A massive review of science literature has found no risks to humans or environment by GMOs

[acri1]

and people have every right to criticize Monsanto. Suing farmers for bullshyt patent infringements and owning virtual monopolies on certain seeds (soybeans).

This. People seem to be unable to distinguish between criticizing GMOs and criticizing companies that promote GMOs.

There's no evidence that GMOs themselves are harmful to consume. Criticisms of the business practices surrounding them seem to be pretty justified, however.

 

[88m3]

yo 88m3, go crawl back under that rock you came out of
You have no understanding of what you speak of, go back to sleep you idiot, you are nothing more than a pest.

Anyhow, moving on.....
I am not against science, but I am against secrecy and disallowing the consumer the choice.

secondly for the fools talking about feeding the poor, you can feed the poor without GMO.
Take Africa for example, they ship loads of food to Africa. Africans have to wait for that food to arrive.
They ship more food then they try to harvest IN Africa.

Change the approach first then let's talk GMO, but nothing much is being tried.

It's a conspiracy!




GMO can be grown in a lot of of environments that can't support other crops.
It could be mean food independence for a lot of nations.

Anyone who reads what you wrote that has half a brain is laughing at you.

 

[mbewane]

It's a conspiracy!




GMO can be grown in a lot of of environments that can't support other crops.
It could be mean food independence for a lot of nations.

Anyone who reads what you wrote that has half a brain is laughing at you.

Could but most probably won't, since Big Business (the ones like Monsanto behind GMos) holds patents.

GMOs have been around for a while now, where has it helped nations get to food independence?

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

fukk it

 

[Exit9NJturnpike]

gtfoh

 

[88m3]

Could but most probably won't, since Big Business (the ones like Monsanto behind GMos) holds patents.

GMOs have been around for a while now, where has it helped nations get to food independence?

Read Baphomet's statement.

Am I wrong?

Yeah, hell anything is possible, maybe Monsanto will kill off the majority of their customers, it's good business.
Just because they have a patent doesn't mean new companies wont come along.
If gmo can be grown in a lot of countries with a food shortages that can't support other crops at the expense of the government buying new seeds every year, and teaching people how to farm,I don't see how it could be bad.
I'm well aware of Monsanto and have read plenty of terrible things about them but having some alarmist defeatist attitude isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

[mbewane]

Read Baphomet's statement.

Am I wrong?

Yeah, hell anything is possible, maybe Monsanto will kill off the majority of their customers, it's good business.
Just because they have a patent doesn't mean new companies wont come along.
If gmo can be grown in a lot of countries with a food shortages that can't support other crops at the expense of the government buying new seeds every year, and teaching people how to farm,I don't see how it could be bad.
I'm well aware of Monsanto and have read plenty of terrible things about them but having some alarmist defeatist attitude isn't going to get us anywhere.

What, killing off people is good business now?

Again, I'll gladly read about any developping country reaching food independence thanks to GMOs.

 

[Brown Ant]

88m3 and Sensitive Blake Griffin are two of the most retarded posters on this site, and they're both white

 

[OsO]

There's no evidence that GMOs themselves are harmful to consume.

breh, it's morally irresponsible to introduce something into the public for mass consumption if its long term effects are unknown. period. thats incompetent leadership. the government's first obligation is to the safety and security of its people, and this violates that.

we have hundreds of thousands of years of evidence that food coming from the earth is the best for humans to consume, so to fukk with that is silly to me.

especially when you consider how GMOs are being mismanaged, as others have mentioned. GMOs arent being used to help people, they're being used to monopolize resources and generate profits. so we really have to start asking ourselves is this a good thing?

selective skeptics always amaze me.

 

[acri1]

breh, it's morally irresponsible to introduce something into the public for mass consumption if its long term effects are unknown. period. thats incompetent leadership. the government's first obligation is to the safety and security of its people, and this violates that.

If the "long-term effects are unknown"?

