by Mike Adams
July 27, 2014
from NaturalNews Website








The single greatest fear of GMO pushers has just been revealed. In the days after I wrote my now-famous article comparing GMO advocates to Nazi collaborators, the blogosphere erupted with a heated discussion of,

  • Monsanto

  • journalism

  • the scientific dictatorship of the Nazi empire

  • the parallels with modern-day GMO pushers

This story thrust the topic of GMOs back into the minds of millions of people, which was of course the whole point. It also helped introduced terms into the minds of the public like,

  • "Monsanto collaborators"

  • "agricultural holocaust"

Critics of the article only helped this effort by pointing to it and bringing more traffic to my website, causing our email subscriber list to rapidly explode over the last few days.




Lists of GMO skeptics are acceptable, but lists of GMO collaborators cause panic


Naturally, I expected to be attacked and vilified for daring to make such a comparison, but what I didn't expect was to discover just how freaked out GMO pushers would be when they found their names being added to a list.


The list, hosted by a still-fishy website called (which appears to be offline at the moment), contained a list of names of a selection of pro-Monsanto bloggers, journalists and scientists:


Journalist Collaborators

  • Jennifer Ackerman

  • Mischa Popoff

  • John Stossel - His brother runs the biotech front group ACSH which pretends to be an independent group of experts

  • Brooke Borel

  • Jon Entine - A discredited journalistic fraud with full background and history of journalistic fraud published at

  • David Tribe

  • Don Hazen - He has pursued a systematic pattern of defamating and disparaging key leaders of the anti-GMO movement. As the new editor of AlterNet he changed the course of the publication from anti-GMO to its current position of attacking GMO labeling advocates, bashing nutritional supplements and promoting the vaccine propaganda of Dr. Paul Offit.

  • David Rotman

  • Mark Lynas

  • Emil Karlsson

  • Steven Novella

  • Theresa Phillips

  • Keith Kloor - A fraudulent blogger who invents fictional stories and plays them off as facts to entice readers.

Publisher Collaborators



The list seemed somewhat random, and I didn't even recognize half the names on it.


But the mere existence of such a list freaked out the GMO pushers to an extreme. Essentially, they panicked.

This I find truly funny at one level because the Monsanto collaborators in the media are constantly listing the names of those they claim are "quacks" or anti-GMO skeptics.


I can't even think of how many hate lists my name is probably on by now due to my outspoken criticism of GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and psychiatric drugs. I think it's fair to say I have somehow achieved the dubious honor of being the most polarizing person in alternative media today, loved by millions of readers and fans and yet absolutely despised by biotech bloggers and journalists.


Or, perhaps, Alex Jones still retains the title and I'm a close second. That's why I still honor Alex Jones for his willingness to tell the truth about what he believes, even though I'm not associated with his show anymore.



Who should be held responsible for GM crop failures and farmer suicides?


All this brings up a truly important discussion into the question of who should be held responsible when GMO crops fail and lead to farmer suicides?

GMOs lead to far greater numbers of farmer suicides following crop failures because the steep price of GM seeds places a far higher financial burden on the farmer.


If the crop doesn't succeed, the farmer finds himself in far worse financial straits than if he had planted conventional seeds which cost considerably less.

So far, farmer suicides in India that have been linked to genetically modified crops are approaching 300,000 farmers, a horrifying number that justifiably invokes the phrase "agricultural holocaust."

The real question that's now being raised in all this is:

Who is responsible for the failures and devastating effects of GMOs?

This is a crucial question for the obvious reason of corporate liability.


Once, Big Tobacco sold products that caused cancer. For decades, the tobacco industry paid off scientists to publicly proclaim cigarettes were not only safe but even healthy!


This set the precedent of evil corporations buying off scientists to control the conversation and obfuscate the facts.

Eventually, the mountain of evidence against Big Tobacco became so large and irrefutable that the companies were driven into a multi-billion-dollar settlement that gutted their profits and tightly restricted their future marketing of tobacco products. Right now, the biotech industry is pulling out all the stops, desperately attempting to whitewash the cancer effects of its own products in order to avoid the same fate as Big Tobacco.

