The secret tactics Monsanto used to protect Roundup, its star product | Four Corners

[Music] in a barley field in Baga Bella in northern New South Wales Peter Mela is starting work Annie's daughter Georgia are preparing for the next crop by spraying with the weed killing chemical glyphosate Peters been using it for decades I remember that first drummer that stuff that my father bought was a 50 liter drama to Custer thousand dollars and I remember we used to go out and spray individual how to kill words in the in paddocks you know it was it was liquid gold and it was a revolution in the way we found name [Music] glyphosate was originally patented by Monsanto and branded as roundup it's now the most widely used herbicide on the planet outside of the organic industry we go close to a hundred percent of conventional farmers use roundup to some extent it's essential we we don't have an alternative to glyphosate in the system at the moment so if we can't use that product we're back to player in the ground you know that's there's some massive problems in our system if we start cultivating instead of using a chemical solution [Music] it's been a bit 20 of all the chemicals farmers use Peter thinks this is the safest [Music] if you take the necessary precautions as you would with any chemical compound the product is actually very safe and I'm very comfortable in that I use it I'm happy for my kids to come and work with me and my daughter to work with it and my wife to work with it if that's the case no bigger [Music] 1,000 kilometers south farmers ron and trolleys snape have a very different view for nearly 40 years they ran cattle and raised their three children on this farm until one you survived so many droughts and you survived so many hassles in the environment it's just such a beautiful place it can be horrific but then the next day it's absolutely beautiful to manage the weeds on their 325 acre property Ron depended on Roundup probably under the exposure from washing my clothes and sleeping with mooji if they complain it always smelled of the ground up after we used it when we're using on the farm we could actually use it for anything up to a week straight using noxious weeds control controlling along fence lines and just just general farm use we use the court extensively a years ago trolley was diagnosed with non-hodgkins lymphoma they can't prove it but they blame roundup for her cancer we were sent off to a specialist oncologist and [Music] he just said to IC said done you've got lymphoma he said this is farmers lymphoma he said it's common to farmers he said to many farmers are over represented in the population that went find my sufferance well that just made me feel so damn guilty I've done something dramatic to my life that's probably shortened her life and it's just absolutely just absolutely appalled no I find that I'm setting to me because he'll was wrong to know [Music] Charlie is now in remission but they've decided to sell the farm the snakes just wish they'd had more information about Roundup farmers a junkies to this particular chemical we've been made junkies Bob Monsanto it's just so quick it's so easy and it's so effective I should have known but in saying that the bloody bastards had actually made this product they should have made us all informed at least put on that packet there there is a possibility make me aware make me so that I can make an informed decision that I'm gonna use that or I'm not going to use it but sometimes bloody harder California jury awarded nearly three hundred million dollars to a former school grounds keeper who sued Monsanto claiming its weed killers including roundup gave him non-hodgkins lymphoma in August a landmark court case blew wide open the question of whether Monsanto's Roundup products a safe mr. Johnson maintained his composure today in court as that verdict was read as the school grounds que Pena San Francisco DeWine Lee Johnson sprayed roundup products four hours a day dozens of times a year no I am an integrated pest management / grouseman I get you dirty every day some day I have clean day some time I have dirty days today is one of those wet 30 days he was using a sort of pressure hose sprayer so he was spraying a hundred and fifty gallons every morning and so he his exposure was pretty extreme and prior to his exposure his skin was perfect he was healthy he had no other chemical exposures but within two years after starting this sort of massive spraying he developed this incredibly aggressive cancer that you know ultimately is going to take his life [Music] these photos show the painful lesions which started breaking out all over his body his doctors diagnosed it as a rare form of non-hodgkins lymphoma person does the jury have a verdict all right can you please hand the verdict to the bailiff I will now read the verdict in the matter of doing Johnson plaintiff versus Monsanto company independently the jury found roundup was a substantial factor in causing mr. Johnson's cancer and that Monsanto failed to warn of the risk question number 17 what amount of punitive damages if any do you award to mr. Johnson the answer was two hundred and fifty million dollars ladies and gentlemen of the jury this now concludes your service as jurors in this case I'm glad to be here to be able to help but a cause is way bigger than me so hopefully this thing will start to get the attention that it needs to get right so folks can make a good choice Monsanto is challenging the verdict I feel sorry for mr. Johnson I have tremendous sympathy for what he and his family are going through when I look at the jury verdict the decision it's it's wrong and it doesn't change the science it doesn't change those the forty years of safe use the eight hundred tests the agricultural health study it doesn't change the science obviously the science didn't resonate with that jury we want to understand why because we need we need to do a better job explaining the science so people understand that glyphosate based products are safe from across the world farmers have come to America's agricultural event of the year the Farm Progress Show in Iowa the big news here is that Monsanto has just been bought by the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer