PDA

View Full Version : Environment F*CK Monsanto and the GMO Industry.


teedubya
10-02-2012, 08:50 PM
After a nearly 10 month hiatus from CP... I present you with my latest tinfoil-conspiracy-kook bitch session.

---
A recent peer-reviewed study on the effects of routine exposure to "safe" levels of Monsanto's GM corn and the chemical herbicide Roundup have revealed that the two toxins are directly linked to causing cancerous tumors. Since this is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it is noted that nearly every female rat in the study also developed mammary cancer.

This study, which was published in the highly-reputable journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, showed how rats fed a diet containing Monsanto's NK603 Roundup-resistant GM corn, which is widely cultivated in the U.S. today, died much earlier than GM-free control rats. Even rats fed just GM corn that had not been treated with Roundup ended up developing multiple ghastly tumors, indicating that some component of GM corn itself, apart from Roundup, is responsible for causing cancer.

It's fundamentally challenging for "Real" science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence.

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Rat-Tumor-Monsanto-GMO-Cancer-Study-3-Wide.jpg

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/

Russia nows bans GMO corn. And in America, we can't even LABEL the GMO foods.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/13050-russia-bans-gmo-corn-over-cancer-fears-as-pressure-builds-on-monsanto

petegz28
10-02-2012, 08:55 PM
After a nearly 10 month hiatus from CP... I present you with my latest tinfoil-conspiracy-kook bitch session.

---
A recent peer-reviewed study on the effects of routine exposure to "safe" levels of Monsanto's GM corn and the chemical herbicide Roundup have revealed that the two toxins are directly linked to causing cancerous tumors. Since this is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it is noted that nearly every female rat in the study also developed mammary cancer.

This study, which was published in the highly-reputable journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, showed how rats fed a diet containing Monsanto's NK603 Roundup-resistant GM corn, which is widely cultivated in the U.S. today, died much earlier than GM-free control rats. Even rats fed just GM corn that had not been treated with Roundup ended up developing multiple ghastly tumors, indicating that some component of GM corn itself, apart from Roundup, is responsible for causing cancer.

It's fundamentally challenging for "Real" science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence.

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Rat-Tumor-Monsanto-GMO-Cancer-Study-3-Wide.jpg

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/

Russia nows bans GMO corn. And in America, we can't even LABEL the GMO foods.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/13050-russia-bans-gmo-corn-over-cancer-fears-as-pressure-builds-on-monsanto

It's ironic we have to put the igredients and such on all of our food lables but we can't label GMO.

displacedinMN
10-02-2012, 08:58 PM
Roundup will not be used forever.

Already on its way out for some.

teedubya
10-02-2012, 09:01 PM
It's ironic we have to put the igredients and such on all of our food lables but we can't label GMO.


It's not that ironic. Not when this shit happens.

Obama Puts Monsanto Lobbyist In Charge Of Food Safety
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=210835

BIG_DADDY
10-02-2012, 09:22 PM
People don't give a rats ass about this. Here at CP you are a paranoid hippie if you don't take in your toxins like a man.

qabbaan
10-02-2012, 09:23 PM
Since this happened to every rat in this study, it must happen to every human who eats corn right?

BIG_DADDY
10-02-2012, 09:38 PM
Since this happened to every rat in this study, it must happen to every human who eats corn right?

Just eat your GMO foods and STFU already.

Fish
10-02-2012, 09:41 PM
GM foods are perfectly fine. Including herbicide into GM foods is not fine at all. It's sad that so many people can't make the distinction, and blur the issue with stuff like this.

GM foods have actually saved millions of lives in the grand scheme of things. But "GM foods" or "GM Corn" covers a huge diversity of products some good some bad, which is never pointed out by these "Studies". "GM Foods" does not mean radioactive mutation type of things like many people think, and many articles would lead you to believe.

Monsanto is certainly an evil corporation for many corporation reasons, but the overwhelming majority of the GM foods they provide are perfectly safe for human consumption.

Herbicide modified corn is very likely bad. But that's not an accurate representation of GM Foods or the GM Industry. Currently just about every single local supermarket uses perfectly safe GM Foods. Including such particulars as Whole Foods (http://www.prwatch.org/spin/2011/01/9903/whole-foods-market-caves-monsanto)..

Don't hate the overwhelmingly positive value of GM Foods as a whole because of an individual shitty strain. Hate Monsanto, but don't hate GM Foods.

Ebolapox
10-02-2012, 09:48 PM
tragically flawed study. the animal model they use are prone to tumors REGARDLESS of what they are fed--but, believe what you want to. you will regardless of what is said. just do me a favor and get teller's autograph for me, eh?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/

J Diddy
10-02-2012, 10:03 PM
People don't give a rats ass about this. Here at CP you are a paranoid hippie if you don't take in your toxins like a man.

Some actual solid scientific studies could go a long way in getting people to accept some truth. Here's an idea, control the experiment group significantly better and some of these confounding variables will go away.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 10:28 PM
GM foods are perfectly fine. Including herbicide into GM foods is not fine at all. It's sad that so many people can't make the distinction, and blur the issue with stuff like this.

GM foods have actually saved millions of lives in the grand scheme of things. But "GM foods" or "GM Corn" covers a huge diversity of products some good some bad, which is never pointed out by these "Studies". "GM Foods" does not mean radioactive mutation type of things like many people think, and many articles would lead you to believe.

Monsanto is certainly an evil corporation for many corporation reasons, but the overwhelming majority of the GM foods they provide are perfectly safe for human consumption.

Herbicide modified corn is very likely bad. But that's not an accurate representation of GM Foods or the GM Industry. Currently just about every single local supermarket uses perfectly safe GM Foods. Including such particulars as Whole Foods (http://www.prwatch.org/spin/2011/01/9903/whole-foods-market-caves-monsanto)..

Don't hate the overwhelmingly positive value of GM Foods as a whole because of an individual shitty strain. Hate Monsanto, but don't hate GM Foods.

All we ask is for it to be labeled, then those that don't mind eating something not naturally found can have at it and those that don't won't.

teedubya
10-02-2012, 10:41 PM
In the video, they stated that the rats that got the GMO food without the herbicide got a slightly lower percentage of cancer... What's worse, 7 bullets shot into your body or 5 bullets? lol

In theory, GM without Herbicide, could be better... the problem still remains that Monsanto spends millions of dollars lobbying for there be NO labeling of these products... I want to know how shitty, the shitty food is that I'm eating.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/49754679" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/49754679">gmfoodvid</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user9875492">Sustainable Food Trust</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 10:43 PM
Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators

Friday, 28 September 2012 21:34

Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators
John Vidal
The Guardian, 28 September 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer

*Trial suggesting a GM maize strain causes cancer has attracted a torrent of abuse, but it cannot be swept under the carpet

Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at Caen university in France, knows how to inflame the GM industry and its friends. For seven years he and his team have questioned the safety standards applied to varieties of GM maize and tried to re-analyse industry-funded studies presented to governments.

The GM industry has traditionally reacted furiously and personally. Séralini has been widely insulted and smeared and last year, in some desperation, he sued Marc Fellous, president of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology, for defamation, and won (although he was only awarded a nominal €1 in damages).

But last week, Seralini brought the whole scientific and corporate establishment crashing down on his head. In a peer-reviewed US journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, he reported the results of a €3.2m study. Fed a diet of Monsanto's Roundup-tolerant GM maize NK603 for two years, or exposed to Roundup over the same period, rats developed higher levels of cancers and died earlier than controls. Séralini suggested that the results could be explained by the endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, and overexpression of the transgene in the GMO.

This was scientific dynamite. It was the first time that maize containing these specific genes had been tested on rats over two years - nearly their full lifespan - as opposed to the 90-day trials demanded by regulators. Around a dozen long-term studies of different GM crops have failed to find similar effects. Séralini's study also looked at the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide when fed directly to rats.

If the study stood up, then the consistent arguments of the industry that its GM maize is safe might be fatally undermined, with immense political, financial and social consequences.

But barely had the paper surfaced than it was attracting heavyweight academic criticism.

