32 votes

The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity (VIDEO)

The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity (VIDEO)

Friday, September 21, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that "GMOs are safe" are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry.

GMOs are an anti-human technology. They threaten the continuation of life on our planet. They are a far worse threat than terrorism, or even the threat of nuclear war.

As a shocking new study has graphically shown, GMOs are the new thalidomide. When rats eat GM corn, they develop horrifying tumors. Seventy percent of females die prematurely, and virtually all of them suffer severe organ damage from consuming GMO. These are the scientific conclusions of the first truly "long-term" study ever conducted on GMO consumption in animals, and the findings are absolutely horrifying. (See pictures of rats with tumors, below.)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_Monsanto_debate.html#i...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

atkinson and ja ke

You're doing a great job using the pricipals of hayek and others to defend capitalism. The alcohol and crack arguments really drove your points home.

Statist solutions cause more problems.

The best solution imo is to end any subsidies privaledges and tax exemptions to Monsanto and other similar businesses.

Very True that we shouldn't

Very True that we shouldn't expect the state to think for us. But we should expect the state to allow us the means to make informed judgments for ourselves. GMOs must be labeled as such. The law must not protect companies from the ill effects of their products.


The "rat study" has been

The "rat study" has been debunked here:


Could the nanny staters please leave? I have to contend with statists and banners like this at work. I wish I didn't have to deal with them on a site allegedly dedicated to free market ideas.

This article is mainly a

This article is mainly a bunch of ad hominem attacks and claims of "fishiness". Doesn't really reach the level of debunking anything. Find an actual scientist who has debunked the claims without all of the snide commentary. Ad hominem attacks appeal to those of low intelligence and critical thinkers will immediately conclude that the writer has insufficient data to support their claim.

You have misscharacterized

You have misscharacterized the article. There is a brief statement about fishiness backed up with specific facts. Why do you ignore, or refuse to engage, those?

The ad hominem attacks make

The ad hominem attacks make it impossible to take the writer seriously. If he had any valid points to make, he wouldn't waste time debunking vaccines or name-calling. I advised you to find a better article, because most people on this site aren't going to waste their time reading past the first few lines and finding it full of personal attacks. I don't necessarily disagree with the writer, but this is a terribly amateur piece. It would have worked when I was 16, but I'm a grown-up now.

see these - posted here recently

85 min

75 min

there is much more information contained in the above two videos.

emalvini's picture

I Read Labels ...

Especially when it Comes To GMO, MSG, Hydrogenated soybean oil and aspertame...If you can't pronounce it don't put it into your mouth...

On that, I'd especially

On that, I'd especially recommend that we ban Spiraeoideae and Amaranthaceae. Their killers. Are you with me?

You beat me to it haha


Buyer beware!

So should a corporation release a line of soda laced with a level of arsenic, that will accumulate in your body, and eventually kill you over time, without disclosing the contents..that is acceptable?.
They have a right to sell you poison, and you have a right to purchase it..insane logic.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Mike Adams is a Charlatan.

While I am no fan of GMO foodstuffs, Adams is nevertheless blowing smoke.

The Natural News hivemind is active today

Maybe if the anti-GMO propaganda is repeated enough times and made to sound as terrifying as possible and if enough people appeal for government intervention, everyone here will abandon their libertarian principles! This is left-wing alarmism and it dominates every Natural News thread. I don't need any eco-fascists forcing me to eat a certain way. The debate is not over and to declare it as so is dishonest anti-science. People have been eating genetically modified food for over a decade in soybeans and the sky did not fall.

One extremely small sample study conducted by the French government suggested health risks for GM food, so now the NaturalNewsers are demanding for government to save us. This is exactly what the anti-intellectual progressives did with anthropogenic global warming. They declared the debate to be over and framed it so that any opposition as anti-human.

But of course since I question the validity of these alarmism "scientific" studies and oppose more government intervention I must be a financial shill for Monsanto, or a "scientific mercenary..."

Neo-science is your religion,

Neo-science is your religion, we get it. Go grow some GMO in your own greenhouse if you really want it. No one has any right to pollute natural crops with GMO crops.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

It is natural for soi-dissant liberals to limit debate.

and inhibit free speech.

Agreed they need to be shut

Agreed they need to be shut down...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

of courese we are being forced.....are you insane...

when society doesnt even know if what they are eating is gmo poison we are being forced...people dont have the information for if they did the gmo debate would be over...if people really knew what high fructose is doing to them it would be the dead of the corn industry..government isnt always evil it has a role to play in a modern society...they should make these companies publish whats in there product...if you still want to eat it then its your problem...

my wife has started to buy only katchup from companies that are organic no high fructose poison...i see hunts now has organic ketchup...she just bought organic grape jelly from welches...companys will change when there product is no longer wanted by the consumer...just force them thats right i said force them to label what it is that they sell...

If you don't know what you're

If you don't know what you're buying, THEN DON'T BUY IT.



Oh yeah, let's make heroin illegal because it's so dangerous, if it were legal our whole society would be addicted. Oh government, please protect me. I'm so powerless and weak.


I still wouldn't trust

I still wouldn't trust welches even though they have an organic product out. That also goes for any Mainstream product at the grocery store that happens to suddenly adopt.

