I wish I knew more about this stuff, but I'm having a tough time finding a source that seems objective to me. Reports that support GMO foods are called influenced by industry. The report cited by the OP was prepared by the co-founder of Earth Open Source, an investigative journalist, and a scientist I didn't bother checking on.

The report said this about Earth Open Source:

Earth Open Source is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. It supports agroecological, farmer-based systems that conserve soil, water, and energy and that produce healthy and nutritious food free from unnecessary toxins. It challenges the use of pesticides, artificial fertilizer and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the grounds of the scientifically proven hazards that they pose to health and the environment and because of the negative social and economic impacts of these technologies. Earth Open Source holds that our crop seeds and food system are common goods that belong in the hands of farmers and citizens, not of the GMO and chemical industry.

See why I'm having trouble finding a source I can rely on? They had their conclusions decided upon before they wrote the report. They might be absolutely correct, I don't know, but they don't inspire confidence.

Originally posted by charles1952
I wish I knew more about this stuff, but I'm having a tough time finding a source that seems objective to me. Reports that support GMO foods are called influenced by industry. The report cited by the OP was prepared by the co-founder of Earth Open Source, an investigative journalist, and a scientist I didn't bother checking on.

The report said this about Earth Open Source:

Earth Open Source is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. It supports agroecological, farmer-based systems that conserve soil, water, and energy and that produce healthy and nutritious food free from unnecessary toxins. It challenges the use of pesticides, artificial fertilizer and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the grounds of the scientifically proven hazards that they pose to health and the environment and because of the negative social and economic impacts of these technologies. Earth Open Source holds that our crop seeds and food system are common goods that belong in the hands of farmers and citizens, not of the GMO and chemical industry.

See why I'm having trouble finding a source I can rely on? They had their conclusions decided upon before they wrote the report. They might be absolutely correct, I don't know, but they don't inspire confidence.

I agree %100, its really hard to find unbiased info. I do not eat GM because I do not trust monsantos and it seems fishy that the FDA has not tested GM but has approved them. But I still have no evidence that they are bad for our health. I am almost to the point of conducting my own experiment. I want to recreate the ONE that showed sterilization after 3 generations and dissect to see if the GM bacteria really dose effect intestine.

Its understandable that people would make up bogus claims to show how evil a company's is when people will still buy from those evil corperations if it dose not effect their immediate conscious lifes.

It sounds like they set upon the conclusion before they began, but then again this report isn't proclaiming to be scientific. Not saying it's wrong but that is suspicious, but at least the authors seem to be very academic. Interesting.

Monsanto has silenced journalists (mainstream media ones) before, and will continue to do so.

If you work for the MSM and you want to run a story about how Monsanto is bad, and the reasons. It will never get by. News networks can be sued, even if the information is true.

There are a few documentaries i've seen about it. I forget the one i am thinking of right now but they were talking to former Fox News associates who were going to run a story on monsanto's rBGH that was being injected into cows. Monsanto's lawyers were in contact, and by the time the lawyers had their way with the story. It had turned into another pro-rbgh' story. The reporters quit.

they do test this stuff, the test results just never reach the people. And they do not have to respond to FOIA requests either. How bout that.

---

---

ABSOLUTELY NOT credible. Com'on it's some website where anybody can contribute to I wonder what your criterias for credible is ?

I was simply sharing my personal opinion, its welcome to whoever chooses to take it. I have found this website to be credible after reading it for about a year, my mom introduced it to me she lives an all natural lifestyle and has been doing this research since I can remember.

People can't just contribute to the website, they can send feedback and submit tips. This is copy and pasted from naturalnews.com's 'contact us' page:

"If you send us feedback on an article or any content item, you must include the URL of the content item to which you are referring. NaturalNews.com contains over 25,000 articles. Any feedback received by NaturalNews that does not include the full URL of the article being referred to will not be answered."

ATS is a website where anybody can contribute too

I just want to write that I think natural is better. I think if given a choice between GMO and natural we should pick natural every time.

I am also eating a salad that is 100% grown in my backyard and contains no fertalizers or pesticides. Delicious!

With normal produce we are told to wash it to remove pesticides etc because we know how harmfull they are.

With GMO food the pesticides are inside the food so we cant wash it off. Therefore GMO food is poison.

IF YOU WANT TO EAT PESTICIDES & HERBICIDES THEN EAT GMO.

BUT REMEMBER, EVEN THE MANUFACTURERS WILL TELL YOU THAT PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE POISON.

Anyone remember the thread about the GMO grass that produced cyanide gas and killed a herd of cows?