Commentators variously claimed the study to be "biased", "poorly performed", "bogus", "fraudulent", "sub-standard", "sloppy agenda-based science", "inadequate", and "unsatisfactory". Séralini was said to have "sought harm" for the rats, the experiment was dismissed as "inhumane" and the research group was called "partisan". France was outed as "the most anti-science country in anti-science Europe" and vociferous GM supporters such as Mark Lynas urged people to sign a petition demanding full disclosure of the data (only a few hundred have).

Meanwhile, GM opponents were said to be the "climate skeptics of the left", Séralini and his scientists were labelled "crafty activists" and "anti-science" and the group that funded the study was accused of "polluting science communication" by asking for an embargo on the paper.

Séralini and the other authors of the study responded that they were surprised at the "violence" of their critics.

But it was a triumph for the scientific and corporate establishment which has used similar tactics to crush other scientists like Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Institute in Scotland, who was sacked after his research suggested GM potatoes damaged the stomach lining and immune system of rats, and David Quist and Ignacio Chapela, who studied the flow of genes from illegally planted GM maize to Mexican wild maize. But now that the dust is settling, let's look at some of the criticisms and Seralini's responses.

"This is not an innocent scientific publication. The study was designed to produce exactly what was observed," said Dr Bruce Chassy, professor emeritus of food science at the University of Illinois, who has worked as a consultant for GM companies and has been a member of the US Food and Drug Administration's Food Advisory Council which is fully behind GM.

"This study appears to be without scientific merit," said Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the International Biotechnology Program at the University of California/Davis, which has close links to Monsanto and other GM companies.

"Although this paper has been published in a peer–reviewed journal with an [Impact Factor] of about 3, there are anomalies throughout the paper that normally should have been corrected or resolved through the peer-review process," said Maurice Moloney, InsChief Executive of Rothamsted Research.

"The control group is inadequate to make any deduction," said Anthony Trewavas, prominent champion of GM food and a former member of the governing council of Britain's leading plant biotech research organisation, the John Innes Centre.

"We have to ask whether a diet with this level of maize is normal for rats. Another control with an alternative diet should have been included," said Dr Wendy Harwood, senior scientist at the John Innes Centre.

Monsanto was dismissive: "This study does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research, the findings are not supported by the data presented, and the conclusions are not relevant for the purpose of safety assessment."

Here are the criticisms in a nutshell and Séralini's responses:

1. The French researchers were accused of using the Sprague Dawley rat strain which is said to be prone to developing cancers. In response Séralini and his team say these are the same rats as used by Monsanto in the 90-day trials which it used to get authorisation for its maize. This strain of rat has been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and their results have long been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products.

2. The sample size of rats was said to be too small. Séralini responded that six is the OECD recommended protocol for GM food safety toxicology studies and he had based his study on the toxicity part of OECD protocol no. 453. This states that for a cancer trial you need a minimum of 50 animals of each sex per test group but for a toxicity trial a minimum of 10 per sex suffices. Monsanto used 20 rats of each sex per group in its feeding trials but only analysed 10, the same number as Séralini.

3. No data was given about the rats' food intake. Seralini says the rats were allowed to eat as much food as they liked.

4. Séralini has not released the raw data from the trial. In response he says he won't release it until the data underpinning Monsanto's authorisation of NK603 in Europe is also made public.

5. His funding was provided by an anti-biotechnology organisation whose scientific board Séralini heads. But he counters that almost all GM research is funded by corporates or by pro-biotech institutions.

So where does that leave the public?

Despite the concerns over Séralini's methodological flaws, it looks as though the study will not be swept under the carpet. It is the longest study done on this variety of maize and many argue that it must be taken seriously by regulators and governments. French health and safety authorities now plan to investigate NK603 and the study's findings and the European Food Safety Agency has said it will assess the research. Séralini is now demanding that all the data be assessed by an independent international committee, arguing that experts involved in the authorisation of the maize should not be involved.

Equally, the study reopens questions about the regulation of GM crops. There has long been concern that these foods have been evaluated poorly and that the companies have taken advantage of lax regulation. The GM industry, which keeps its own research secret, has resisted investigation or any change.

In fact, there is one irony that a few scientists have pointed out but who have been drowned out in the furore. Séralini's study was not so much about the dangers of GM technology, but the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide used on the crops. Here's Ottoline Leyser, associate director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge:

"Like most of the GM debate, this work has very little to do with GM. The authors of the paper do not suggest that the effects are caused by genetic modification. They describe effects of the roundup herbicide itself and effects that they attribute to the activity of the enzyme introduced into the roundup resistant maize. There is good evidence that introducing genes into crops using GM techniques results in fewer changes to the crops than introducing them using conventional breeding."

There are some rather obvious similarities between the sort of accusations made against scientists who have carried our research non-favourable to the GM industry and the behaviour so brilliantly outlined last week in the Observer by Ben Goldacre about how the pharmaceutical industry twists and distorts science for its ends, including the use of whispering campaigns and misinformation about individual scientists whose conclusions are not 'helpful' to the industry.

Of course one study does not prove anything and Seralini is not a wholly disinterested scientist, but it is very disturbing the way in which the GM industry has worked so hard to essentially hijack the scientific establishment - its hard to find a major lab now in agricultural science in any university which isn't partly or wholly dependent on industry money.

When we have a situation where even the most scientifically literate lay people find it difficult to come to any conclusions because of the manner in which the science is politicized and distorted, we have a huge problem. Its difficult to avoid the conclusion that this confusion is quite deliberate and works to the clear advantage of the GM industry. This is an old playbook from the days of Big Tobacco twisting and distorting science for its end, and carried on by the pharma and agriculture industries. Anti-GM activists don't help matters by distorting science for headlines themselves, but its hard to blame them when you see the giant imbalance of resources and money involved.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14245-study-linking-gm-maize-to-cancer-must-be-taken-seriously-by-regulators

Fish
10-02-2012, 10:51 PM
All we ask is for it to be labeled, then those that don't mind eating something not naturally found can have at it and those that don't won't.

Well it's interesting that you say that. Because Monsanto GM Foods go through the most labelization and federal regulation of any foods available. Ironically, they go through much more labeling and regulation than "Organic" labeled food by far.

And the truth of the matter, you have no fucking clue what you're eating. Or where it's been, or what it's been sprayed with or touched by. You rely 100% on a federal regulation system that you know absolutely nothing about. If you actually knew what had rubbed up against the food you eat, or crawled over, or shit on, you would probably vomit. But the regulation system you criticize prevents you from a large majority of the issues that would normally incur with the involvement of food processing.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 10:54 PM
Well it's interesting that you say that. Because Monsanto GM Foods go through the most labelization and federal regulation of any foods available. Ironically, they go through much more labeling and regulation than "Organic" labeled food by far.

And the truth of the matter, you have no ****ing clue what you're eating. Or where it's been, or what it's been sprayed with or touched by. You rely 100% on a federal regulation system that you know absolutely nothing about. If you actually knew what had rubbed up against the food you eat, or crawled over, or shit on, you would probably vomit. But the regulation system you criticize prevents you from a large majority of the issues that would normally incur with the involvement of food processing.

I'm not worried about the bugs, etc I want to know what has been Genetically tampered with. Should be fairly simple and then we can let the people cast their votes with their wallets. Those on the side of GMO are mostly wal martians.

Fish
10-02-2012, 10:58 PM
In the video, they stated that the rats that got the GMO food without the herbicide got a slightly lower percentage of cancer... What's worse, 7 bullets shot into your body or 5 bullets? lol

In theory, GM without Herbicide, could be better... the problem still remains that Monsanto spends millions of dollars lobbying for there be NO labeling of these products... I want to know how shitty, the shitty food is that I'm eating.



it was concluded that around 50% of the males and 70% of the females died prematurely as a result of eating only Roundup tolerant seed or drinking water with Roundup as approved levels set by the United States government. In comparison, only 30% of males and 20% of females died prematurely while consuming traditional alternatives.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/gmo-study-rats-fed-lifetime-of-gm-develop-mass-tumors-die-early/#ixzz28CzlN633

That's the actual wording. And this entire study has been questioned repeatedly about how many rat subjects were used, along with other experiment information. They haven't released any additional info, and that's brought quite a bit of criticism. Some say their control population was less than 10...

Experts not involved in the study were sceptical, with one accusing the French scientists of going on a "statistical fishing trip" and others describing its methods as well below standard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-study_n_1897361.html

Any additional info on test parameters or control testing?