Susie 4 Liberty's picture

The GMO Assault


Susie 4 Liberty

the gmo lobby make

the tobacco lobby look like choirboys.

The tobacco lobby defends a

The tobacco lobby defends a legal product, so does the hated GMO lobby. Take your nanny state crusade elsewhere.

i'm not on a crusade.

The tobacco industry deliberately suppressed evidence of the health dangers attached to tobacco. Monsanto do exactly the same for gmo food.

Oh and even if I was on a crusade, just allow me my free speech, eh?

The dangers of

The dangers of cigarette smoking have been well known for over a century. The terms coffin nail, cancer stick, and little white slaver were common slang long before the Surgeon General's report. The tobacco companies certainly weren't choir boys but to assert that they "fooled" people about the dangers of cigarette smoking simply does not have a factual basis.

cancer stick was a common phrase in


I don't think so. I don't think coffin nail was either*. Please cite a source for these claims. Have a look here: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/tobacco-ads-1950s/2 ads from the 50's and they are making medical claims on many of the ads. 'Just what the doctor ordered' for instance.

*i stand corrected on coffin nail: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coffin%20nail

I said that the dangers of

I said that the dangers of cigarette smoking were well known before the SG Report of 1964 not that "cancer stick" was a well known phrase a hundred years ago. It WAS a well known phrase in the 1950s and the term coffin nail, as you admit, was well known by the late nineteenth century. See here:


Next time, you get an opportunity check out the movies Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo and the From Here to Eternity. Characters in both use coffin nail and take it from granted that it means cigarettes. There was also a Three Stooges film from the late 1930s in which the Stooges win a contest sponsored by the "Coffin Nail Cigarette Company."

For what is worth, I have some old letters from a relative from the 1950s (then a teenager) asking a friend to give her another "coffin nail."

The term Little White Slaver, calling attention to the addictive aspects of cigarettes, was popular around World War I and was popularized by a pamphlet of the same name by Henry Ford that he distributed at all of his auto dealerships. You can read it here:


The dangers of tobacco were well known when Ford wrote and fourteen, that's right fourteen, states banned cigarettes.


Next time, you see the Music Man there is a brief reference to the fact that the main character has to put out his cigarette because they were illegal in that state.

Citing advertisements from the 1950s hardly makes a strong case. Poll after poll, then and and now, shows that most Americans are very pretty dismissive of claims made by advertisers. In fact, advertisers are usually ranked on a scale lower than politicians and used car salesmen! I suppose I could find some old ads from the period promoting the Edsel and Hula Hoops but that would hardly be an argument that they reflected public opinion.

Even the advertisements, however, illustrate that people were aware that cigarettes were bad from them. While some ads made health claims, these argued that not that cigarettes were healthy per se but that such and such a brand were less harmful that a competitor's brands. Many tobacco growers, in fact, complained that the ads were undermining the market because they were self-defeating for this reason. For a solid historical analysis of company ads during this period which makes this point, see here:


Oh....as already mentioned, the habit-forming nature of cigarettes have always been well known. Since I am on a movie kick (and they are often reflective of popular culture attitudes), check out the Hitchcock film, Saboteur. It has a scene when one of the characters asks for a cigarette because he's a "nicotine addict."

There is no danger in

There is no danger in tobacco, only the chemical crap the huge "tobacco" companies pawn off as tobacco that is made to be an addictive substance.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I upvoted because it was an

interesting post BUT I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions. For instance this:

Poll after poll, then and and now, shows that most Americans are very pretty dismissive of claims made by advertisers.

People like to think they don't pay attention to ads (or ad's claims) when in reality they do. There's no point in polling them and asking. Who's going to admit to being influenced by advertising? Just about no-one.

I see your point re 100 years and while I'm here I may as well admit to smoking. That doesn't mean I think what tobacco companies are doing now in emerging markets(e.g. marketing at kids) is moral or right. It is in those markets that we see how little they've changed.

I stand by more original point in saying monsanto lobbyists make tobacco lobbyists seem like choirboys. I can't help but have begrudging admiration for their skills if not their morals.

Marketing to kids? How? Be

Marketing to kids? How? Be Specific. The whole Joe Camel theory has been proven totally bogus.

lots of examples, google 'smoking marketed to kids'


"They represent tomorrow's cigarette business," Tucker said. "As this 14-24 age group matures, they will account for a key share of the total cigarette volume for at least the next 25 years." Noting a surge in youth sales by competitor Philip Morris Co.'s Marlboro brand, Tucker added, "This suggests slow market share erosion for us in the years to come unless the situation is corrected. . . . Our strategy becomes clear for our established brands: 1. Direct advertising appeal to the younger smokers."

anyone in advertising will admit off the record that both alcohol and tobacco marketing is aimed at kids and always have been. google 'smoking marketed to kids asia' for more recent examples. There are less restrictions in asia at the moment so it's pretty rampant and obvious.

Remember those candy cigarettes? I do.


Here's a bbc documentary that details cigarette marketing in asia where there aren't the same controls. A third of all cigarettes are smoked in china.


Was Joe Camel proved bogus? I thought the campaign was dropped. If you honestly think that the tobacco industry doesn't target kids then you are either very naive or...well I'm not here to call you names but you can pick up the o0bvious implication. It's essential that they target kids.