So we have to wait decades or centuries to implement any sort of new technology because you're paranoid? If we had things your way cellphones and computers would also be banned since we don't know the long-term effects of them. In LeyeT world we'd probably just now be deciding that microwaves are safe to use or that vaccines prevent diseases (though I'm sure that's a conspiracy too).

In a reasonable society we make reasonable and thorough efforts (such as safety trials) to make sure a technology is safe, and if it is, implement it. If later evidence to the contrary is found then you adjust policy accordingly. You don't need to wait decades everytime someone invents a new technology just because your paranoid about everything.

we have hundreds of thousands of years of evidence that food coming from the earth is the best for humans to consume, so to fukk with that is silly to me.

You can't be serious. "Food coming from the earth"? What does that even mean? Hundreds of thousands of years? You mean those hundreds of thousands of years where human life expectancy was far shorter than it is now?

 

[OsO]

If the "long-term effects are unknown"?

So we have to wait decades or centuries to implement any sort of new technology because you're paranoid? If we had things your way cellphones and computers would also be banned since we don't know the long-term effects of them. In LeyeT world we'd probably just now be deciding that microwaves are safe to use or that vaccines prevent diseases (though I'm sure that's a conspiracy too).

In a reasonable society we make reasonable and thorough efforts (such as safety trials) to make sure a technology is safe, and if it is, implement it. If later evidence to the contrary is found then you adjust policy accordingly. You don't need to wait decades everytime someone invents a new technology just because your paranoid about everything.



You can't be serious. "Food coming from the earth"? What does that even mean? Hundreds of thousands of years? You mean those hundreds of thousands of years where human life expectancy was far shorter than it is now?

1) EM radiation from anything electronic, but especially cpus and cell phones because of proximity to the body and duration of exposure, has already been shown to alter the behavior and function of human cells.

2) no, i dont think enough precautions are being taken in cases like this. you cant genetically modify food without modifying its effects on the human body. and what exactly are those effects? i'd say we need that information before we introduce it to 300 million people on a mass scale. to me thats just common sense if you care about people's health.

if they want to implement this shh then do more thorough scientific research. we should have scientists screaming from every corner of the world about the positive and/or normal effects of GM foods, but we dont... we have corporations largely in favor of it (for obvious reasons) and a huge amount of people around the world who are against it.

3) all this is really beside the point because we are not receiving the benefits from the risk we're taking with GMOs. we are supposed to be getting an economic benefit for taking this health risk, and thats not happening. we're taking all the risk because and receiving none of the benefit.

i cant believe i have to explain shyt like this.

 

[OsO]

You can't be serious. "Food coming from the earth"? What does that even mean? Hundreds of thousands of years? You mean those hundreds of thousands of years where human life expectancy was far shorter than it is now?

breh, for the last time life expectancy is not the sole indicator of human health. you could live from 0-99 years old solely on food from the earth with no problems, or did you not know that? there was good food before mcdonalds breh

 

[acri1]

1) EM radiation from anything electronic, but especially cpus and cell phones because of proximity to the body and duration of exposure, has already been shown to alter the behavior and function of human cells.

2) no, i dont think enough precautions are being taken in cases like this. you cant genetically modify food without modifying its effects on the human body. and what exactly are those effects? i'd say we need that information before we introduce it to 300 million people on a mass scale. to me thats just common sense if you care about people's health.

if they want to implement this shh then do more thorough scientific research. we should have scientists screaming from every corner of the world about the positive and/or normal effects of GM foods, but we dont... we have corporations largely in favor of it (for obvious reasons) and a huge amount of people around the world who are against it.

3) all this is really beside the point because we are not receiving the benefits from the risk we're taking with GMOs. we are supposed to be getting an economic benefit for taking this health risk, and thats not happening. we're taking all the risk because and receiving none of the benefit.

i cant believe i have to explain shyt like this.

1. So I suppose we should also ban CPUs, cellphones, and other electronic devices that emit radiation since we don't have "enough" proof that they're safe. After all, cellphones haven't been around that long. Who knows what the long-term effects are, right? Please get rid of yours first.

2. The thing is, NO amount of precautions or research would be good enough for you because you already decided you don't like GM foods. There already have been plenty of studies indicating that these foods are safe (look at the first post in this thread) but regardless you'll ignore them since you've already decided otherwise. Since obviously anything new/modern is bad and anything old is good.

3. No, the economic benefits are beside the point of this thread - we're talking about safety. That's like saying computers are bad because a computer company overcharges people for software. There are potential huge benefits (including increasing the food supply in some struggling areas), that's reason enough for us to explore the technology.

 

[Morph]

Monsanto doesn't allow it's own employees to eat GM!

The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.

Monsanto confirmed the position. "Yes, this is the case, and it is because we believe in choice,"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html



By the way, doesn't it creep anyone out that Monsanto is the largest client of BlackWater (private Mercenary Company implicated in the deaths of several Iraqi civilians, including the rape of underaged girls). IIRC, a wikileak cable exposed their relationship: Monsanto pays BlackWater to infiltrate and dismantle individuals and groups who oppose BioTech/AgriFarming.

Since when does an industry that's "good" for us require it's own private military?




I also find it hilarious how Coli liberals/democrats fiercely criticize big corporations tied to republicans (e.g.: finance/banking) but throw on the cape to Monsanto, which is a big corporation linked to the President himself. What exactly makes big banking evil and big agriculture good?

Spoiler

Led by Alessandro Nicolia, an applied biologist at the University of Perugia in Italy, the team collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took 12 months to complete.

it's amazing the amount of misinformation out there about GMOs.

So they didn't do any actual research, they just looked at the "Conclusion" part of other research papers and came up with their own conclusion. I would like to review the list of people who funded the research.

Also, why isn't this paper free? The longest ever running GMO research paper is freely available to the public.

There's no evidence that GMOs themselves are harmful to consume.

Longest-Running GMO Safety Study Finds Tumors in Rats

French scientists have revealed that rats fed on GMO corn sold by American firm Monsanto, suffered tumors and other complications including kidney and liver damage. When testing the firm’s top brand weed killer the rats showed similar symptoms.

Researchers from the University of Caen found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a seed variety made tolerant to amounts of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller – or given water mixed with the product, at levels permitted in the United States – died earlier than those on a standard diet.

The research conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues, said the rats suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The study was published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.

Fifty percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group, said the researchers.

In California, opponents of genetically engineered food are fighting to have it removed from the food supply. They are also pushing to pass Proposition 37, a law that would legally require genetically modified foods to be labeled as such. Monsanto stands opposed to such a proposal and has donated over $4.2 million to lobby against it.

HERE'S 4.2 MILLION DOLLARS: SHUT IT DOWN!!!!
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/gmo-corn-rat-tumor

Yeah, hell anything is possible, maybe Monsanto will kill off the majority of their customers, it's good business. Just because they have a patent doesn't mean new companies wont come along.

If they do, they will get away with it. The senate passed the Monsanto Protection Act in 2011 and in 2013. This act gives Monsanto

• immunity in court against civil suits and monetary compensations to GMO 'victims'
• strips the US federal government of its authority to halt the planting and sale of GMO product EVEN IN THE EVENT of a known or suspected health concern

If gmo can be grown in a lot of countries with a food shortages that can't support other crops at the expense of the government buying new seeds every year, and teaching people how to farm,I don't see how it could be bad.

Except these are empty promises by Monsanto. Monsanto wants to be the sole wholesaler of seed on earth, that's why they patent their seed to begin with. They're not concerned with teaching African farmers to sustain themselves. There's no money in that. Expecting Monsanto to do good acts on behalf of the people is like expecting dikk Cheney/Halliburton and the defense industry to bomb the shyt out of bring democracy to the Middle East for it's own good. It's like expecting the prison industrial complex to round up and imprison another 1 million black males for our own 'safety' and 'welfare'.