Ebolapox
10-02-2012, 10:59 PM
I'm not worried about the bugs, etc I want to know what has been Genetically tampered with. Should be fairly simple and then we can let the people cast their votes with their wallets. Those on the side of GMO are mostly wal martians.

do you know what a gene really is? do you know what a promotor is? how about an enhancer? intron? exon? splicing site? adenine? guanine? thymine? purines? pyrimidines? the different types of polymerases?

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but there are certain times that your lack of knowledge of the basic levels of genetics absolutely astounds me. you cry from the rooftops about how they're out to get you, but you don't understand the basic biology of what you're complaining about. I know it's easy to wear a tin-foil hat, but do yourself and all of us a favor and gain a bit of knowledge on the subjects you try to deride--it's AMAZING how, with a bit of knowledge, 99% of the concerns you raise go right away because you aren't ignorant anymore.

Ebolapox
10-02-2012, 11:00 PM
That's the actual wording. And this entire study has been questioned repeatedly about how many rat subjects were used, along with other experiment information. They haven't released any additional info, and that's brought quite a bit of criticism. Some say their control population was less than 10...



Any additional info on test parameters or control testing?

dude, did you completely miss the link I posted? old news, man. old news.

Fish
10-02-2012, 11:02 PM
I'm not worried about the bugs, etc I want to know what has been Genetically tampered with. Should be fairly simple and then we can let the people cast their votes with their wallets. Those on the side of GMO are mostly wal martians.

Which shows that you have no idea what is actually harmful to mainstream food.

"Genetic tampering" is exactly the kind of ignorant buzzword term I'm talking about. You have no idea what it means to even cast a knowledgable vote.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 11:04 PM
do you know what a gene really is? do you know what a promotor is? how about an enhancer? intron? exon? splicing site? adenine? guanine? thymine? purines? pyrimidines? the different types of polymerases?

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but there are certain times that your lack of knowledge of the basic levels of genetics absolutely astounds me. you cry from the rooftops about how they're out to get you, but you don't understand the basic biology of what you're complaining about. I know it's easy to wear a tin-foil hat, but do yourself and all of us a favor and gain a bit of knowledge on the subjects you try to deride--it's AMAZING how, with a bit of knowledge, 99% of the concerns you raise go right away because you aren't ignorant anymore.

I find it repulsive that we have to create new types of food when the old ones are fine. Changing one gene can have greater affect than what we can measure. I know I don't want to be a guinea pig for these money hungry bastards who could honestly care less what impact they will have as long as the dollars are flowing.

Fish
10-02-2012, 11:04 PM
dude, did you completely miss the link I posted? old news, man. old news.

Sorry, you were correct the first time. I have no idea why I would try to make it any clear.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 11:06 PM
Which shows that you have no idea what is actually harmful to mainstream food.

"Genetic tampering" is exactly the kind of ignorant buzzword term I'm talking about. You have no idea what it means to even cast a knowledgable vote.

I forgot you still think we're evolving, the more we learn the less we know and quite frankly the dumber as a society we get. Yes I love the tech gadgets and some things I agree with, but we should be ever so careful about affecting changes that relate to our very existence.

Fish
10-02-2012, 11:07 PM
tragically flawed study. the animal model they use are prone to tumors REGARDLESS of what they are fed--but, believe what you want to. you will regardless of what is said. just do me a favor and get teller's autograph for me, eh?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/

Holy shit, forgive me for missing this earlier...

Notable..

I know that ad hominem attacks aren’t valid, but I can’t resist pointing out that Seralini’s co-author, Joel de Vendomois, is a homeopath, with a “Homeopathy and Acupuncture Diploma”, a double dose of quackery in a single degree. Seralini has also published a book about the supposed dangers of GMOs, and he and de Vendomois are the lead scientists at CRIIGEN, an organization devoted to lobbying against GMOs. Of course, even if Seralini and de Vendomois are bad scientists, and even if they have a strong bias, their paper isn’t necessarily wrong. It’s wrong simply because the science is wrong.

Let’s be clear about the science here. Genetic modification of foods is a powerful technology that can be incredibly beneficial. The recent development of salmon that can grow faster is an example: these salmon (developed by a company called AquaBounty) will make fish farming more efficient, and thereby help preserve the perilously endangered wild fish species in our oceans. On the other hand, GM technology can be used, as Monsanto has done, simply to allow farmers to use more pesticides, which doesn’t seem to benefit anyone other than the pesticide producers. It’s unfortunate that Monsanto’s behavior has been used as an excuse to give all GMOs a bad name.

Now we have a bad study done by anti-GMO scientists who have allowed their political agenda to trump their scientific judgment. What a mess.

Fucking exactly!

Fish
10-02-2012, 11:09 PM
I find it repulsive that we have to create new types of food when the old ones are fine. Changing one gene can have greater affect than what we can measure. I know I don't want to be a guinea pig for these money hungry bastards who could honestly care less what impact they will have as long as the dollars are flowing.

ORLY? What new types of food are we creating exactly?

Brock
10-02-2012, 11:10 PM
GMOs are a must for a variety of reasons. If you don't like it, start a garden, but the seeds you buy are most likely genetically modified too.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 11:13 PM
What exactly are GMOs and why should they be labeled?

(NaturalNews) GMOs (genetically modified organisms) were brought into the world by a chemical company, not an agriculture or food group. Monsanto created DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, marketed aspartame, and created bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to infect milking cows that put pus into commercial milk.

GMOs are created within the seeds of chosen parent crops in laboratories by "splicing" genes from completely unrelated species into those seeds. Normal plant hybrids are cultivated in soil over time by cross pollinating closely related plants.

So far, GMOs have invaded soy, corn, beets (for beet sugar), cotton, and alfalfa agriculture. Many GMO edibles are contained surreptitiously in a wide variety of processed foods, while GMO corn and soy are used by unnatural factory farm feed lots.

If you've been following NaturalNews for some time, you may recall several articles describing GMOs' inherent human and animal health hazards as well as crop and environmental dangers. If not, you'll find most of them here. (http://www.naturalnews.com/GMO.html)

GMOs damage crops, the environment, and the food chain
GMOs are often genetically created artificially to tolerate herbicides, made by Monsanto and others, that kill weeds. The herbicides contain glyphosates. Monsanto's Roundup weed killer is meant for Roundup Ready GMO crop seeds. It's an extremely toxic glyphosate agent.

Glyphosates greatly harm grazing animals and pollute the wells and groundwater of farm areas where they're used. (http://naturalsociety.com)

They create sterility and birth defects among animals and humans. Most of the honey bee die-off, or colony collapse, is attributed to glyphosates. If enough pollinating bees disappear, our food chain is endangered further.

Glophosate's chelating capabilities remove minerals from the soil where they're sprayed. So crops get increasingly worse while increasingly abundant Roundup resistant weeds, or super weeds, force farmers to add more toxic materials to Roundup.

It's a vicious cycle for farmers who, conned by greater production promises, unwittingly signed on to Monsanto Roundup Ready GMO binding seed contracts. Monsanto uses patent laws to litigate against farmers whose non-GMO fields are contaminated by GMO fields, forcing smaller farms out of business.

Most farmers fold because they cannot afford the litigation. American farmers are attempting to organize against mostly Monsanto's GMOs. European farmers have managed to resist thus far.

Why you should be concerned
Maybe the reasons summarized above are too abstract. So let's get personal. Contrary to mainstream media's (MSM) outlook, the jury is not out on GMOs. GMOs do destroy human and animal health while endangering non-GMO crops with contamination. That's been discovered by several scientists acting independently.

They jeopardize their careers and even their lives by communicating what they find while the MSM ignores them. Anti-GMO activist and author Jeffrey Smith lists the casualties and summarizes Monsanto's harassment here: (http://www.sott.net)

Agro-ecologist Don Lotter, Ph.D. released an inside scoop when he stated:

The promoter gene used ... [the] cauliflower mosaic virus, ... [was assumed to be] denatured in our digestive system, but it's not. It has been shown to promote the transfer of transgenes from GM foods to the bacteria within our digestive system, which are responsible for 80 percent of our immune system function.

Read Lotter's interview here: (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19468.cfm)

This from Wessex Natural Law research papers: The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV 35S) used for plant genetic engineering is cited as a source of viral recombination as well as a gene silencer and DNA disruptor.

