Enter agreement to not replant

nice reddit spacing and zero citing

velcro can happen in nature
google.com/patents/US3009235
this proves you can patent things that happen in nature

>Stop fucking with nature assholes
CRISPR gene editing had the potential to cure cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia and diabetes, but this would be "fucking with nature". Thoughts? Maybe your opinion is irrelevant.

Bayer owns monsanto now, you absolute fucktard monsanto shill.

>article written in 2011
>bayer buys monsanto in 2016

Quit being a fucking retard user

>weeds aren't becoming resistant to roundup because you didn't site sources

Not him but here you go. Now go full orange and call it fake news, you shill monsantotard.

mobile.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&referer=

Not only that, but how about the fact that scientists finally reengineered the inert components of roundup (which aren't disclosed because my congressional corporate whores) besides glyphosate that are clearly dangerous to humans.

theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/?comments=1#comments

Your millions of dollars lobbying effort to prevent products as being labeled as containing GMO's appeared to succeed since our congressional whores spread their legs for you, but the fact is the products labeled non-GMO are btfo of non labeled products. One of the worse business moves since "new coke," lol.

first paragraph
"On a recent afternoon here, Mr. Anderson watched as tractors crisscrossed a rolling field — plowing and mixing herbicides into the soil to kill weeds where soybeans will soon be planted."

Who?

"To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing. "

Yeah you're full of shit. Not only can you cite a court case, you are telling me that they need more herbicides and they need to pull crops to avoid MONSANTO.

>read second link
>toxins

"While we have sympathy for the plaintiffs, the science simply does not support the claims made in these lawsuits. The U.S. EPA and other pesticide regulators around the world have reviewed numerous long-term carcinogenicity studies and agree that there is no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, even at very high doses."

Even if you read the previous paragraphs, no proof. You retards make this too easy

>Why do we hate them again? Nobody is stopping farmers from planting non GMO's

Because they sue the shit out of you even if you plant non GMOs but their dominator pollen spills onto your crops. They'll sue the everloving fuck out of you if you plant seeds from those crops made with their pollen.

reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/

>But IARC, a semi-autonomous part of the World Health Organization, never got to consider the data. The agency’s rules on assessing substances for carcinogenicity say it can consider only published research – and this new data, which came from a large American study on which Blair was a senior researcher, had not been published.
>The lack of publication has sparked debate and contention. A leading U.S. epidemiologist and a leading UK statistician – both independent of Monsanto – told Reuters the data was strong and relevant and they could see no reason why it had not surfaced.

thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8.pdf

>In 2015 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. Claims that glyphosate herbicides (which contain mixtures of chemicals) do not cause cancer are based on government regulators’ interpretations of industry’s own, commercially confidential, studies on glyphosate alone. In contrast, studies on Roundup and glyphosate published by independent scientists suggest that they cause cancer in laboratory animals. An in vitro study (not performed in living animals or humans) found that glyphosate disrupts hormones and made breast cancer cells proliferate at a level far below that permitted in drinking water in the EU. Controlled laboratory studies in rats are widely considered to be a good indicator of possible human cancer-causing effects of a chemical.

>tfw monsantoshills all over the internet

Well actually Monsanto crops use more herbicides because farmers can be sloppy applying it. That's the entire point, to get farmers to waste more Monsanto herbicides.

>doesn't site the court cases and scientific studies referenced in the articles
>thinks he won the argument with meaningless see through monsanto shill tactics

LMAO at your idiocy, shill. You guys are so butthurt sales of unlabeled food products are falling far short of non-GMO labeled products you have to go full idf with lies and misinformation to plug your bleeding ass.

Face it. People have wised up to your strategy and tactics as they start to be fully divulged.

>sliding a monsanto thread

jee i wonder who this could be

try genetically engineering your own unique seeds and give them away to fat fuck farmers for free, you fucking retard

Because the natural food lobby is fucking huge and spends a lot of money telling us to not like them

....they're nowhere near as big as monsanto's lobbying groups.

There is some evidence that very high doses "probably" are related to cancer. This has some relevance to people who work with it directly who do not use proper protective clothing.

There is literally zero evidence that amounts present in the food supply are biologically relevant to human.
Note that all sorts of legal and mundane things 'probably' cause cancer. This can me a misleading thing to people who not educated and do not understand scientific jargon

>There is literally zero evidence that amounts present in the food supply are biologically relevant to human.

Right, that's for your liver to take care of and to wear down your immune system. So you die earlier. Thanks Monsanto.

This is false. Whole Foods alone is larger than Monsanto. Plus its way easier to market "natural" bullshit than advanced technology as evidenced by the fact that 'alternative medicine' and homeopathy is a thing.
You don't even need to be that big to trick a fucking lot of people into buying your scientific quackery, so when you have a giant industry such as the natural and organic food producers and sellers, you can trick a whole lot of people into believing blatantly false things

Except that is not how it works. There has never been any biological effect ever established for glyphosate on humans at the tiny doses found in food despite very many studies having been done. There is literally no reason to believe this is something to worry about

>There has never been any biological effect ever established for glyphosate on humans at the tiny doses found in food despite very many studies having been done.

