You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, May 24, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.

March Against Monsanto rally protesting GMO foods coming to downtown Ann Arbor Saturday

By Ben Freed

Organizers expect at least 1,000 people to join the local March Against Monsanto scheduled for Saturday afternoon in downtown Ann Arbor.

The march and rally, part of an international day of protests, will begin at 1 p.m. on the University of Michigan Diag and end at Hanover Square Park on Packard Road. Organizer Kryssi Jones said the event will focus on spreading the word about the dangers of genetically modified foods, commonly referred to as GMOs (which stands for Genetically Modified Organisms).

“It’s not as much against Monsanto as it is about education,” she said. “We really want people to know about the issue and that’s the main focus.”

Monsanto says its genetically modified seeds and feeds are held to a rigorous safety standard and are just as safe as non-modified crops.

"Hundreds of independent scientific experts and dozens of governments around the world have determined that foods and ingredients developed through biotechnology [or genetic modification (GM)] are safe," according to a statement on Monsanto's website.

The rally in Hanover Square Park will include speakers who work on GMO-free farms and plenty of literature distribution. There will also be children’s activities focused on teaching kids about what organizers say are the dangers of genetically modified foods.

“We’ll be helping to make people aware of not just what GMOs are, but what people can do to help the situation,” Jones said.

“We will encourage people to vote with their dollars, and we’ll be passing out lists of brands that have GMOs or are owned by Monsanto for people to avoid. We’re also going to be informing people about local farmers markets and different venues where they can get non-GMO foods.”

Besides advocating for a boycott of genetically modified foods, the march is designed to encourage attendees to take a more active role in the political process to help counter-balance what she says is an outsized influence held by major corporations like Monsanto.

“The senate just voted yesterday and struck down labeling of GMO products; we’re pretty upset about that and it’s adding to our momentum.” she said.

“We want people to email their legislators or send them a postcard, we’re trying to give them ideas on how to approach their lawmakers with these issues.”

Other marches will be held in 10 Michigan cities, including Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing and Traverse City. Across the globe, 330 marches are planned in more than 40 countries.

“This is really an international issue,” Jones said. “Other countries have actually banned Monsanto from operating or being in their countries. It’s not just a bunch of hippies who don’t like it, it’s a global thing.”

Jones has been an “active protester” for about seven years and was one of the organizers behind the Occupy Portland efforts in the fall of 2011. She said that marchers are encouraged to stay on the sidewalks during the group’s 1-mile march, but she wouldn’t’ be surprised if things spill over on occasion.

“People here don’t want to march on the sidewalks,” she said.

“They want to practice some civil disobedience. I am encouraging people to march on the sidewalks so that we don’t have negative experiences with the police or attract any negative attention.”

Monsanto did not respond to requests to comment on this story.

Ben Freed covers business for You can sign up here to receive Business Review updates every week. Reach out to Ben at 734-623-2528 or email him at Follow him on twitter @BFreedinA2.


Larry Siden

Sun, Jun 2, 2013 : 4:44 a.m.

They're protesting for the wrong reason. Human beings have been genetically modifying crops since Native Americans developed maize 6,000-7,000 years ago in Central America. Instead, these well-meaning folks should be protesting Monsanto's business practices of claiming exclusive rights to their seeds and harassing small farmers who re-plant seeds from their own crops. As Food Inc. pointed out, seeds used to be developed in public universities and research facilities. Who are the criminals who allowed a vital public commons to become the private property of a rapacious and predatory corporation?

Vivienne Armentrout

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 8:03 p.m.