Forget petitioning the government. It's so corrupted that one of Monsanto's most ruthless executives, Michael Taylor, now serves in the Obama administration as FDA chief adviser, or "Food Czar."

That's why our only chance is to help California succeed with Proposition 37. GMO labeling may spill over from California making it easier to boycott GMOs. (http://www.kcet.org)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lni6OAJz3sk&feature=player_profilepage

http://www.naturalnews.com/031825_GMOs_threat.html

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19468.cfm

http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

http://www.gene.ch/info4action/2000/Feb/msg00028.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/033804_Scientists_Under_Attack_GMOs.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037245_GMOs_labeling_GM_crops.html#ixzz28D4to3jl

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 11:15 PM
GMOs are a must for a variety of reasons. If you don't like it, start a garden, but the seeds you buy are most likely genetically modified too.

Or we could simply label it and everyone can make a choice.

Brock
10-02-2012, 11:17 PM
Or we could simply label it and everyone can make a choice.

I would be fine with that. I assume most vegetables I buy are genetically modified, and I really don't care. It's a better quality product.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 11:22 PM
I would be fine with that. I assume most vegetables I buy are genetically modified, and I really don't care. It's a better quality product.

I disagree, taste an organically grown tomato for instance and then taste a GM one...the Organic Tomato has a much better taste whereas the GM Tomato tastes like water. This says nothing about possible health Implications.

Fish
10-02-2012, 11:24 PM
Or we could simply label it and everyone can make a choice.

GM inclusion is so widespread and accepted that labeling, or more importantly separating GM and non GM at the processing location is pretty much impossible at this point. I don't know how else to tell you, but most everything you eat is GM in some way. High Fructose Corn Syrup.. the basis shit ingredient for pretty much every processed food these days? What kind of corn do you think would make up this product? This product known for its cheap price and availability?

Literally everything you eat is GM in some manner.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 11:29 PM
GM inclusion is so widespread and accepted that labeling, or more importantly separating GM and non GM at the processing location is pretty much impossible at this point. I don't know how else to tell you, but most everything you eat is GM in some way. High Fructose Corn Syrup.. the basis shit ingredient for pretty much every processed food these days? What kind of corn do you think would make up this product? This product known for its cheap price and availability?

Literally everything you eat is GM in some manner.

I avoid HFCS like the plague mainly because it makes my Asthma symptoms worse among many other reasons. There are certain buzzword ingredients I avoid like corn syrup, Aspartame, food coloring. You don't have to be a research scientist to avoid the simple ones...the staple crops however would be nice to know if they're GM..like Corn, Wheat, Potatoes..etc...

Fish
10-02-2012, 11:33 PM
I disagree, taste an organically grown tomato for instance and then taste a GM one...the Organic Tomato has a much better taste whereas the GM Tomato tastes like water. This says nothing about possible health Implications.

LMAO

The majority of "Organic" items came from GM included strains. They were simply grown in an organic manner. "Organic" doesn't always mean "Non-GM"... Most people think that's the case, but it isn't by any means.

You don't know and can't prove what you're eating. Surely nobody would lie to you for profit.... right?

Brock
10-02-2012, 11:38 PM
LMAO

The majority of "Organic" items came from GM included strains. They were simply grown in an organic manner. "Organic" doesn't always mean "Non-GM"... Most people think that's the case, but it isn't by any means.

You don't know and can't prove what you're eating. Surely nobody would lie to you for profit.... right?

That's all true. When you buy tomato plants, or seeds, they probably are genetically modified. Plants have been cross pollinated for hundreds of years. If Killer would just focus on the pesticides, which I agree are bad for you, he would be making more sense.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 11:40 PM
That's all true. When you buy tomato plants, or seeds, they probably are genetically modified. Plants have been cross pollinated for hundreds of years. If Killer would just focus on the pesticides, which I agree are bad for you, he would be making more sense.

The pesticides are definitely horrible but that's the known factor, creating new varieties with a gene gun is uncharted territory.

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 05:53 AM
I love these threads.

Saulbadguy
10-03-2012, 06:31 AM
Genetically modified foods aren't bad for you. This is a fact.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-03-2012, 06:42 AM
Genetically modified foods aren't bad for you. This is a fact.

Why they're better than grandma, I know you're not serious.

Saulbadguy
10-03-2012, 07:52 AM
Why they're better than grandma, I know you're not serious.

We are genetically superior to where we were 500 years ago.

Our food should be too.

Ebolapox
10-03-2012, 07:54 AM
I find it repulsive that we have to create new types of food when the old ones are fine. Changing one gene can have greater affect than what we can measure. I know I don't want to be a guinea pig for these money hungry bastards who could honestly care less what impact they will have as long as the dollars are flowing.

you continue to make large use of buzz-words, yet you haven't answered the question--do you know the basic biology/genetics behind this? your means of posting still reeks of paranoid ignorance.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-03-2012, 08:24 AM
you continue to make large use of buzz-words, yet you haven't answered the question--do you know the basic biology/genetics behind this? your means of posting still reeks of paranoid ignorance.

Yes.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-03-2012, 08:25 AM
We are genetically superior to where we were 500 years ago.

Our food should be too.

I just about spit water all over my screen, zingah!

Fish
10-03-2012, 08:26 AM
you continue to make large use of buzz-words, yet you haven't answered the question--do you know the basic biology/genetics behind this? your means of posting still reeks of paranoid ignorance.

Yes.

LMAO

patteeu
10-03-2012, 08:41 AM
I don't like corn all that much, but if I'm going to eat corn, I prefer GM corn because it tastes better and makes me a better lover.

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 08:42 AM
The pesticides are definitely horrible but that's the known factor, creating new varieties with a gene gun is uncharted territory.

Is this the end of life as we know it? Maybe we need an anti-gene gun

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 08:45 AM
The term "GM" is so broad that arguing against it as a whole is just silly.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-03-2012, 08:55 AM
Ok, so there is no point in arguing. All I ask is that GM foods are labeled, so us kooks don't have to partake in a new designer disease. Really simple since America is all about choice.

Fish
10-03-2012, 09:09 AM
Ok, so there is no point in arguing. All I ask is that GM foods are labeled, so us kooks don't have to partake in a new designer disease. Really simple since America is all about choice.

It comes down to the fact that labeling wouldn't really serve much of a purpose other than to quell the paranoia of people that don't understand what they're paranoid about. GM Foods are so widely used, and have been for many generations, we would be relabeling the majority of our food. There's no safety risk, and your personal piece of mind isn't worth the trouble it would take. What you're asking for would raise the price of food and cause all sorts of problems for producers.

And you still have a choice. You always have. Take those seeds from Granny's tomatoes that you're convinced are non GM, and grow your own. Control the genetics of your own food. That will guarantee you know what you're eating. Otherwise just accept that you're eating it and have been forever.

Buehler445
10-03-2012, 10:17 AM
Man, stupid is in the water around this place.

Here's the reality without getting into the semantics of this argument or that argument. The food producers are taking a fucking abusing over all this and some of it is justified, most is not. And they're coming after glyphosate? Are you fucking me? Glyphosate is incredibly safe. It is one of the safest chemicals we have. Dad has been running glyphosate for 35 years. The actual chemical, not what has been absorbed through the plant and into his corn that was fed to a cow that he ate. And back in the stone age, safety and material handling was terrible. If glyphosate was killing people, he'd have been dead years ago.

Monsanto sucks balls. But I'M the one they are fucking, not you guys. They get their profit from me, not convincing you guys to eat it. If you are pissed at anyone it should be FDA, it's their responsibility to keep food safe.

I'm done here and not coming back into this thread but I will leave you with this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lvcQDaR56xg/Trfc71LwF3I/AAAAAAAAQKs/KKi6Ng03gVU/s1600/corn.jpg

Widespread adoption of 2-4D (the first widespread chemical) and Anhydrous Amonia (Nitrogen) happened in the 40's (not led by Monsanto). I can't remember when hybridization came into corn (technically GMO), but I want to say it was in the 60's or early 70's. And gene splicing (BT and Roundup Ready corn) hit the market in 1995.

