This does not make for good reading.

[daveyp1970]

http://www.nationofchange.org/first-super-weeds-now-super-insects-thanks-monsanto-1338362046 

[Martinr]

There may be something interesting here but...it is the usual prejudiced, unbalanced rantings of the internet I fear. It starts by quoting from a report from undefined authors from an organisation with an unexplained or attributed 3 letter acronym. So they must be right!

Sorry, Davey, not getting at you but at the voluminous quantities of dodgy, pseudo scientific, content of the internet put out by people with axes to grind.

The real problem is that this quality of data blinds people to what real issues may be there.

[daveyp1970]

There may be something interesting here but...it is the usual prejudiced, unbalanced rantings of the internet I fear. It starts by quoting from a report from undefined authors from an organisation with an unexplained or attributed 3 letter acronym. So they must be right!

Sorry, Davey, not getting at you but at the voluminous quantities of dodgy, pseudo scientific, content of the internet put out by people with axes to grind.

The real problem is that this quality of data blinds people to what real issues may be there.

Mart that a fair point my friend and point taken.

[Ezeiza]

Pity only the companies' view reach the public (i. e. tobacco companies for decades) and lots of people are comfortable with this state of affairs.

[Martin Baxendale]

Martin, I believe this is from an American  environmental news website, and the NPR that the report is attributed to is the US National Public Radio, the equivalent of the BBC here, so they're quoting from an in-depth BBC-style (presumably fairly impartial) radio news report.

Both this article and the radio report they quote from are both pieces of journalism aimed at highlighting the emerging problems and bringing them to public attention in a form that the public can easily understand. It's not a scientific paper. And to call it dodgy and put out by people with an axe to grind is, I think, a bit much given the source. You make it sound like uninformed ravings from a blogger, when it's actually a serious attempt to address an important issue by, presumably, fairly responsible journalists working for the US National Public Radio.