Actually, the method (insertion of foreign genetic material into the plant genome) is just a tool. So it is not really meaningful to talk of the dangers of GMO as a general phenomenon. In order to understand the implications and potential dangers, it is most useful to examine individual cases of modification and their purpose. Monsanto has used the method to push agriculture into a particular scenario, stressing monoculture, pesticide use, high-energy use crop culture. I consider this scenario to be risky in the long term for a variety of reasons. Bryan Ellinger cited my mention of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) resistance as a hazard of incorporating the genes producing the Bt toxin into crop plants. (Yes, Bryan, this is a hypothesis.) Bt is one of the most universally useful biological pesticides, being non-persistent when used as a foliar treatment, and generally considered non-toxic to mammals. It would be a terrible loss to organic and conventional agriculture if insects became resistant. The epidemiology and genetics of pest resistance to various control mechanisms (including pesticides) is well known and has been demonstrated in a variety of pest/plant systems. Bt resistance was first observed in 1985. It is so well recognized that there are techniques employed to minimize its emergence. This scholarly article discusses use of "refuge" plantings of non-Bt corn in order to prevent Bt resistance in that crop. We also don't know what are the human health consequences of eating large amounts of the Bt toxin (a protein) over a lifetime (in the edible portions of the plant). That was never tested.

C'est la vie

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 7:57 p.m.

It would have been great to have this article published earlier in the week so that more would be informed and could plan to attend over the busy holiday weekend. But good coverage anyway, Ben Freed.


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 6:02 p.m.

Are the protestors the same ones that started a frenzy about vaccinations causing autism:???


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.

The legislation that the group is pushing for is to force companies to label the food if it is a GMO. They can continue to make it, we just want to know if we are eating it. I'm not sure how much scientific proof you other commentors need to believe that eating pesticides might be harmful. With that in up!


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.

If we went back to pastured livestock, rather than trucking in GMO corn to improperly feed livestock in CAFOs and then dumping manure in toxic lagoons and other such idiocy, that would drive down the demand for GMO crops. So would ending the ethanol mandates. As would ending farm subsidies that overwhelmingly go to agribusiness giants. Most of the corn, soybean and wheat fields should be wildlife-friendly pasture but government interference has grossly distorted the market. Think of the pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizer that wouldn't be used if farmers grew pasture rather than soil-depleting monocropped annuals. One of many articles about the subject: Better yet, read anything by Joel Salatin. This business of needing GMO crops to feed the world is a lie. But we do need to stop demonizing meat and fat.

Kent Jocque

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 12:55 p.m.

Here's the question I'd ask regarding the ability of humans to produce genetically modified organisms with confidence. Can we and do we presently know enough about the way such manipulations will affect future results? See Chaos Theory,, or watch the movie Jurassic Park. A profit-seeking corporation, or even the regulatory systems of a government supporting free enterprise and capitalism, is not the place I'd turn to for an answer to that question.

Kent Jocque

Tue, Jun 11, 2013 : 8:35 p.m.

Vivian, It was great exchanging views with you. -Kent


Sat, Jun 8, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.

A late reply to your last posting--yes, that report of the appearance of modified wheat in Oregon alarmed me, too. It certainly lends weight to your argument for caution. Even so, a now-dead friend of mine whose specialty was ethnobotany and who knew a great deal about farming practices through history, the spread of plant species, and the like used to take a very casual attitude toward invasive species--his argument was that systems reach equilibrium, just not necessarily at the pace we'd choose. I don't know whether we can afford to take the same attitude about laboratory products, but I'm hoping that in general, he was right. Again, thanks for your thoughful --and thought-provoking--responses. It's been a pleasure exchanging comments with you.

Kent Jocque

Mon, Jun 3, 2013 : 10:21 p.m.

Vivian, I enjoy civil dialogue, too, and this one has been fruitful. Your responses and questions have made me think. Yes, I do oscillate between the two poles of caution and action and it tends to depend on the issue. For instance, I'm socially progressive but environmentally conservative. Thus my opinion about the Monsanto story. Speaking of which, did you see this story from a couple days ago about some Monsanto GSO wheat showing up on an Oregon farm with no explanation of how it got there? That's the unexpected consequences I worry about. I too am optimistic that our scientists and engineers will find creative ways to solve our problems. I think government funding of pure research, and the infrastructure to support that, is a good use of tax dollars. It's applied research I question. I realize there is no such thing as unbiased research but when a for-profit company is doing the research I can't help but believe their research will be heavily slanted to support their profit-making motives. Looking at this discussion I think I'm coming off as a a socialist, at least according to this definition That's okay by me but political labels are like a horoscope or a fortune cookie. They're so broad they could apply to anyone at any given time. -Kent


Mon, May 27, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.