Pure Plow/Plant is completely unsustainable and absolutely destroys soil organic matter, not to mention the erodability, drought exposure, plow pan, nutrient/micronutrient deficiencies and weed issues. So if the degrading in yield from the early 1900's through the 1930s holds true, we would be looking at sub 20 yield numbers

You can say all you want about how bad the farming practices is are and blah blah blah, but realistically this country is assfucked from a nutrition standpoint without it. The corn crop last year was 14 B bushels on 155 bu/acre. If you want to go back to not using technology, that number is below 20 bu/acre giving you roughly 1.75 B bushel. That means we have to import corn (which will be GMO) and most of the animal agriculture is out of the country and good luck getting any other country to give you origin labels or whatever you want to happen here. So without all this "evil", you'd just end up with it anyway and pay markedly higher prices for it.

/rant

God why the fuck do I come into this place?

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 10:24 AM
Man, stupid is in the water around this place.

Here's the reality without getting into the semantics of this argument or that argument. The food producers are taking a ****ing abusing over all this and some of it is justified, most is not. And they're coming after glyphosate? Are you ****ing me? Glyphosate is incredibly safe. It is one of the safest chemicals we have. Dad has been running glyphosate for 35 years. The actual chemical, not what has been absorbed through the plant and into his corn that was fed to a cow that he ate. And back in the stone age, safety and material handling was terrible. If glyphosate was killing people, he'd have been dead years ago.

Monsanto sucks balls. But I'M the one they are ****ing, not you guys. They get their profit from me, not convincing you guys to eat it. If you are pissed at anyone it should be FDA, it's their responsibility to keep food safe.

I'm done here and not coming back into this thread but I will leave you with this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lvcQDaR56xg/Trfc71LwF3I/AAAAAAAAQKs/KKi6Ng03gVU/s1600/corn.jpg

Widespread adoption of 2-4D (the first widespread chemical) and Anhydrous Amonia (Nitrogen) happened in the 40's (not led by Monsanto). I can't remember when hybridization came into corn (technically GMO), but I want to say it was in the 60's or early 70's. And gene splicing (BT and Roundup Ready corn) hit the market in 1995.

Pure Plow/Plant is completely unsustainable and absolutely destroys soil organic matter, not to mention the erodability, drought exposure, plow pan, nutrient/micronutrient deficiencies and weed issues. So if the degrading in yield from the early 1900's through the 1930s holds true, we would be looking at sub 20 yield numbers

You can say all you want about how bad the farming practices is are and blah blah blah, but realistically this country is ass****ed from a nutrition standpoint without it. The corn crop last year was 14 B bushels on 155 bu/acre. If you want to go back to not using technology, that number is below 20 bu/acre giving you roughly 1.75 B bushel. That means we have to import corn (which will be GMO) and most of the animal agriculture is out of the country and good luck getting any other country to give you origin labels or whatever you want to happen here. So without all this "evil", you'd just end up with it anyway and pay markedly higher prices for it.

/rant

God why the **** do I come into this place?



Buehler. Do. Not. Try. Go break something in the shop and fix it, stay away from this. It is no use. To debate it is to fall into your doom.

King_Chief_Fan
10-03-2012, 10:26 AM
I don't think I trust data from someone who has their own agenda and uses mice that are bred to develop tumors if they are over fed...anything.

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Buehler445
10-03-2012, 10:37 AM
Buehler. Do. Not. Try. Go break something in the shop and fix it, stay away from this. It is no use. To debate it is to fall into your doom.

You're right. I have no idea why I even come into this godforsaken forum. This is my last post in this thread.

However, there is a push to try to get good pub out about the ag industry and try to head off ridiculous attacks like this one. After a moment to cool off, perhaps I shouldn't have been so condescending and negative in my post.

That being said, I would encourage anyone to come out and visit my farm. I would love to show people what I do and what the industry is like and visit (civilly) about these topics.

Let's not pretend that I'm not at all concerned about these topics, but some common sense is necessary in the discussion.

Anyone that has concerns, I would love to schedule a visit or talk privately (civilly) about these topics. I'm not an asshole. Just trying to do the best job I can.

King_Chief_Fan
10-03-2012, 10:46 AM
You're right. I have no idea why I even come into this godforsaken forum. This is my last post in this thread.

However, there is a push to try to get good pub out about the ag industry and try to head off ridiculous attacks like this one. After a moment to cool off, perhaps I shouldn't have been so condescending and negative in my post.

That being said, I would encourage anyone to come out and visit my farm. I would love to show people what I do and what the industry is like and visit (civilly) about these topics.

Let's not pretend that I'm not at all concerned about these topics, but some common sense is necessary in the discussion.

Anyone that has concerns, I would love to schedule a visit or talk privately (civilly) about these topics. I'm not an asshole. Just trying to do the best job I can.

good post....I love the commercials that Monsanto does for the American farmer...no matter how many times I see the commercials I have to stop and think...thank goodness farmers exist.

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 11:16 AM
In Buehlers defense and in his support, there is a crying need for the ag sector to do a better job of education of the non ag sector. If not for the benefit of consumers, but also to have people better understand some very complex issues that get all twisted and bent to fit an agenda that some group has.

The anti GMO crowd has done double backflips to create a doomsday scenario that is simply not going to happen and to create fears of things that people should not fear. They would have us do away with hybrid corn, crossbred hogs and cattle and return to the agriculture of approximately 1930 or before.

The hard part is that these people, like any group with a fairly extreme agenda, have no interest in learning or in listening to any POV that varies from their own.

Saulbadguy
10-03-2012, 11:18 AM
but but but..."frankenfood!!"

King_Chief_Fan
10-03-2012, 11:19 AM
In Buehlers defense and in his support, there is a crying need for the ag sector to do a better job of education of the non ag sector. If not for the benefit of consumers, but also to have people better understand some very complex issues that get all twisted and bent to fit an agenda that some group has.

The anti GMO crowd has done double backflips to create a doomsday scenario that is simply not going to happen and to create fears of things that people should not fear. They would have us do away with hybrid corn, crossbred hogs and cattle and return to the agriculture of approximately 1930 or before.

The hard part is that these people, like any group with a fairly extreme agenda, have no interest in learning or in listening to any POV that varies from their own.
excellent remarks

Donger
10-03-2012, 11:21 AM
LMAO

teedubya
10-03-2012, 12:38 PM
It's a valid enough study to get many european countries to start banning or labeling GMOS... all I want are labels on the food.

And fuck Monsanto. I want that company to die. The fucking HEAD of the FDA was the main Monsanto lobbyist.

Donger
10-03-2012, 12:40 PM
It's a valid enough study to get many european countries to start banning or labeling GMOS... all I want are labels on the food.

And **** Monsanto. I want that company to die. The ****ing HEAD of the FDA was the main Monsanto lobbyist.

Are you going to provide any updates on any of your predictions?

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 12:49 PM
It's a valid enough study to get many european countries to start banning or labeling GMOS... all I want are labels on the food.

And **** Monsanto. I want that company to die. The ****ing HEAD of the FDA was the main Monsanto lobbyist.

What food do you want labeled? Labeled for what exactly?

King_Chief_Fan
10-03-2012, 12:59 PM
It's a valid enough study to get many european countries to start banning or labeling GMOS... all I want are labels on the food.

And **** Monsanto. I want that company to die. The ****ing HEAD of the FDA was the main Monsanto lobbyist.

I'll take "what do organic farmers say" for 100 Alex

Saulbadguy
10-03-2012, 01:43 PM
Are you going to provide any updates on any of your predictions?

Shit is going to get crazy soon.

Fish
10-03-2012, 01:49 PM
It's a valid enough study to get many european countries to start banning or labeling GMOS... all I want are labels on the food.

And fuck Monsanto. I want that company to die. The fucking HEAD of the FDA was the main Monsanto lobbyist.

No, it really isn't a valid enough "Study" for anything. Well other than to promote fear and paranoia using scary pictures. Which is another aspect of the study that I find pretty disgusting. Why would you let your lab animals live so far past the point of developing the tumors? What's the purpose of not euthanizing the rats after it's clearly evident they had tumors? The only reason you let the rats live and the tumors to grow to such crazy size is if you want to use that for frightening motivation. Which is unethical and just plain shitty.