for sixty three billion dollars the company's called a press conference to talk about it but it can't escape questions about the court case you can really say nothing's changed we had the outcome and the in the in the verdict in California there's really nothing new I mean we I would look at that as one case doesn't change 800 scientific studies it doesn't change 40 years of use it doesn't change the incredible value that that products brought to agriculture and the consumers worldwide and we're thoroughly supportive of the product and will continue to work to the the legal process that's that's available to us it's a horrible and unfortunate situation with the with the plaintiff mr. Johnson we have great sympathy for him and his family but roundup does not cause cancer by is getting rid of the controversial Monsanto name but insists it will keep and protect the company's products which earn billions every year farmers here are dismissive of the verdict it's to be expected coming out of California where they've got a world of tree huggers and people that do not understand isn't it a while that that a judge and a jury out there would render a catastrophic award and how's the world a better place I'm very worried yes we need this product and we do not need over 200 million dollar lawsuits against Monsanto or you know it's Bayer now but um I mean somebody has to pay that and you know it's gonna come down to their customers yes I'm very concerned [Music] they call this region America's breadbasket because of the extraordinary amount of grain grown in its rich soil corn is the country's most widely grown crop last year's harvest netted nearly 50 billion US dollars our family moved to Iowa in 1835 they they built a sod house and broke ground about two miles from here and we've been farming in Iowa ever since from the time that the Waltons first came to Iowa we've always grown corn they've grown small grains such as wheat oats some barley and we've always had livestock [Music] farmer Dave Walton uses Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds to grow his corn they've been genetically modified to withstand being sprayed with glyphosate it kills the weeds but not the crop today 90% of America's corn crops are genetically modified using Monsanto's technology to tolerate glyphosate it's a herbicide tolerance system and it allows us to apply roundup to the crop and roundup will control any weeds that are present in the crop but won't affect the crop itself we don't intentionally put it on ourselves but if it does get on it's it's not so much a concern we wash it off we go about our business but we wear gloves and and the proper safety equipment to try to minimize that but as far as applying it to the crops I have no concerns whatsoever Dave Walton can't imagine farming without glyphosate it's not a pleasant thought really but it would mean to us that we would have to go back to either more tillage to control weeds prior to planting possibly in crop row cultivation or we would have to switch to herbicides that aren't as safe for the environment and not as safe for the applicator like me across the state lines that Louis Missouri is home to Monsanto's headquarters now owned by Bayer from this sprawling complex Monsanto's run a worldwide campaign to deny claims that roundup and its key ingredient glyphosate a dangerous after the court verdict the company's vice president Scott Partridge released this statement claiming more than 800 scientific studies and reviews support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer did the 800 studies all relate to cancer do they relate to other potentially all types of risks and hazards and disease is a wide wide variety which were required when we when we obtained registrations from governments around the world they don't simply ask you it doesn't cause cancer or not you know they won't they want want to know all aspects of of health and safety related to the product when Monsanto says there are 800 studies showing that it's safe we have no idea how many of those studies might be authentic independent scientific studies we know that the scientific literature has been corrupted for decades questions have been raised around the safety of roundup and its key ingredient glyphosate now Monsanto's strategies to protect its flagship product have been exposed in a trove of internal documents they reveal a long-standing aggressive campaign of deception and dirty tricks the documents are known as the Monsanto papers these are discovery documents that Monsanto was forced to turn over to the plaintiffs in the litigation and so far Monsanto itself says that it's turned over about 10 million pages of documents and this has really been eye opening because we've seen so much evidence of how the company has worked to hide the risks of its products for nearly 20 years journalist and author Carrie Gilliam has been investigating Monsanto we know that Monsanto has ghostwritten scientific literature we don't know how much we don't know how extensive it is we do know that there are papers that they have ghostwritten that are out there right now sitting in journals looking to be authentic that Monsanto secretly had a hand of manipulating from the dawn of Agriculture around the world it was never really a fair fight in field after field season after season perennial weeds waged their war on valuable crops and won when a Monsanto scientists discovered the weed killing properties of glyphosate in the 1970s it sparked an agricultural revolution but then came a bright moment of discovery a quarter century ago and at long last weeds have met their match in great science energetic people and an uncompromising commitment to the future of the world that's the simple beauty of Roundup a remarkable story well worth celebrating in the lush countryside of Brazil farmers and home gardeners everywhere soon came to rely on what the company called the world's most trusted herbicide on this rubber plantation in Malaysia Monsanto's Roundup herbicide controls heavy infestations of noxious la langue grass which saps the strength of the young rubber trees sprayed by hand the results of Roundup Monsanto's newest development in herbicides are obvious roundup was always marketed as