In fact, if you start to ask a few reasonable questions about GMOs, you begin to understand just why there is so much fear among those paid-off corporate shills and sellout scientists who are fronting the biotech agenda:

  • Who should be held accountable for the farmer suicides caused by failed GM crops?

  • Who is responsible for the wave of cancer being caused by exposure to BT Corn and glyphosate?

  • Who will be held responsible for the devastating environmental effects of GM crops in the case of runaway genetic pollution or a systemic crop failure leading to starvation?

It is these questions that the biotech industry is desperately trying to avoid.


The industry knows that both Big Tobacco and Big Pharma have been haunted by lawsuits stemming from consumers who were harmed or killed by those products. One tobacco company was recently hit with a multi-billion-dollar judgment stemming from the death of one man from cancer.

That's why the Seralini study (Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize) was so aggressively attacked by the biotech operators:

it was the first study to show the devastating cancer-causing effects of GMOs and glyphosate in rats.

The immediate pressure that was exerted to engineer a contrived retraction of the study was unprecedented in the history of science (and also one of the most shameful anti-science campaigns in the history of science).


Fortunately, the Seralini team was not to be intimidated, and they found another science journal that republished the study. But consider the consequences to companies like Monsanto is lawyers can begin to argue that cancer cases across the world are being caused by GM corn.


Suddenly you've got the biotech industry in the same position as Big Tobacco in the early 1990's, with law firms lining up to file an endless stream of lawsuits.



Are GMOs "defective products?"


See, the real kicker here is what happens when GMOs are recognized to be defective products.


In the automobile industry, when a car is defective and causes loss of life, the car manufacturer is liable for the damages. The same is true in the tobacco industry, to an extent.


What happens when GMOs are established in the courts to be defective products that cause harm?

Think about it: GMOs are sold under a collection of false promises that claim that will produce more food, not less. They've been sold with claims that they require fewer chemicals, not more. They've been celebrated as the answer to starvation and a "miracle" technology that will feed the world.

But in the real world, GMO crops are quickly failing. The typical pattern is to see a 1-2 year increase in crop production followed by a sharp drop as the glyphosate kicks in.


Then the superweeds take hold and the farmer is forced to spray with as many as 4-7 different chemical herbicides instead of just one.


Crop production falls, soil health plummets and future yields are compromised. This is the pattern we're seeing with many GM crops, and this doesn't even take into account the long-term health effects on humans.

Will the biotech industry follow in the footsteps of the vaccine industry and lobby Congress for total legal immunity?


Watch for that tactic to be attempted as the biotech industry begins to see signs of growing legal liability.



Whistleblowers and journalists


Throughout the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's, there were countless journalists who were paid off by Big Tobacco to write stories insisting "smoking cigarettes is safe."


Those journalists operated with the same arrogance and indignation as GMO journalists today, but in retrospect all they did was bring shame upon themselves for furthering the destructive scientific dictatorship of the tobacco era.

The most horrifying thought in the minds of today's GMO-fronting journalists is that they, too, will be called out for their role in the massive global harm caused by GMOs.


The day is coming, of course, when the link between BT Corn and cancer tumors can no longer be denied.


The day is coming when glyphosate's systemic destruction of soils and the environment can no longer be covered up. When that day comes, it is important that history remember the names of those who actively participated in furthering that destruction. That's why I suggested the idea in the first place.

It's also true that history will owe GMO skeptics a massive apology in the same way that history owed Big Tobacco whistleblowers an apology. Whistleblowers are always disparaged and vilified for telling the truth or sounding the alarm.


Just look at the endless attacks on heroic truth-tellers like Edward Snowden, Jesse Ventura or David Icke.


In an age of deceit, telling the truth really is a courageous act, and I thank all those anti-GMO activists who continue to tell the truth in our collective fight for protecting life, health and the environment against corporate poisoners and their paid-off shills.




Learn more truth about GMOs at these websites