An obvious question is why Séralini would publish such obviously shoddy studies. The answer may be that negative headline stories laden with color pictures of rats with grotesque tumors are not easily forgotten even if the studies are fraudulent. Also, it may be hard for the non-expert to ignore the reported differences between control and experimental groups, and many non-experts will probably believe that where there is smoke, there is fire even if there are flaws in the experiment. But scientists understand that if the design, execution, or analysis of a study is fundamentally flawed, any conclusions are disqualified.

There is no question that the publication of Séralini’s latest attack on genetically engineered foods was a well-planned and cleverly orchestrated media event. The study was designed to produce exactly the false result that was observed and was deliberately allowed to continue until large, grotesque tumors developed. The conduct of the study, including the treatment of the animals, raises serious ethical concerns and questions of scientific misconduct.

J Diddy
10-03-2012, 02:09 PM
Genetically modified foods aren't bad for you. This is a fact.

While I can say with a certainty most are not, I would be dishonest if I said all genetically modified foods aren't bad for you.

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 02:11 PM
What genetically modified foods do you guys eat mostly?

J Diddy
10-03-2012, 02:13 PM
What genetically modified foods do you guys eat mostly?

Most likely corn and soybean

Dave Lane
10-03-2012, 02:21 PM
All we ask is for it to be labeled, then those that don't mind eating something not naturally found can have at it and those that don't won't.

You're one of those big government types wanting to control our freedom!! America love it or leave it and other hillbilly stereotypes.

Fish
10-03-2012, 02:25 PM
While I can say with a certainty most are not, I would be dishonest if I said all genetically modified foods aren't bad for you.

Care to clarify? Which ones do you feel are bad, and why?

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 02:31 PM
Most likely corn and soybean


I dont reckon I have ever met anyone who eats soybeans. Do we have a lot of people eating field corn?.

kstater
10-03-2012, 02:32 PM
I dont reckon I have ever met anyone who eats soybeans. Do we have a lot of people eating field corn?.

This is a joke post right?

J Diddy
10-03-2012, 02:34 PM
I dont reckon I have ever met anyone who eats soybeans. Do we have a lot of people eating field corn?.

Really?

Because genetically modified soybeans can't find their ways into filler or I don't know corn oil or soybean oil. Or how about high fructose corn syrup?

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 02:35 PM
This is a joke post right?

Not that I know of. Do you eat field corn and soybeans?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-03-2012, 02:36 PM
You're one of those big government types wanting to control our freedom!! America love it or leave it and other hillbilly stereotypes.

I'm for honest labeling, why hide something that is so good for you?

HonestChieffan
10-03-2012, 02:38 PM
Really?

Because genetically modified soybeans can't find their ways into filler or I don't know corn oil or soybean oil. Or how about high fructose corn syrup?

So, let me try to understand. You feel that somehow the fructose is altered and is somehow different than fructose from corn that is not roundup ready? And the soybean oil is somehow modified because the soybean plant is roundup resistant?

J Diddy
10-03-2012, 02:38 PM
Care to clarify? Which ones do you feel are bad, and why?

I don't have any concrete evidence or another. I probably should have worded it better, but there's somethings I'm leary of. Particularly animals. Just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean so. That being said I'm no chicken little and will reserve my judgement until some evidence comes out.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 02:58 PM
While I can say with a certainty most are not, I would be dishonest if I said all genetically modified foods aren't bad for you.

Is it also dishonest to say that all unmodified foods aren't bad for you?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-03-2012, 03:04 PM
I don't have any concrete evidence or another. I probably should have worded it better, but there's somethings I'm leary of. Particularly animals. Just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean so. That being said I'm no chicken little and will reserve my judgement until some evidence comes out.

Here have some glow in the dark bacon! Yummy!

Ebolapox
10-03-2012, 03:15 PM
Here have some glow in the dark bacon! Yummy!

you ate too many paint chips as a child, didn't you?

J Diddy
10-03-2012, 03:28 PM
So, let me try to understand. You feel that somehow the fructose is altered and is somehow different than fructose from corn that is not roundup ready? And the soybean oil is somehow modified because the soybean plant is roundup resistant?

not sure if serious

J Diddy
10-03-2012, 03:32 PM
Is it also dishonest to say that all unmodified foods aren't bad for you?

like I said my phrasing was off.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-06-2012, 02:08 AM
TV ad against food labeling initiative Proposition 37 is pulled


By Marc Lifsher

October 4, 2012, 3:25 p.m.

SACRAMENTO -- A television spot opposing Proposition 37, the genetically engineered food labeling initiative, was pulled briefly this week to better identify a think-tank researcher attacking the ballot issue.

The controversy came as the opponents of the ballot measure, with $35 million in contributions from the food industry and biochemical firms, expanded a week-old television advertising blitz.

Proposition 37 would require retailers and manufacturers of processed foods to label fresh produce or manufactured, packaged food that contain or likely could contain ingredients made from plants or animals whose DNA has been manipulated in a laboratory.

The first television ad featured a family farmer from the Central Valley saying the proposition would raise prices for consumers and put California agriculture at a competitive disadvantage with other states and countries.

The second No on 37 spot that began airing Tuesday featured an academic, identified on screen as “Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology.” He is standing in an ornately vaulted campus walkway.

Miller contended that the ballot measure “makes no sense at all” because it mandates that some foods be labeled while others are exempted by the proposed law. “It just gives an indication of the arbitrary and completely illogical nature of this ill conceived proposition,” Miller says.

Lawyers for the Proposition 37 campaign complained to Stanford’s general counsel, noting that the Stanford ID on the screen appeared to violate the university’s policy against use of the Stanford name by consultants.

What’s more, Miller is not a Stanford professor but, rather, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus, the letter said.

Stanford agreed. The university, spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said, “doesn’t take any positions on candidates or ballot measures, and we do not allow political filming on campus.” The filmmakers also are removing “the campus from the background of the video," she said.

The ad was taken down and is being edited to identify Miller as a "fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University," said No on 37 spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks. It is expected to go back on the air Thursday.

“Nothing is changing in the content or what he’s saying, Fairbanks stressed.

Stanford’s request to edit the Miller video "is proof positive of the lack of credibility and lack of integrity of the No on 37 campaign,” said Yes on 37 spokeswoman Stacy Malkan.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-anti-proposition-37-ad-pulled-20121004,0,1204815.story

KILLER_CLOWN
10-06-2012, 02:11 AM
Monsanto fails at attempt to explain away tumors caused by GM corn

Friday, October 05, 2012 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Monsanto's efforts to dismiss new evidence linking its genetically modified (GM) corn to tumors has been thoroughly debunked in a public briefing by the food sustainability nonprofit Earth Open Source.

"NK603 must be immediately withdrawn from the market and all GMOs must be subjected to long-term testing," the briefing concludes.

In a two-year study, a team of French researchers led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini found that rats fed Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group not fed GM corn. The rats fed a GM diet also developed tumors that appeared earlier and behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group.

The study found similar effects in rats exposed to Roundup herbicide at levels currently considered safe by most regulators.

"Roundup Ready" crops have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto's top-selling herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name Roundup. In the scientific literature, Roundup Ready corn is also known as NK603.

Monsanto's faulty defenses
Responding to the study, Monsanto claimed that the findings were not significant because tumor rates in the rats fed GM corn were "within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors." In other words, the company has claimed that the rats developed tumors simply because of their genetics, and that the tumor rates seen in the rats fed GM corn were similar to tumor rates in rats not fed GM corn in other studies.

In response to Monsanto's "tumor prone rats" argument, the briefing notes that while tumors did in fact occur in both groups of rats, they were both more common and more aggressive in the experimental group - and it is the difference between the two groups that is relevant for scientific study.

"This is a basic principle of science and it is worrying that attempts are being made by pro-GM lobbyists to override it in the interests of keeping the products of powerful multinational biotechnology companies on the market," the briefing reads.

The briefing also debunks Monsanto's "historical data" argument. First of all, the historical tumor data cited by Monsanto actually comes from a completely different strain of rats (Charles River Labs SD rats) than those used in the study (Harlan SD rats). In fact, the researchers did compare their findings to historical tumor rates in Harlan SD rats, and found that all their results remained statistically significant. For example, the rate of tumors in rats fed GM corn was three times higher than the historical average tumor rates for the same strain of rats.