Kent, Thanks for your response, too. It's nice to have dialogue. Finding that balance...seems to me that this may be our greatest challenge. Some days I'm more in your camp; other days I'm optimistic that our scientists and engineers will find creative ways to solve our problems. Do you find yourself oscillating between the two poles also? I think I tend that way because I spend a lot of time with really smart and really promising students of science and technology--very encouraging!

Kent Jocque

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.

Vivian, Thank you for your response. I agree we have to strike a balance between exercising caution and encouraging advancement. I'm one of those who would encourage caution and discourage advancement given the limitations of the human species. And in answer to your questions, "Where would you turn, and what kind of answer would you seek?" I don't think humans currently have a place where we can turn for a definitive answer, thus my bias towards caution over advancement. The kind of answer I would seek would have the qualities of being scientific, philosophical, historical, intuitive, pragmatic, omniscient, ... the list goes on. That answer isn't gonna come anytime soon. And please, Vivian, feel free to call me Kent. -Kent


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.

It's a fair question. We can't often be sure that we know how our actions in any sphere will affect future events, and things we do now with good intentions may harm us in years to come. But we have to strike a balance between exercising caution and encouraging advancement. As for your other point, consider Communist China. Its government doesn't support free enterprise or capitalism, and its record is absolutely dismal with regard to regulatory systems. Why do you assume that all profit-seeking corporations deliberately ignore public safety? Some do, of course, but when such behavior is exposed, it's generally devastating to the company's public image and thus to its profitability. I get a little tired of hearing all large corporations vilified in what seems to be a reflexive way (often by people who profess to, and perhaps genuinely do, abhor prejudice and bigotry). Sweeping unfounded generalizations are sweeping unfounded generalizations, whether they're about groups of people or about businesses. In fairness to you, though, Kent Jocque, you did say only that you wouldn't turn there for an answer. Where would you turn, and what kind of answer would you seek? I mean those as honest questions.

Joan Levitt

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 12:19 p.m.

In an age of global warming, excessive wealth concentration and international poverty and tensions, this GMO nonsense is reminiscent of the gold fish swallowing of the 1920s.


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.

Reminiscent of goldfish swallowing? I'm not sure how...could you explain? 'this GMO nonsense' could be taken two ways (at least).


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 6:11 a.m.

I often wonder if there is a correlation between GMO and food allergies and intolerances. Many countries who do not eat GMO do not have people with lactose intolerance, gluten intolerance, etc. Might be a reason why. Might not.

Joe Hood

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 5:41 a.m.

Who's using GMO anymore (pesticides are coming back): ...Until recently, corn farmers in the U.S. had largely abandoned soil insecticides, thanks mostly to a widely adopted genetic trait developed by Monsanto Co. MON -0.15% that causes corn seeds to generate their own pest-killing toxins, but which the Environmental Protection Agency says doesn't hurt humans...


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 2:47 a.m.

The irony is that foods have been genetically modified for a very long time with selective breeding, cross pollination, natural selection and other techniques. What these folks don't like is the accelerated way you can do it when you understand cellular and molecular biology.


Mon, May 27, 2013 : 6:03 p.m.

Actually I am more concerned with the long term consequences of short sighted actions and lack of long term studies. It scares me to think that the studies are funded by the same people who profit from the technology. This form of genetic modification goes beyond what nature can do on it's own and it allows for crossing genetic information from different life forms something that doesn't happen naturally. I will admit I am no scientist and if you can show me anything in nature that creates a positive outcome, say where insect genes cross with plant genes, I would be interested to hear about it. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I really would be interested.


Sun, May 26, 2013 : 12:07 a.m.

No worries, vivian, and no need for an apology. I liked your post.


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 11:36 a.m.

Apologies, 1bit--in my reply to mmullins I made reference to your observation but inadvertently suggested that it was somewhere else in the comment stream.


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 2:39 a.m.