Over how long of a period? Have they done later in life, latent effect studies?

Glyphosate has been in use for decades

You have to understand, there are literally thousands of different chemicals we are exposed to naturally in food that would be bad for you in high doses, some of which are even healthy and necessary at a certain dose. Dose is very important, this cannot be emphasized enough. When it comes down to it glyphosate is extremely safe for humans compared to other herbicides, especially the more outdated "organic" ones

>When it comes down to it glyphosate is extremely safe for humans compared to other herbicides, especially the more outdated "organic" ones

You're going to have a real hard time trying to convince me a synthetic chemical with a half life of up to 140+ days has less of a biological effect on humans than a natural herbicide like neem oil or spearmint oil, which goes away in less than 45.
Furthermore glysophate can persist in water supplies and pollute water used for so called 'organic' crops.

What natural occurring chemicals in food are bad for you? We don't eat peach pits and other seeds of plants because they have cyanide in them. Pretty sure the human race wouldn't have survived this long if all our natural food was 'bad in high doses'.

It isn't good to eat artificial dyes. They've been proven to be carcinogenic.
Some weird sodium salt is not good for you in high doses and there's tons in random food all over.

It isn't healthy to eat glysophate and it should be avoided. But hey, who cares if that tomato still has glysophate all up inside it? They told you it was safe.

They said the same for opiates. Good job FDA.

Reminder that being natural is not a good or bad thing and implies nothing about how healthy something is. Nature has evolved all sorts of poisons and venoms, including many herbicides. Its fucking dumbfounding that people actually believe that because a herbicide can be derived from natural sources that that somehow magically makes it better for humans

> synthetic chemical with a half life of up to 140+ days
The half life doesn't matter if the chemical is relatively inert to humans, which is the case here, and obviously being synthetic is not inherently good or bad and you sound uneducated when you bring it up as though it helps your stance
>What natural occurring chemicals in food are bad for you
There are trace amounts of all sorts of shit in any natural food source, hell, I'd even speculate that most biomolecules are bad for you in extreme doses, but luckily for us, the dose is what matters and you could not conceivably consume enough of the vast majority of these from a normal diet (and most would be hard even if you specifically tried).. Some great examples of this are literally every naturally occurring drug, or methanol which is present in pretty much any plant based food in trace amounts. Or even simple sodium chloride, ubiquitous in living cells but also toxic in high concentrations

>It isn't good to eat artificial dyes. They've been proven to be carcinogenic.
Artificial dye is a very broad and meaningless term. It may be true that a specific old timey artificial dye has been shown to cause cancer but that implies nothing of other chemically unrelated artificial dyes, and again has nothing to do with whether the dye is artificial

Is there even any proof monsanto seeds produce better crops

Cause like, selective breeding and agriculture has already existed for tens of thousands of years. It would seem more likely that the crop has been genetically engineered solely to be different enough than wild that it could be DNA tested to prove the source, but otherwise find it difficult to believe that monsanto crop is actually better than the crops that have been selectively bred for thousands of years.

It is obvious anti-GM is part of the Alex Jones tier conspiracy theory circuit, a quick google . Of course it should be regulated, however completely banning it is misguided, very misguided. This sort of frothing at the mouth paranoia only obfuscates matters.

The world is full of shit and technology has allowed us to drag ourselves out of it. It is kind of like chemotherapy (something else attacked by the same circle), there are disadvantages and risks however it could save your life so the benefits outweigh the costs. You shouldn't place your luck in "herbal cancer cures", "fruit diets" and other bullshit. There is some psychological reason why people behave like this and it is not good, it results in people making horrible mistakes.

Genetic modification can solve malnutrition and reduce the need for pesticides, it can also improve productivity which will help reduce poverty, however this crowd tells us because of some issue with cross pollination and glyphosphates which affects a tiny proportion of agriculture we should ban it all, and instead buy natural™ vegan™ wholefoods™ and nutritional™ supplements™ of course. Nah.

>believes dyes are bad
>halflife affects how healthy something is
>it's natural!

Holy shit you're a full on moonbeam hippy mouthbreathing retard. Go cram some cherokee hair tampons up your butthole.

What does persistence in the environment have to do with toxicity? They are two completely independent variables.

fuck off shill

Literally this.

>carcinogenic GMO's
No such thing. The real cancer is all of the mentally deficient anti-GMO activists lying out their asses about food safety, resulting in millions of turd-world children growing up with brain damage from nutritional deficiencies. Then again they're mostly niggers so who really gives a shit.

You mean what farmers have done for thousands of years?

Farmers gave away seeds? Lol.

Sure is virgins talking about sex in here....

Let's get this sorted out
>GMOs are not inherently bad
>Monsanto has unethical business practices
>Glyphosate (Roundup) is probably a lot worse than they let on

Fuck off and die. What the fuck is corn blight. There's nothing wrong with GMOs but these idiots need some damn genetic variation in their plants

Just google "leaf blight".