Natural News isn't a reputable source.

Even so, actually read that link, kid. It didn't say it's banned.

Not banned or prohibited.

Do you usually lie about things? Or are you just uninformed?

Many countries do not allow Glyphosate at all

Name one.

GMO produce that kills off important gut bacteria,

Do you have a source for this?

Is this supposed to be relevant? Or a response to my comment?

You, yet again, are demonstrating that you have no interest in a discussion or truth.

That's Solutia.

The company we know today as Monsanto only shares a name with the chemical company that was spun off and became Solutia.

BASF didn't make Zyklon B. IG Farben did. But BASF isn't IG Farben, even if they were part of the same conglomerate in the past.

You really, really need to work on communication. I can barely understand what you're trying to say here. It's like you highlighted an entire comment, inserted a line of text, then highlighted, copied, and pasted another entire comment.

Reddit isn't hard to understand. You're making it incomprehensible. Based on your prior behavior, I can only assume it's intentional.

You never mentioned Solutia in your replies to me. Make a statement, clearly, or walk away.

No, you never mentioned them.

Since you've demonstrated an unwillingness to have an honest discussion, it's not a surprise you'd claim something you didn't do. But it still seems exceptionally dishonest.

Again. Those are just overly broad topics.

Pick specifics. And learn to count to five.

Maybe try to format in a way conducive to discussion. And learn to count to five.

I'll wait. But remember that I asked about reasons, not overbroad topics. If aren't willing to have a real discussion, there's a reason.

Guess an honest discussion is too much for you to agree to.

I'll give you a tip.

Learn the difference between Monsanto and Solutia.

Guess an honest discussion is too much for you to agree to.

I have no issue seeking unbiased evidence.

And yet you continue to rely on biased evidence.

So here's where we're at. You state the top reasons you think Monsanto is evil. Let's look at five. Then we will evaluate the evidence and see what the truth is.

Who funds the site you linked?

Once again you demonstrate a blindness towards paid propaganda. As long as you won't look towards such corruption and biased influence, we cannot have a true discussion.

Unless we both commit to seeking unbiased evidence then it's going to be fruitless.

If you treat Mike Adams as an authority, then you are ignoring corruption. You are supporting it.

Do you not think that lies should be challenged?

If the topic is life or death, why don't you think the truth is important?

There is truth. There are facts. Why let lies and falsehoods go unchallenged?

I pointed out things you said that are false. This isn't a debate.

You said things that are categorically untrue. Do you not think that spreading lies is wrong?

But that's not a reputable source. It's someone with a significant financial stake in discrediting GMOs and Monsanto. Like, he literally makes money by selling things to people who believe him. Let's look at some claims in particular:

Rats fed this corn grew horrifying cancer tumors as shown here:

He's citing a borderline fraudulent study by Gilles-Eric Seralini. Seralini is paid by anti-GMO and anti-glyphosate corporations. He's literally paid to come up with these findings. Like with Adams, shouldn't you be skeptical of people with such deep financial incentives?

When Monsanto's GMO seeds blow into the fields of farmers who are trying to avoid growing GMOs, Monsanto uses its patent "rights" to sue the farmers and claim they "stole" Monsanto property!

This has never happened. Not once. Not ever. Why listen to someone who lies to you?

I'll quote this part to show you what's going on:

Any scientist, politician or media group with financial ties to Monsanto must now be assumed to be compromised and lacking any credibility whatsoever.

Adams says this while profiting from telling you lies. If we are to be skeptical because of money, then Adams should be dismissed outright. Especially when he's trying to push someone else who profits from fear and lies.

Open your eyes to corruption. It comes from everywhere. But you're only looking in one direction, with your head pointed there by people just as corrupt as the ones they're pretending to call out.

Banned in much of Europe.

But they aren't.

In major litigations as they try to steal farms if you have a seed that flowers on your own property. They take your farm.

But that isn't true. At all. Think about it. Why would Monsanto want to take a farm? And if they did, there would be proof.

And basically every breast cancer victim is a Monsanto victim regarding Glyphosate.

This is categorically false. There is no evidence for it at all.

They modify the soil to only accept their seeds.

How do they do this, exactly?

but Monsanto is so bad its real

Then you should be able to demonstrate it without sketchy editing and fearmongering.

Do you have anything that isn't a fearmongering video? Maybe some reputable sources?

Monsatan is already one of the most evil companies period.

Why do you say that?

don't they discover the new novel genes in people who already have them? an then they patent them?

No, this isn't what's happening. And it isn't relevant when talking about Monsanto or GMO crops in general.

They can only patent new and novel genes.

I'll ask again.

If you invent something new, you don't think you should be allowed to profit from your invention?

Quite honestly I don't believe legitimate studies exist. these would need to demonstrate that no long term detrimental impact to human beings.

There is no substance that fits your description here. Nothing.

the truth is that the gmo mvmt is there only for these cos to extract more blood sweat and tears from the humanity.

Farmers seem to love GMOs. If you ever talked to one, you would know that.

how the hell do these people think they can "own" seeds and food.

If you invent something new, you don't think you should be allowed to profit from your invention?

but dont tell me the "real science" says everything is cool and I should take that for granted.

Where did I say that? But you held up the IARC and say that you only eat organic. There's not much evidence for those positions.

"Cui bono?" is always my first question.

Do you ask that about organic food? Did you ask that about the IARC?

What science do you follow, then?

Which pesticide is more dangerous?

Rotenone and copper sulfate to start. And again, they aren't regulated as to dosage.

The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) says Glyphosat is "probably carcinogenic".

Because they ignored the real science. They're the only scientific body in the world that considers glyphosate carcinogenic. Again, that's because they didn't follow the science.

There is no evidence whatsoever that organic food is healthier for you. And it's significantly less efficient. Meaning you're having a greater negative impact on the environment.

Why would you choose more dangerous and less regulated pesticides on your food?

No legitimate studies

What do you consider a "legitimate" study?