There is also a lot of scientific research from independent scientists from all around the world that conclude that GMOs are not safe for humans and the animals that are fed with crops engineered by Monsanto, Cargil, and a few other greedy companies like them. Why do you think GMOs have to be labeled in the EU? Monsanto has a hard time selling their products over there. That is why they lobby so hard here to make sure GMOs do not have to be labelled in the US. In addition, mega Agricultural companies are exempt from anti-trust laws and tax laws that other corporations must adhere to. They are forcing the small farms out of business and polluting the environment with their "intellectual property." (GMO DNA) Please check out the following link to an interview of a scientist from MIT. Their are so many articles in scientific journals about the dangers of GMOs and the unethical practices of Monsanto and their efforts to control the food industry if you care to be truly informed. Obama promised to force the labeling of GMOs during his campaign in 2007. He really disappointed a lot of people for not even attempting to keep that promise. He said they should be labeled because "the American people have a right to know what they are eating"


Mon, May 27, 2013 : 5:49 p.m.

I'm sorry I accidentally voted you down when I meant to vote up. Wish there was an unvote button :)


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 11:33 a.m.

'punitive.' I guess I had two fewer characters left than I thought.


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 11:32 a.m.

Like you, mmullins, I lament the rise of large factory farms at the expense of small farms, and I think that locally-produced food grown with a minimum of pesticides may well be better than many products of agribusiness. That said, we have to come to terms with reality. Small farms can't feed a large population distributed as ours is. Many modifications (which are, as someone above pointed out, sometimes nothing more than accelerated versions of modifications farmers have been making for centuries) increase yield or make crops resistant to insects, disease, or unfavorable growing conditions. Growing more food per acre is the only way, in some parts of the world, to combat hunger, and scientific approaches are the most efficient route to that goal. I question your use of the term 'greedy companies.' Every company that stays in business seeks to make a profit. If it doesn't make a profit, it folds. That's true of Monsanto, and it's true of green energy companies, and it's true of Ben and Jerry's. When does a company, in your way of looking at things, become greedy? When it makes its profit by marketing products you don't like? I don't like televisions and smart phones, personally--can I call electronics companies that produce them greedy because they're making a profit on things I wish were not so pervasive in society? Furthermore, if protests were to drive Monsanto out of business, what would the end result be? Less seed & fewer options for farmers, unemployment for the workers, waste of resources already sunk into the company's factories and research centers...are these desirable? If the dangers ascribed to GMO are incontrovertibly demonstrated, that's a different story. The public does need to be protected from irresponsible acts on the part of companies, if self-policing and market forces fail & danger is demonstrable. But we have regulations for that purpose. Requiring labeling is defensible if the intent is informative rather than punitiv

Superior Twp voter

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 2:28 a.m.

"Organizer Kryssi Jones" and this - "Jones has been an "active protester" for about seven years and was one of the organizers behind the Occupy Portland efforts in the fall of 2011." Tell volumes. Community organizer and future Democratic Presidential candidate here.


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 10:07 p.m.

Hopefully if they get too rowdy and venture off the sidewalks they'll stay close enough together to be "roundup ready" for the police.


Sun, May 26, 2013 : 1:33 a.m.

I'm not for this cause either but I think they should be able to "peaceably assemble." If this or any other protest/rally evolves into a riot then I agree, the police should do what's necessary to enfrce the law.


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 9:26 p.m.

How about this.....? We don't have long-term studies to know what the consequences of eating these genetically modified foods will be.

Bryan Ellinger

Sat, May 25, 2013 : midnight

Tom, That's weird. Hope this posts:

Tom Teague

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 10:59 p.m.

Bryan - the URL is taking me to a twitter page. Could you post the source by name so I can read the article? Thanks!

Bryan Ellinger

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.

How about that's some uninformed scare mongering? See:


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:11 p.m.