The briefing further notes that the very idea of using "historical data" to dismiss statistically significant findings is shoddy science, and the technique is rejected by serious scientists. Any legitimate scientific study includes a control group that is tested at the same time as the experimental group, because this is the best way to actually control as many variables as possible and make sure any differences observed are due to the variable being tested (in this case, consumption of GM corn). Rats in other studies may have been fed different diets, been at different phases of their life cycles, been exposed to other environmental pollutants, had a different genetic background, or been exposed to any number of other potentially relevant factors.

"The use of historical control data is an unscientific strategy used by industry and some regulators to dismiss statistically significant findings of toxicity in ... studies intended to evaluate safety of pesticides, chemicals, and GMOs," the briefing notes.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037437_Monsanto_GM_corn_rat_tumors.html#ixzz28VLTulW5

Fish
10-06-2012, 08:36 AM
TV ad against food labeling initiative Proposition 37 is pulled


By Marc Lifsher

October 4, 2012, 3:25 p.m.

Miller contended that the ballot measure “makes no sense at all” because it mandates that some foods be labeled while others are exempted by the proposed law. “It just gives an indication of the arbitrary and completely illogical nature of this ill conceived proposition,” Miller says.

I don't care what school the guy goes to, he's exactly right...

Bill Parcells
10-06-2012, 08:41 AM
Do you know that drano (which most people keep under their sink) and other cleaning products are more dangerous (have higher levels of toxicity) than Round up. did you know that?

Studies find that stepping in dog shit can cause cancer also. Jesus Christ you are a fucking whiny bitch, Ari.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-06-2012, 09:32 AM
Do you know that drano (which most people keep under their sink) and other cleaning products are more dangerous (have higher levels of toxicity) than Round up. did you know that?

Studies find that stepping in dog shit can cause cancer also. Jesus Christ you are a ****ing whiny bitch, Ari.

I try not to sprinkle too much of that on my food though. Dog shit doesn't cause cancer, just a huge mess on your shoe and it too can be avoided if you don't have the Mr. Magoo eyes.

suzzer99
10-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Well if it makes you guys feel any better, I just got my California sample ballot:
http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt202/suzzer99/5510B127-AE8A-44A1-A5A3-B3C967462A6B-5382-0000069A6413E1C2.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
10-06-2012, 05:02 PM
Well if it makes you guys feel any better, I just got my California sample ballot:
http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt202/suzzer99/5510B127-AE8A-44A1-A5A3-B3C967462A6B-5382-0000069A6413E1C2.jpg

Only if it gets implemented.

Fish
12-02-2013, 02:18 PM
FYI.... as expected, this was all BS. This study has now been retracted by the publishers.....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer

KILLER_CLOWN
12-02-2013, 03:18 PM
Scientific journal unethically decides to retract Seralini's GMO study

(http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/)The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has caved under pressure from the biotech industry and agreed to retract Gilles-Eric Seralini's "controversial" experiment which showed that rats fed Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn developed tumors.

The study was controversial because it was the first to attempt to examine the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto's NK603 Roundup-tolerant corn. Previous experiments only covered periods of 90 days or less, which means that they were severely limited when you consider that corporations expect their customers to unquestioningly eat GMOs over their entire lifespan. Since the industry has been unable to produce any data refuting Seralini's results, they have instead been furiously working to discredit them. Monsanto's study only examined rats on a GMO diet for 90 days and dismissed signs of toxicity as "not biologically meaningful."

When the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommended approval of NK603 in 2009, they did so without conducting any independent testing and relied solely on Monsanto's data, who would profit the most from it, of course. After Seralini's study was published, the EFSA attacked it, saying that "it does not meet acceptable scientific standards."

However, as William Engdahl of RT.com notes, "EFSA argued that Seralini had used the wrong kind of rats, not enough rats and that the statistical analysis was inadequate. By these standards, all toxicity studies on glyphosate and GMOs should be retracted because they used the same type and approximate number of rats as those in the Seralini study."

Even if the study was flawed, just the fact that it was the first long-term study performed and that it observed disconcerting tumor growth correlating to GMO consumption warrants exercise of the precautionary principle and further independent testing, especially before blindly accepting safety tests from the very people who seek to make money off of its approval.

Despite being discredited, the study was still circulating and being cited by others, so, in May 2013, Elsevier, the journal's publisher, appointed former Monsanto employee and pro-GMO lobbyist Richard E. Goodman to the newly created position of "Associate Editor for Biotechnology."

So now, after Seralini's experiment went through a four-month review period and has been published for over a year, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has decided to retract the paper. This violates Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, which state that the only reasons for a journal to retract a paper are as follows:

• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error;

• Plagiarism or redundant publication;

• Unethical research.

Rather than meeting any of these criteria, Seralini's paper is being retracted due to its "inconclusiveness." This not only violates ethical guidelines but undermines the very foundation of science. Papers are not published to be conclusive but rather to provide new data and information for researchers to build upon in the future. This retraction slows the progress of science, ignores important safety information and puts all of our health at further risk.

http://buzz.naturalnews.com/001084-GMOs-Seralini-scientific_journal.html

Fish
12-02-2013, 03:31 PM
Scientific journal unethically decides to retract Seralini's GMO study

After Seralini's study was published, the EFSA attacked it, saying that "it does not meet acceptable scientific standards."

Despite the fact that you're using NaturalNews (LMAO) as your source, the above quote is all that matters. It's hardly "Attack" by saying it doesn't meet acceptable scientific standards.

The study was shoddy from the start.

"There is very little scientific credibility to this paper," said Martina Newell–McGloughlin, a plant biotechnologist at the University of California, Davis. "The flaws in the test are just incredible to me. To be totally honest with you, the type of statistical analysis they used is really a type of fishing expedition. One individual referred to it as 'fantasy statistics.'"

"You never, ever design an experiment to look for specific outcomes," she added. "If you're a real scientist, based on observations you find, you put forward hypotheses about how you are getting these types of outcomes. They do none of this."

KILLER_CLOWN
12-02-2013, 03:41 PM
Ratted out: Scientific journal bows to Monsanto over anti-GMO study

Rigid criteria exist for a serious scientific journal to accept a peer-reviewed paper and to publish it. As well there exist strict criteria by which such an article can be withdrawn after publication.

The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has apparently decided to violate those procedures, announcing it is retracting a long-term study on the toxic effects of Monsanto Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)—GMO Maize it published a year ago.

The bizarre reports come only six months after Elsevier created a special new position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology (i.e. GMO), and filled it with a former Monsanto employee who worked for the giant Monsanto front-organization, the International Life Sciences Institute, which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations. Sound like something wrong with this picture?

Some background

In its November, 2012 issue, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. It was a highly important study as it was the first and, astonishingly, still the only long-term study under controlled conditions of possible effects of a diet of GMO Maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide.

Seralini submitted his study results to the respected journal following a rigorous four-month review by scientific peers regarding methodology and such. Seralini’s group tested more than 200 rats of a diet of GMO corn over a period of a full two years at a cost of 3 million euro. The study was done in absolute secrecy to avoid industry pressure.

The publication created an atomic blast rocking the entire edifice of the GMO industry. Pictures of test rats with grotesque cancer tumors appeared in newspapers around the world.

Seralini’s group studied the effect of a Monsanto GMO maize diet on the rats for much longer than Monsanto had done in their study submitted to the EU European Food Safety Authority for approval. The group conducted its study for the full two-year average lifetime instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long-term span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared four to seven months into the study. In the industry's earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen, but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike.

It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.

The later study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a standard GMO diet study. They tested “also for the first time three doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.”

Their findings were more than alarming.

Mammary tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From the paper "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," published in Food and Chemical Toxicology

The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died two to three times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in three male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second-most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…”.
Monsanto on defensive

Monsanto and the related GMO industry immediately went on a war footing to control the potentially fatal damage from the Seralini study. Suddenly, with worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, the EU Commission and its EFSA was under fire as never in their history. How they reacted was worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder novel. They piously announced that they had passed the Seralini study on to their EFSA scientific panel for evaluation.

The Brussels EU scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under the gun from the damning results of the long-term Seralini study. EFSA had recommended approval of Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in 2009 without first conducting any independent testing. It admitted it had relied on“information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto).” EFSA also admitted that the Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days. Seralini’s group noted that the massive toxic effects and deaths of GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, one reason longer-term studied were obviously warranted.