incredibly safe as so much safer than any other herbicide on the market you know some of the early sales people would say it's safe enough to drink safer than table salt that was a main push a main appeal for this herbicide but doubts about the science behind the safety of roundup surfaced soon after it was launched in the 1970s Monsanto used a company called industrial biotechnology US regulator the Environmental Protection Agency the EPA the lad was caught up in a fraud scandal it was found that this laboratory was was actually just doctoring a lot of the numbers just sort of cooking the books so to speak on the safety studies and our regulators in the u.s. went in and did an investigation and found out you know how fraudulent these studies actually were the EPA declared the lab results for roundup invalid along with hundreds of other products because of the flawed science behind the tests they weren't they weren't fraudulent results I think there were methods that were being used that weren't weren't in line with all of the other studies in the mid-1980s a new study prompted scientists from the APA to classify glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans Monsanto refused to accept the finding this went on and on until eventually in the 1919 90s the EPA decided to just go along with Monsanto and overrule its own toxicologist but it was very controversial and in the final decision in which EPA determined they would classify glyphosate as not likely to be carcinogenic some of their own scientists refused to sign off on that in 1991 another company used by Monsanto Kraven laboratories was caught falsifying test results for pesticides including roundup 15 people were fined or imprisoned what did Monsanto do to rectify what were found to be problematic testings we made sure the sound science was used we're a science company were a science-based company we believe in sound science and we're not going to use data that is improper or manipulated at all Monsanto has always claimed that it was a victim of fraud and that it had to spend many millions of dollars to redo these studies but it's been very difficult to ascertain what studies really were redone and what information the regulators have relied on [Music] sponsors make weeding easy with Roundup and nothing kills weeds better roundup extended control does two jobs at once later in the 1990s Monsanto's Roundup advertisements caught the attention of New York's then Attorney General Dennis backhoe the environmental concern was you know the broad advertising claims that Monsanto was advancing in those days that somehow the roundup product was entirely safe biodegradable you know safe for pets and children and you know less dangerous than table salt we knew otherwise frankly they were prohibited under federal law from making claims like that he found the ads were false and misleading Monsanto agreed to stop running them in the state of New York but not the rest of the country and ultimately it was the the fact that their advertising was so adverse to the regulations that they were required to follow under a federal law that really is what formed the basis of our claims that they were falsely advertising because they knew by virtue of their filings and registrations with the EPA they knew what the properties of roundup were they knew the dangers of roundup but yet they were trying to sell to consumers in New York and in other states a different story the Monsanto papers revealed company insiders were raising concerns about the potential risk of roundup for decades as early as 2003 Monsanto's lead toxicologist wrote an email stating you cannot say that roundup is not a carcinogen we've not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement when Monsanto's chief toxicologist says we can't say roundup does not cause cancer because we haven't done the testing on it there's no multiple interpretations of that that is their own toxicology saying yeah we actually haven't tested the formulated product so we can't say it doesn't cause cancer because they don't know Monsanto's crisis management went into overdrive in 2014 the company learned the World Health Organization's international Agency for research on cancer or IARC was going to assess glyphosate [Music] in an email Monsanto's leaf toxicologist wrote what we've long been concerned about has happened glyphosate is on for an IR CREB you Monsanto launched a PR campaign to denounce and discredit the review including a plan to orchestrate outcry internal documents that have come out through discovery in court have shown that Monsanto in advance prepared a PR campaign to counter what they were expecting would be a negative decision from IARC on glyphosate why if you're so confident in the product why did the company need to do that why did the company need to prepare to inform the public of the truth I I don't know if I really need to answer that Stephanie that's exactly what it is there was going to be a mischaracterization of a remarkable tool that needs to stay in farmers hands it was going to be besmirched in a fashion that was inappropriate and we're preparing to make sure the public understand understands the safety of glyphosate I think they're extremely valid reasons to do that yeah I do in a way that seems to imply that we did this on purpose that we were out to get one glyphosate or Monsanto and that's not the case we were there to follow iyx procedures to do is to do a fair assessment of what the scientific evidence was and that's what we did and so it's not it's not right to say that we've besmirched something we looked at the evidence and we came up with a conclusion that we thought fitted the evidence best Australian epidemiologist Lynn Frick she was one of the independent experts who sat on the IARC panel people can trust IARC because is a institution that has been doing this for a long time there are transparent procedures as to what the groups need to do the groups are the best people in the world on this area they have no conflicts of interest and they look at the literature that's available publicly that's peer-reviewed that's high-quality and come up with a decision after reviewing hundreds of scientific studies the IARC panel classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen Monsanto was furious the industry were very unhappy with the finding that the IR panel made and there were a lot of there was a lot of criticism and some of that criticism was quite personal and some of it was about IARC and the processes that I go through some of it was criticism at IARC itself that that the whole institution so it was quite surprising to me and quite overwhelming really the level of criticism that that was raised there's a lot of denial that there's that that there was anything wrong with with glyphosate at all to undermine the IARC decision Monsanto arranged for its staff to ghostwrite a scientific paper and a magazine article in support of glyphosate in one email a Monsanto executive wrote we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit and sign their names so to speak there was no ghost writing it was well why would you use this way it was an appropriate word it was short handing for what he did he provided access to archival material dr. Hayden Slater did minor editing to the work and that was reflected in the acknowledgement section of the paper it was a poor choice of language in the wake of the IARC decision governments around the world were forced to review where the glyphosate is safe here in Washington DC that task fell to the Environmental Protection Agency Monsanto set out to derail that process in league with the industry-funded lobby group CropLife [Music] based in the u.s. capital CropLife America is funded by agro chemical companies including Monsanto and now Bayer crop life is a trade association based here in Washington DC that represents the nation's crop protection companies we work with the US government with the Congress to advocate on behalf of our industry CropLife and Monsanto wanted to stop the EPA convening a panel of independent scientists to examine glyphosate to outwardly just say that CropLife has concerns about a scientific advisory panel being convened before anyone's been named is that excessive interference in the process by croplife I think that is zealous advocacy on behalf of our of our membership the EPA had invited veteran epidemiologist dr. Peter Infante to sit on the panel for 24 years he worked for the u.s. government assessing toxic substances I agree with the International Agency for research on cancer is review that concluded that there was evidence some evidence that glyphosate was associated with non-hodgkins lymphoma and people exposed to glyphosate CropLife lobbied to get him kicked off the panel and wrote to the EPA accusing dr. Infante of being biased Marino was shocked because you know I was told that you know there was this letter from croplife I responded it was not an issue and then you know and neither in November you know about a week or so after the presidential election I was informed that you know I was being removed from the panel how much of an influence do you think croplife Slater had on your removal well I think that's the reason I was removed certainly the Monsanto papers reveal the company also pushed to kill off an earlier assessment of glyphosate by the US Health Department they wanted to take a look at the toxicity of glyphosate Monsanto did not want that to happen and you can see in the documents that they reach out to the EPA and ask for their help in making this review from the separate agency go away they reached out to very high level officials at EPA and they got exactly what they asked for this this review went away the API is inspector general is now investigating the agency for possible collusion with Monsanto certainly our scientists know people at the EPA they have to in order to have that dialogue to comply with their request to comply with their demand there's no there's no collusion that whatsoever in Los Angeles lawyer Brent Witness client list has grown rapidly since the landmark court case across the u.s. more than nine thousand people are suing claiming roundup caused their cancer if you go down in the history of the sort of really bad chemicals pesticides in u.s. society or even world society every single one of them has its origins in Monsanto we have the last 150 years whether it be DDT PCBs Agent Orange dioxin I mean Monsanto has been behind all of those Monsanto has effectively made a business out of poisoning people and getting away with it one of brent Witness clients is retired farmer John Barton he's got non-hodgkins lymphoma and believes it was caused by spraying roundup on his cotton farm in California I would spray that 500 gallon tank we would put five gallons of diluted roundup in that normally would spray that by noon we would eat lunch take a 30-minute lunch and then put another five gallons and spread another 500 gallons we would do that the weeks at a time so that's like the homeowner you know the little calendar get now that's like spraying a thousand of those a day that's the type of exposure I had there was a lot of times after I got done during the day my Levi's would be soaking wet my my boots would be wet my socks would be wet he believes Monsanto has known for decades roundup is dangerous I would like to see them to admit that they they had hidden this for a long time and that they realized it was not safe and that they should have warnings that let people make that you know decision for themselves whether they want to use the product or not for the last 20 or 30 years Monsanto has engaged in a systematic and deliberate campaign to attack any science that says their product is not safe and to attack any scientist that has the courage to say something they have a corporate culture that has zero interest in safety it has an only an interest in maintaining the ability of them to sell this product it is the safest herbicide that's ever been developed it has just an amazing amazing record of not just productivity and use but also the extent to which it has been examined and scrutinized and studied over over 40 years here in Australia the US Court battles over Monsanto's weed killer could have enormous implications for farmers like Peter mailer in Baga Bela I feel for the gentleman has had cancer I've had cancer myself nothing to do a glyphosate but the point being here that that actually like the label or lay the