants which were not susceptible to the phenoxy-based agents. A variety of Paraquat-related chemicals were apparently also tested in this role. For spraying, the various agents were mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Agent_Orange_-_Use_in_Vietnam/id/605879

NOT TO MENTION... D D motherf'in T!!! (they didn't invent it, just sold 90% of it worldwide) AND PCBs...

Monsanto began manufacturing DDT in 1944, along with some 15 other companies.[19] This insecticide was much welcomed in the fight against malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. Due to DDT's toxicity, its use in the United States was banned in 1972. In 1977 Monsanto stopped producing PCBs; the United States Congress banned domestic PCB production two years later.[20][21] In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto was also one of the most important producers of Agent Orange for United States Armed Forces operations in Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto



the same a-holes who suppress the cure for cancer?
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/190-cancer-revisited-the-industry-suppressed-budwig-regimine-or-how-to-cure-cancer-with-cottage-cheese.html

and buy bee research firms after they get accused of killing bees?
http://www.naturalnews.com/035688_Monsanto_honey_bees_colony_collapse.html

THAT monsanto???

i have no comment, i'm too busy PUKING...