You think Monsanto is concerned with teaching south Indian farmers subsistence farming?

Nearly 300,000 Indian Farmers Have Committed Suicide Partly Due to the Introduction of Monsanto's GM Cotton Seed in 1995

NEW DELHI: A total of 290,740 farmers have committed suicide during 1995-2011 due to various reasons, including bankruptcy or sudden change in economic status and poverty, Parliament was informed today.

Indigenous cotton varieties can be intercropped with food crops. Bt-cotton can only be grown as a monoculture. Indigenous cotton is rain fed. Bt-cotton needs irrigation. Indigenous varieties are pest resistant. Bt-cotton, even though promoted as resistant to the bollworm, has created new pests, and to control these new pests, farmers are using 13 times more pesticides then they were using prior to introduction of Bt-cotton. And finally, Monsanto sells its GMO seeds on fraudulent claims of yields of 1500/kg/year when farmers harvest 300-400 kg/year on an average."

http://articles.economictimes.india...cy-or-sudden-change-change-in-economic-status
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/201212575935285501.html

 

[Morph]

If the "long-term effects are unknown"?

So we have to wait decades or centuries to implement any sort of new technology because you're paranoid? If we had things your way cellphones and computers would also be banned since we don't know the long-term effects of them. In a reasonable society we make reasonable and thorough efforts (such as safety trials) to make sure a technology is safe...You can't be serious. "Food coming from the earth"? What does that even mean? Hundreds of thousands of years? You mean those hundreds of thousands of years where human life expectancy was far shorter than it is now?

The longest GMO study concluded that GMOs greatly increase the risk of cancerous tumors as well as causing server kidney and liver damage.

Food coming from the earth is basically organic food that over the course of time, developed a natural immunity to bacteria, fungii, and pests. Your body, over the course of time, has developed a natural immunity to diseases as well. The thought of putting something that had its DNA altered into your body, to be absorbed by the stomach and enter the blood stream, and be carried directly into the lungs and brain...it's just kinda creepy breh...

secondly for the fools talking about feeding the poor, you can feed the poor without GMO.

Take Africa for example, they ship loads of food to Africa. Africans have to wait for that food to arrive.
They ship more food then they try to harvest IN Africa.

Change the approach first then let's talk GMO, but nothing much is being tried.

THIS. Africa has the most arable land anywhere on earth. African farmers don't need GM seeds. If Mormons were able to turn the Sonoran desert in Mexico into an agricultural haven 100 years ago without the help of GM, how come they can't do that on the edges of the Saharan desert? Monsanto doesn't give a shyt about self sustaining farming. And if they did, why do they program their seeds to kill themselves after 1 growing season? What is the reasoning behind selling sterile seeds to a person who doesn't have the resources to pay for them in the first place?

who paid for the study?

Who else?

Monsanto is deep in the scientific journal publication business.

Former Monsanto employee put in charge of GMO papers at journal

Just months after a study was published showing that two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and Roundup herbicide, damaged the health of rats, the journal that published the study appointed a former Monsanto scientist to decide which papers on GM foods and crops should be published, a new article reveals.


Monsanto and GM foods suffered a storm of bad publicity after a study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012 reported that a GM corn and Roundup caused organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death in rats.

But in early 2013 Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto researcher with close ties to the biotech industry, joined the senior editorial staff of FCT. Goodman was given the specially created position of associate editor for biotechnology.

http://earthopensource.org/index.ph...ployee-put-in-charge-of-gmo-papers-at-journal




Monsanto even publishes their own papers, check the footnote (#10) on page 19
http://media.cattlenetwork.com/documents/2013globalimpactstudyfinalreport.pdf

The authors acknowledge that funding towards the researching of this paper was provided by Monsanto.