It's this kind of despicable, unforgivable behavior that only gives credence to conspiracy-nuts, furthers distrust of govt. (which is already at lv0 for most of us), and practically sets all of society back, in general.

I am not looking forward to finding out if there is any fallout with the whole Monsanto thing.

Isn't that the Monsanto Lobbyist who claimed Glyphosate is completely harmless and he would drink a glass of it and when actually got offered a glass freaked out?

Congratulations! Your video, Monsanto man claims it's safe to drink, refuses a glass., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Fun fact: the Dr. in question, now representing Monsanto, was a prominent member of Greenpeace and still referred to as an "environmentalist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29

The only way of really knowing if glyphosate is safe is through good quality studies; ones that aren't funded by Monsanto in this case. Having a guy tell you he 'believes' it's safe carries zero weight - this Monsanto mouthpeice is simply trying to sway those that don't know how science works. In the same breath though, getting him to drink a cup of it takes away from the discussion that could be happening about the latest research results. Not that this Moore guy would want to discuss those issues anyway...

So in terms of the research - there's evidence now that it is harmful, and probably a carcinogen to humans, so common sense to me would be to limit it's use, replacing it wherever possible with farming techniques that minimise damage to both the environment, and humans. So I would basically echo what CSPI Biotechnology Director Gregory Jaffe says:

"farmers should reduce their use of glyphosate and practice integrated weed management, something many were doing before the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant crops but stopped when those crops became available. Such a change would have the added benefit of slowing the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds due to overuse of glyphosate".

from:
http://ens-newswire.com/2015/03/26/common-herbicide-glyphosate-a-probable-human-carcinogen/

The old Monsanto guy is jerking off the interviewer telling him, "Make this interview good and I'll keep jerking you off. People can drink all the juice I tell them they can drink. Even if it's my weed killer jizz."

But the interviewer knows old Monsanto man likes humiliation so he's like "no, YOU drink it, bitch."

But what he didn't realize is that old Monsanto man would cum so quickly and leave without drinking what he had for him to drink. It was merely the thought of drinking that nasty shit that was enough.

Boom! Instant gay porn classic.

When you're being interviewed about the dangers and problems of Monsanto products and legal restrictions on or bans of their uses, your audience is supposedly people who think there's an issue with your product(s).

Your video, Monsanto man claims it's safe to drink, refuses a glass., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Okay, the interviewer isn't offering him a glass of water, he's offering him a glass of glyphosate. Lets be honest here, No one would drink that. (Glyphosate is the actual Roundup poison)

The concentration level in a solid glass of that stuff, would send anyone to Poison Control. As would most of the chemicals they use in our food.

I won't defend them, I hate Monsanto, but be realistic here. I also wouldn't recommend anyone to drink a full glass of Vinegar, Dish soap, Hot Sauce, Vanilla, or many other Safe to eat things from the kitchen.

Anything the government does will be the worst for the end consumer, and benefit practical monopolies like Comcast. It's like trusting the FDA to regulate Monsanto for the good of the people. The FDA = Monsanto. Literally, they ARE the same PEOPLE. So it is with any "net neutrality" falsely so called.

For example: http://consumerist.com/2014/08/12/comcast-spending-110k-on-award-dinner-for-current-fcc-commissioner-doesnt-understand-why-anyone-thinks-thats-a-probl
em/

I assume you're referring to: http://www.upworthy.com/a-14-year-old-explains-food-labeling-in-language-even-condescending-tv-hosts-should-get-3

Ok...She explains what exactly? I'm pretty certain she doesn't even understand how genes work. She's a teen activist, not a scientist or doctor. I'm not saying that scientists and doctors are above reproach, but they at least have a basic understanding of the issues at hand with data to support their opinions.

I'm sure Monsanto is an evil corporation hellbent on profits at all costs, but the underlying concept that all GM food is bad for the planet and humans does not stand up to currently accepted scientific scrutiny.

Also, if this 14 year old girl and a documentary is the entirety of your "research", I'm not sure I should be wasting my time with you.

Unfortunately, @LooiXIV, in our world (and especially the USA), you cannot separate the IDEA of GMOs from the corporations that are making them and abusing our legal system to fuck everyone else over. They've ensured that. If you support GMOs, you effectively support Monsanto.

That's the entire purpose of making it illegal to label GMO-free foods.

Wow... So many great points here.
And lots missed by others.

@ChaosEngine I like you too. But the next posts after yours explains my point better. @Eukelek got the point correctly.
(The fact you don't eat it, or your local farm doesn't grow GM is telling and hypocritical)

There is a massive difference between selection using natural processes and GENETIC ENGINEERING.
One will only produce offspring that are genetically compatible.
The other is a crap shoot producing mixes of different taxonomy.
For fucks sake when could A FARMER BREED A MOUSE WITH A JELLYFISH, or mix SPIDER GENES WITH GOATS.
That shit is fucked up and only the tip of the iceberg.

You really want MONSANTO creating NEW SPECIES OF PLANT THAT ARE STRONGER THAN THEIR NATURAL COUNTERPARTS AND LACED WITH TOXINS AND PESTICIDES ????
It was Monsanto that developed AGENT ORANGE, and PCB's which THEY ALSO DENIED WAS HARMFUL EVEN THOUGH IT IS MASSIVELY CANCER CAUSING. They buried every study showing it was carcinogenic.


@nock . Yes I'm sure the medical profession has even crazier biology going on. But I would only use that shit IF I WAS GOING TO DIE.
NOBODY NEEDS GMO.
Now the medi-corps are using super viruses as vectors for 'custom' dna treatments.
Considering that the U.S. CDC was just admonished for improper practices contains viruses. How long before there is an incident that is completely synthetic (man-made) and completely irreversible.

@RedSky Sure Africa should grow whatever it needs to survive. But don't expect an export market for gmo.

Well, I'm a biologist and a medical doctor. Am I qualified to answer?

The difference is NdT is perceived by millions as "the science guy" aka the ultimate authority on everything scientific. Which he isn't. His opinion on this topic is as good as yours or mine.
In my opinion this isn't a scientific question, but more the question of whether we want to give companies like Monsanto (http://videosift.com/video/The-World-According-to-Monsanto-A-documentary) more money and power.

If you reject GM food as "unnatural" ...

I never said that.

I would also like an honest answer for the question, "Which is worse, world starvation or effects of GM food?"

Do you still beat your wife?
Sorry that's a BS question. Who says, we don't have enough food to feed seven billions? I'd rather make the point that distribution is the problem.

Thank you Neil! related=http://videosift.com/video/Obama-Gives-Monsanto-Get-Out-of-Jail-Free-Card