Aspartame at our current exposure is not bad for you. This was the pseudoscience that I was talking about earlier. Yes some will be converted to harmful toxins such as methanol but it is the amount that is critically important and is overlooked by many. You will get plenty of methanol from eating an apple should we ban apples? No of course not because it is the level of exposure that is important.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210.htm
And to the comment that scientists are being bought by Monsanto is more BS. Monsanto is small fry compared to the oil industry lobby and even they can't get the worlds scientists to hide the fact that our use of fossil fuels is causing global warming but we are being asked to believe that Monsanto is able to bribe every scientist into producing evidence to suggest that it is not harmful? Come on!
Study after study is showing that GMOs are not harmful because they are not harmful not because some giant conspiracy.
Global warming is a cycle. Its not sped up or whatever they want to call it by fossil fuels.
Aspartame will turn into formaldehyde and is unstable above 80 something degrees. Its what cause thengilf war sickness back in then first gulf war. Many doctors will tell you the same thing and that's why people with migraines shouldn't drink aspartame. Let's nit even mention all the miriad of other health issues it causes. And the story of how it took three tries to get it approved I about there. I've found it a couple of times. It should never have been approved.
GMO is the same way. As I said before not all of it is bad, but they are playing with fire and there are some that's not good. One day the chimera we make will turn around and bite us.
Untrue. I know several girls below 100lb. Might be in general though.
Edit: And buying scientists is one of the hardest things you can do. Most scientist aren't in the job for the money, and they know that they get paid enough to live on for the truth. You can bribe one or two, but science gets done by what the majority says.
Scientists want funding for their work. And I can make any study look like I want based on what the pocket book says and it also goes hand in hand with interpretation sometimes and how studies are conducted. Its not a black and white endeavour.
We know what the genetic code does enough to use it right. And corn couldn't produce a live HIV virus because the virus isn't stable by any means. Most of the ones you'd get are junk, and it would take systems the corn doesn't have. Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of those things. And individual genes won't make much difference as long as they don't break another one up, in which case it's almost 100% likely to kill whatever was modified, not make it dangerous to anything else. Most modifications to a cell will cause it to shut down or be killed by the other ones. I've heard of spider silk in goats, and I don't think it feasible. Mixing genes from plant to insect isn't any more different than mixing between two plants. A human is 33% daffodil for example, and insects are slightly moreso.
I've seen the spider silk in goats milk on video on the news. Chimera. Will bite back.
As long as people continue to reside and multiply prolifically in areas unable to support a large human population, more food will only lead to more people - a proportion of whom will always be doomed to starve. 