It's interesting that the article makes no mention of any education or training Ms. Jones may have that would make her an expert on GMOs. It does identify her as a long-standing protester. Are there solid reasons we should listen to her or accept her claims about the dangers of GMOs? Does she have, or make reference to, a body of reliable data to back them, and is she sufficiently trained in relevant disciplines to evaluate that data? Such information, if available and accurate, would give her credibility. If, however, she makes reference to no evidence, or to only anecdotal or dubious evidence, to support her claims, or if she lacks the expertise to evaluate evidence, shouldn't that be noted? I don't know whether Monsanto's counterclaims are legit or not, myself, and I do recognize their financial interest in refuting the anti-GMO claims, but I do see that the company website apparently makes reference to independent scientific experts and governments (presumably government-sponsored research?). Presumably those experts and studies are named and can be objectively evaluated. And whatever one thinks about Monsanto and its motives, you can bet that it has a raft of botanists and chemists and statisticians examining the claims it makes about its products (not to mention lawyers) and doesn't say anything it can't colorably support. Your article seems a little naively reported to me. As it stands, it might even encourage people (especially young people, who do tend to respond enthusiastically to causes that sound virtuous) to go join the protest without really knowing much about the disputed issues or the recent legislation mentioned briefly in the story. In fact, given the reporting, they might join it merely because you let Ms. Jones' 'brave individual protestors taking on evil corporation' characterization come through pretty clearly, and taking potshots (deserved or not) at corporations is usually pretty popular. It's not that simple.

Jessica G

Sun, May 26, 2013 : 9:41 a.m.

Vivian, There are many countries that have banned GMO crops: There are many government ties to Monsanto. Here check out the list, maybe you can go interview them: And with it being estimated that more than 1 in 3 people cancer in their lifetime, some people just want the chance to make informed choices on what they are ingesting. So why don't we just label it? And since I am one of those "young people who tend to respond enthusiastically to causes that sound virtuous to join a protest" - why don't YOU just do your research before YOU make naive comments.


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:32 p.m.

Bryan Ellinger: I found the page but couldn't find the chants--I'm not very adept with FB. I got a good sense of the mood, though. It's the 60s all over again >

Usual Suspect

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:28 p.m.

Those chants are just so wrong. Isn't there a law that in hippie marches you have to have some, "Hey hey, ho ho" and "what do we want / when do we want it" chants?

Bryan Ellinger

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.

Vivian, Please go to the organizer's FB page for the march and read the chants they've been dreaming up for it. Precious darlings!

Ben Freed

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:09 p.m.

I am aware that there is ongoing debate in the scientific community as to whether GMOs are harmful to humans. I am not a scientist, nor do I have any speciality in the area, but I encourage people to read and research for themselves in order to find food that they are comfortable ingesting.


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 9:31 p.m.

No, there is not "ongoing debate in the scientific community". Genetics is accepted by the entire scientific community. Just about all our food is genetically modified; that is called plant breeding. All food grains are the result of such manipulations, going back more than ten thousand years. Plant breeding techniques have become increasingly sophisticated over the last couple of centuries, progressing from greenhouses to DNA labs. As a result, there is enough food in the world despite a population explosion. All the more recent famines have been politically caused catastrophes, not agricultural failures.

Usual Suspect

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:07 p.m.

"Jones has been an "active protester" for about seven years and was one of the organizers behind the Occupy Portland efforts in the fall of 2011." OK, that's all I need to know.

Usual Suspect

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:05 p.m.

What exactly does a "march" accomplish?


Mon, May 27, 2013 : 5:26 p.m.

A properly organized march is meant to raise awareness and to educate the public. The young lady who helped organize this march did her best but was left on her own at the last minute and did her best inspite of this.


Sun, May 26, 2013 : 1:28 a.m.

People want to exercise their constitutional right to "peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't necessarily agree with their cause, but I respect the fact that they're exercising their 1st amendment rights.


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 4:36 p.m.

Got your attention, eh?


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 3:05 a.m.

A march functions to educate and to help make people aware of an issue. They were used by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and those protesting the Vietnam War, for example.

Angry Moderate

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:08 p.m.

It allows clueless hippies to pat each other on the back for uncritically adopting urban legends they found on the Internet, such as false claims about Monsanto's business practices and incorrect interpretations of what they call the "Monsanto Protection Act."

Bryan Ellinger

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 6:52 p.m.

"It's not as much against Monsanto as it is about education," she said. "We really want people to know about the issue and that's the main focus." Ms. Jones had a chance to educate a wider audience during her interview with Mr. Freed. Why did she not do so? The above link to the FB-event page for the march looks like a bunch of hippie outrage without much substance. Vivienne Armentrout recently made an interesting point about GMOs that have "built-in" pesticides promoting pesticide resistant pests. The hypothesis (theory?) is that the mechanism is similar to what we've seen with antibiotic resistant bacteria being selected by overuse of antibiotics. Monsanto's aggressive litigation against non-GMO farmers whose corn, for instance, has been unintentionally crossbred with their patented strains is not cool.