blame at one particular compound in the whole environment is quite a stretch in my view in Canberra farmers are getting together to talk about what it means for the industry so you know that glyphosate has been in the news this week it's been something that we've been exploring in some of our communities have been meeting it seems to be as a result of the IARC decision in the and the subsequent Californian Court decision jury decision as we all know Brazil did Institute a ban but that has now been lifted the chief concern at this horticultural council meeting is losing access to glyphosate we need your reactions to two responses and whilst there is a huge amount of work being done to find ways to do things without chemicals the reality is until we get to that point we still need to have access to chemistry the industry's peak body says it would be difficult for farmers to live without it it's so critical such a critical part of our cropping system at the moment that particularly any of the alternatives that we would have at the moment would not only be much more expensive but they would be considered more higher up the scale in terms of any hazards that it might might actually have despite the US court case and the IARC finding the regulator the Australian pesticides and veterinary medicines authority the APVMA hasn't formally reviewed glyphosate in more than two decades we looked at the I report and had an extensive scientific evaluation of the arc report and we concluded that there was no reason for us to be changing our regulatory position on glyphosate and that glyphosate remains safe to use in the Australian environment [Music] questions have been raised about the AP VMAs independence as most of its funding comes from the industry it regulates that's the system that's in place to ensure that industry pays for the privilege of participating in the Australian market they pay so we can regulate their chemicals how can the public expect that you're seriously police these products when you directly benefit from the sale of these products you seem to have a financial interest in keeping these products on the shelves no we don't have a financial interest you know our interest is ensuring that the products in the marketplace work and are safe and I think our track record over the years and our track record since I've been in charge of the organisation suggests that we take that particular responsibility extremely seriously if the industry is paying for a service they're presuming that they will get a service and it's it's possible that the service then but although the government agency sees themselves as a service of to industry instead of seeing themselves as a protection for the Australian people Cancer Council Australia wants the government to support an independent review of glyphosate so given the time frame since the last formal review we would certainly think it would be appropriate for Australia to do its own review of this literature and to be able to inform the Australian public appropriately about what the conclusions are of that we would though need to make sure that that review was fully independent in Canberra the industry's interests are pushed by the Australian arm of the Bobbe group CropLife it's the national peak industry body we're funded by member companies the companies that are the manufacturers that developers the researchers and the registrants for the crop protection products on the market political disclosure records show in the past three years CropLife has contributed more than 140,000 dollars to political parties nearly 83,000 dollars to the National Party of Australia and more than 55,000 dollars to the Australian Labor Party we don't make political donations we do participate in some events with political parties so we won't make just donations to political parties we're an apolitical organization but we do participate and and support any conferences or events where agriculture will be talked about we would suggest that no political party should be taking donations from any industry particularly industries that may be the subject of regulatory environments and that that is real cause for concern in the Australian context CropLife says it doesn't make political donations it just makes contributions to inform politicians is there a difference no there's not a difference there they're paying to have influence and we're seeing this across a whole range of industries and we fundamentally believe that the policy table should not be the subject of Industry interference in 2014 CropLife claimed credit when federal parliament removed the requirement for chemicals like glyphosate to be regularly reproved in its annual report CropLife boasted in what was a momentous achievement crop life's vigorous and targeted advocacy campaign resulted in passage of this bill I think a important role for the entire community in any industry and any community group to ensure that when parliamentarians are making decisions they're making decisions on fact and that they get a wealth of information about what they're making a decision on more than 500 glyphosate products are used in Australia today [Music] there are no moves to restrict its use or enforce tougher warnings but real questions are being raised about the chemical the company behind it and how its regulated living users to ask who do you trust [Music] if there's a problem with the product I wanna know because I use it I'm looking at the science I'm looking at the evidence I'm looking at the regulator who I happen to trust and say I'm still very comfortable that this is a product that we should be using because on balance it's delivering a whole bunch of benefits to the farming system and to the environment we operating you're seeing France talk about banning that you're seeing Germany talk about banning it you're seeing questions raised about the safety of this product all over the world and I think we're only going to see more questions as we go forward [Music] I think governments probably got to get up and have a real inquiry into this particular particular product let us show the world that we are leaders when it comes to actually growing crops and being responsible trusts Monsanto we're not a bloody liar [Music]

Channel: ABC News In-depth

Views: 1,201,897

Rating: 4.758667 out of 5

Keywords: Monsanto, monsanto roundup, the monsanto papers, Four Corners, Roundup, weed killer, glyphosate, Cancer Council Australia, cancer, agrochemical, agriculture, farming, herbicide, monsanto gmo, gmo, monsanto cancer, chemical, roundup chemical

Id: JszHrMZ7dx4

Length: 41min 58sec (2518 seconds)

Published: Mon Oct 08 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/roboguy88]

These comments are fucking weird. One of the only topics I’ve seen where you can have an opinion one way or the other and still get upvoted.

[u/dannythecarwiper]

Wow these comments are interesting. Don't know what the takeaway should be other than anti-Monsanto comments are heavily downvoted

[u/SolidusDolphin]

Monsanto is bad and all but what will forever make me laugh is the accounting fraud they committed in 2009 (fact check me with the year) due to low sales of Roundup. Fucking. Low. Sales. Of. Roundup. And also a lot of rebates. So yeah, oh and nobody got punished for it at all too as usual. Big laughs Monsanto.

[u/garrettbook]

" In terms of short-term exposure, glyphosate is less toxic than table salt. However, it’s chronic, or long-term, exposure to glyphosate that’s causing the controversy.

Pesticides and herbicides are periodically re-evaluated for their safety and several studies have done so for glyphosate. For instance, in 2015, Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment suggested glyphosate was neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic.

But then came the IARC’s surprising classification. And the subsequent 2015 review by the European Food Safety Authority, that concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard, didn’t alleviate sceptics.

The key differences between the IARC’s and other reports revolve around the breadth of evidence considered, the weight of human studies, consideration of physiological plausibility and, most importantly, risk assessment. The IARC did not take into account the extent of exposure to glyphosate to establish its association with cancer, while the others did."

" The IARC evaluation included only six rat studies. In one study, cancer was seen but this wasn’t dose dependent (again suggesting random variation). They evaluated only two mouse studies, one of which was negative for cancer and that showed a statistically significant “trend” in males.

The IARC thus concluded there was sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but there was no consistency in tumour type (mouse vs rat) or location." Lmfao. What a study.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/09/if-you-accept-science-you-accept-roundup-does-not-cause-cancer-13490

[u/Sinkandfilter]

Lol this comment section got brigated. Normal people don’t get this upset defending herbicides. Y’all butt hurt.

[u/kaymkigl]

Monsanto is, probably, the most evil corporation.

[u/friedricebaron]

Time to get off reddit. Holy shills

[u/ribbitcoin]

journalist and author Carey Gillam

It's not a documentary, it's industry propaganda

[u/DiscreteToots]

I'm flabbergasted by the amount of obvious bridgading and astroturfing here. Those of you who are taking part in it should be ashamed of yourselves. You're making the world a worse place.