EFSA concluded at the time of its initial Monsanto NK603 approval in 2009 that, “data provided [by Monsanto - author] are sufficient and do not raise a safety concern.” The Brussels body added, “The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize NK603 is as safe as conventional maize. Maize NK603 and derived products are unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health in the context of the intended uses.” Oops!

Now comes this guy Seralini and puts EFSA and the entire regulatory control process for GMO under grave doubt.

The EU Commission was on record stating that no independent non-GMO industry long-term studies were needed on animals to test their safety. The EU guidelines for testing stated, “Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US. Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart…In recent years, biotech companies have tested their transgenic products (maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market on several different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects have not yet been observed.”

The ‘up to 90 days’ is the key statement. Seralini’s study only observed serious tumors and other effects after 120 days in their two-year study.
EFSA cover-up

On November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in Brussels issued a press release with the following conclusion: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine [sic!] previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.” Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.”

EFSA argued that Seralini had used the wrong kind of rats, not enough rats and that the statistical analysis was inadequate. By these standards, all toxicity studies on glyphosate and GMOs should be retracted because they used the same type and approximate number of rats as those in the Séralini study.

Professor of the University of Caen, Gilles-Eric Seralini (2ndR), poses in a laboratory with his team in Caen. (AFP Photo / Charly Triballeau)

At the very minimum, the ‘precautionary principle’ in instances involving even the potential for grave damage to the human population would mandate that the EU Commission and its EFSA should order immediate further serious, independent long-term studies to prove or disprove the results of the Seralini tests. Refusal to re-examine its earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws might or might not have been in the Seralini study, suggested EFSA was trying to cover for the GMO agrichemical lobby at the very least.

Many members of the EFSA GMO review panel had documented ties to Monsanto and the GMO industry, a conflict of interest to put it mildly. Corporate Europe Observer, an independent EU corporate watchdog group noted about the EFSA response, “EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflicts of interest; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe's largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.”
New blood at Elsevier

While the official EFSA statement seemed to take pressure off Monsanto, it clearly was not enough so long as the Elsevier journal study could circulate and be cited around the world.

Then, out of the blue, in May 2013, six months after the Seralini study release, Elsevier announced that it had created a new position, ‘Associate Editor for Biotechnology’. The person they hired to fill it was Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who in addition was with the Monsanto pro-GMO lobby organization, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.

As one critical scientific website posed the obvious ethical sham of hiring Monsanto people to control GMO publications, “Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?”

Then on November 24, 2013, six months after Goodman took control of GMO issues at the Journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology reportedly decided to retract the study by the team of Professor Séralini.

The reasons for the extraordinary retraction a full year after publishing are in violation of the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member. According to the guidelines, the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are:

• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error;

• Plagiarism or redundant publication;

• Unethical research.

Séralini’s paper meets none of these criteria and Hayes admits as much. In his letter informing the professor of his decision, Hayes concedes that examination of Séralini’s raw data showed no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.

As Claire Robinson of GM Watch points out, "inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction. Numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with findings that can be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build on the findings and refine scientific understanding of any uncertainties.”

Elsevier, the publisher of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, is one of the giants in worldwide scientific publications. And they are apparently not so rigorous when it comes to making money over scientific principle.

In 2009, Elsevier invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers, Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the ‘Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine’ was simply a PR vehicle for the drug giant Merck.

http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

Fish
12-02-2013, 04:06 PM
Why are all your sources from NaturalNews or blogger sources?

The consensus on this study is pretty clear. Just Google GMO rat study and take a look. You'll find a great deal of info from some very reputable sources.

Read up:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/20/monsantos-gm-corn-and-cancer-in-rats-real-scientists-deeply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/

Sadly, we can have no confidence at all in results which do not perform these standard tests to exclude that chance element. Nor in studies that do not give us the information to allow us (well, not me, obviously, but someone who knows what they’re doing) to perform such tests independently. These tests are not performed ergo we can have no confidence in the results.

So let’s roundup (sorry, sorry) what we actually know about the science of this paper. The researchers took a strain of rat which is known to suffer from a specific type of tumour. Indeed, that’s what this strain of rat is for: to allow us to study these types of tumour and the effects of any treatment upon them. They then fed some rats on GM corn, fed others Roundup itself in the water and a small number were fed on non GM corn and fresh water. They then observed tumours of the type this rat is known to be subject to. So far so obvious.

Their claim is that the rats fed GM corn and Roundup got more such tumours earlier than the control group. The criticism of this finding is that the control group was simply too small to allow such an observation to be made with any certainty. And they have not conducted, or at least not presented, the standard statistical tests which would allow they or us to determine whether the results were the outcome of pure blind chance.

This may be many things but it isn’t good science: which is why the various scientists quoted above are so unimpressed.

Almost as an aside it’s amusing to note that the finding they do claim seems not to be dose dependent. Most odd for as Paracelsus pointed out centuries ago it is the dose which is the poison. We actually seem to see that the male rats fed more GM corn and more Roundup do better than those fed less. An extremely odd finding but one which could perhaps be explained by the fact that one of the authors is a homeopath. The smaller the dose the larger the effect sort of thing. Perhaps they banged the bottles of Roundup laced water on a horsehair cushion for a bit or something?

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science-academies-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/

An intensively promoted and controversial French study claiming to find high tumor rates and early mortality in rats fed genetically modified corn and “safe” levels of the herbicide Roundup has been dismissed in a rare joint statement from France’s six scientific academies. Here’s a link to the statement (in French). [*Here's an English translation.] Here’s an excerpt from coverage of the academies’ statement by Agence France-Presse:

“This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn,” they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped “spread fear among the public.” The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumors….

Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday.

The academies’ statement said: “Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans.” In withering terms, it dismissed the study as “a scientific non-event.” “Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies said.

HonestChieffan
12-02-2013, 05:04 PM
Loons. Cant help loons.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2013, 09:19 AM
105 Scientists Slam GMO-Rat-Study Retraction

Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post

What kind of hornet’s nest was opened up for the GM industry in view of the retraction of the two year "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize", by G E Séralini et al, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012, 50(11), 4221-31?

According to the article published December 5, 2013 in the Ecologist,

This arbitrary, groundless retraction of a published, thoroughly peer-reviewed paper is without precedent in the history of scientific publishing, and raises grave concerns over the integrity and impartiality of science. These concerns are heightened by a sequence of events surrounding the retraction:

the appointment of ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT
the retraction of another study finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs (which almost immediately appeared in another journal)
the failure to retract a paper published by Monsanto scientists in the same journal in 2004, for which a gross error has been identified. [1]

The first bulleted item apparently speaks volumes as to Monsanto’s tactics in gaining corporate-style control over many segments of society, commerce, and government. Shouldn’t someone question the revolving door policy Monsanto’s former chief lobbyist Michael Taylor [2] has enjoyed at federal agencies, and now as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods? Can that be why we have FDA-mandated “No GMO Labeling of Foods”?

Then there’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto employee – he was a company lawyer. [3] Does a corporate lawyer position warrant enough experience to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court?

The third bulleted item above ought to nail it down for everyone as to what’s really going on. It’s a shame what’s happening in science, the corporate world, and government during these trying times.



However, readers may recall that I wrote “GMOs: What Do the Stars Say Astrologically” back on August 2, 2013. Does astrology know more than we give it credit for?

Another publication, The Economist, also did a number on the apparent unethical retraction, and titled it tongue-in-cheek-like, “Smelling a rat.” [4]

Hopefully, the blatant shenanigans that go on in the name of vested interests to obfuscate serious scientific issues or prevail in control mechanisms that affect everyone’s well-being, e.g., the very food we eat, will turn the tide for consumers understanding GM issues, as it apparently has for those 105 very erudite and courageous scientists. Applause, applause, applause!

Notes:

[1] http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2187010/scientists_pledge_to_boycott_elsevier.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
[3] http://www.forwardprogressives.com/the-conflict-of-interest-between-justice-thomas-and-monsanto-should-concern-us-all/
[4] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21591159-study-suggested-gm-food-may-cause-cancer-has-been-retracted-smelling-rat

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/12/105-scientists-slam-gmo-rat-study.html

Cochise
12-07-2013, 09:24 AM
I heard Monsantos kill 500k people every year!

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2013, 10:49 AM
I heard Monsantos kill 500k people every year!

Far more than that cocheese.