Mon, May 27, 2013 : 5:44 p.m.

Ms Jones is a young woman with little experience in organizing. She did her best. I applaud the fact that she was willing to get out and do something an act that few people are willing to make these days. I certainly am not a "hippie" and I think name calling is rude. I am the mother of a child who beat cancer. I did everything I could to protect my child even before conception but cancer still happened and I ask myself "why" every single day. The only answer I have is that we live in a highly contaminated world and no one can escape that fact. I was there to help raise awareness and hopefully to help protect future generations from the unintended consequences of utilizing a technology that has not been proven safe.

Bryan Ellinger

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:12 p.m.

Angry Moderate, Good to know. Still, in that same article it is stated as fact that, "...[T]he company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence." Ben, Thanks for the clarification.

Ben Freed

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:04 p.m.

Bryan, Ms. Jones did speak to me about the dangers of GMOs during our interview but as I am not an expert on the subject and (clearly from the competing scientific papers already provided in the comments section) there is still plenty of scientific debate on the issue I chose to frame the article to make it about the event. I encourage you to attend the march if you are interested in finding out more information from those who believe GMOs are harmful. Ben

Angry Moderate

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.

Please stop spreading myths. Monsanto has never sued anyone over unintentional cross breeding--only people who intentionally infringed their patents and then lied about it. "Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know."

Angry Moderate

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 6:47 p.m.

"'People here don't want to march on the sidewalks,' she said." So edgy! It's the 60s all over again!


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 3:20 p.m.

Meanwhile on it feels like Reagan is still in office. Maybe you can move to a city where you're not so perpetually incensed.

Usual Suspect

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:09 p.m.

So, what if I were to decide I don't feel like driving my car on the roads. Would that make me an enlightened protester, or a menace?


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:08 p.m.

Darn it. I really,really wish there was a edit option.I should be " At this moment " not " It this moment "


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.

The 60's and 70's are back in style.It this moment my 19yr old niece who is visiting from Maryland is going through my mom's closet finding old retro clothes she wants ( and mom was as far from a hippie as you could get )


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.

Ok...I'm gonna ask a REAL simple question.Has there been any proven dangers from GMO's ? I'm not taking any sides on the issue here,it's just a simple question


Mon, May 27, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.

The point is that not enough studies have been done to prove anything either way. The technology was released into the environment without taking into consideration The Precautionary Principle which states that "if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an act." Genetically modified organisms can mix with unaltered organisms and we just don't know what that will lead to. We are feeding our children corn that has bacillus thuringiensis that was placed in the corn's genes by humans. This same bacteria is implicated in the collapse of bee colonies that we need in order to pollinate our fruits and vegetables so we will have food. Fetuses are exposed every time the mother eats that corn as well. Allow yourself to think about the implications of our introduction of this unproven technology into our delicately balanced natural environment. All we want is a rethinking of policies that are being influenced by huge sums of money from big corporations.


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 2:59 a.m.

Please check out this link for an answer to your question:


Sat, May 25, 2013 : 12:43 a.m.

Bryan Ellinger

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:30 p.m.

PaulW, Nine billion mouths to feed around 2050. If people want to make the choice to underutilize food production resources to feel good about themselves, please let them do so while bearing no offspring. Labelling often creates a stigma, and may lead to less investment into GMO tech which may have helped the poorest to eat. Sometimes it goes the other way, as it did with "parental advisory" labels on music media. Which way would GMO labels go?


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.

My thoughts exactly. Just a bunch of hysteria if you ask me. We're put of problems, so we make new ones.


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:15 p.m.

If you do internet search you will certainly find peer reviewed research. People just want food labeled so individuals can choose. What is the danger in that? There are PHD s on both sides.

Bryan Ellinger

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.

Here's a rebuttal to the above article:


Fri, May 24, 2013 : 6:50 p.m.

Is it a reliable study? I don't know, but it's one of the more widely cited of those out there: