It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A good article on gmo's

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

articles.mercola.com...


I am not a scientist and only have a grade 7 education but I was able to read the article and as I understood it, it explained that certain studies have shown GMO's to be very harmful to humans and animals. It also seems to say there is evidence some of the leading pro GMO scientists have made false claims and have improper research. I am hoping some people with scientific knowledge could verify what is being said a little better or disprove the article's claims.
edit on 12-3-2014 by Slickinfinity because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by Slickinfinity because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by Slickinfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The top one percent have their drones to protect them, and their automation to make what they need with few workers. We're just in the way now, they are trying to clean up the country.

The laws are also put into place with input from these people. No, you are not reading this wrong.

Just try to avoid the crap, if you eat a tiny bit it will not effect you too much, maybe it will actually give you more morgellan hair.
edit on 12-3-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Slickinfinity
 


You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

A good find slick,I had heard but just assumed there was good reason and bad science to blame for that retraction after many, including myself, sourced that study as evidence to the harm of ingesting gmos. There is still room for argument on the studies involved, but the fact that the report was retracted for no decent reason peaks my suspicion a bit. Then there is this bit:


This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor - one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Conflict o interest? Scientific shenanigans?


For example, kidney problems have been demonstrated in 19 differnt animal feeding studies, and kidney diseases are on the rise in the US. Could there be a connection? Smith and I both believe this to be the case.

I hope more studies are done and correlations may be established. There should be open, and unified and independent testing but who wants to pay for that? Not the industry or associated entities.

GMO Foods Have Never Been Proven Safe for Long-Term Consumption

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating: "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"

Despite this sound warning, genetically engineered foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are "the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen." What he doesn't tell you is that:

1) Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it's virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.

2) The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world's first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.

3) Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence, independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.

4) There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the genetically engineered item in question has been approved, not a single country on Earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

Interesting for sure and hopefully its is another step forward in determining what degree of danger gmo intake is for us.
edit on 12-3-2014 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Let's not forget the 'Good ol' Boy' game. Monsanto execs become government heads; government heads get hired by Monsanto when they leave office, and taxpayers continue to pay these people to poison us.

If they can't take the fight out of us by brainwashing, they'll do it by making us too sick to care what happens.



In 2009, in a classic revolving-door move, President Barack Obama appointed former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner for the FDA — the board tasked with regulating Taylor's own industry.



NAME MONSANTO JOB GOVERNMENT JOB ADMIN Toby Moffett Monsanto Consultant US Congessman D-CT Dennis DeConcini Monsanto Legal Counsel US Senator D-AZ Margaret Miller Chemical Lab Supervisor Dep. Dir. FDA, HFS Bush Sr, Clinton Marcia Hale Director, Int'l Govt. Affairs White House Senior Staff Clinton Mickey Kantor Board Member Sec. of Commerce Clinton Virginia Weldon VP, Public Policy WH-Appt to CSA, Gore's SDR Clinton Josh King Director, Int'l Govt. Affairs White House Communications Clinton David Beler VP, Gov't & Public Affairs Gore's Chief Dom. Polcy Advisor Clinton Carol Tucker-Foreman Monsanto Lobbyist WH-Appointed Consumer Adv Clinton Linda Fisher VP, Gov't & Public Affairs Deputy Admin EPA Clinton, Bush Lidia Watrud Manager, New Technologies USDA, EPA Clinton, Bush, Obama Michael Taylor VP, Public Policy Dep. Commiss. FDA Obama Hilary Clinton Rose Law Firm, Monsanto Counsel US Senator, Secretary of State D-NY Obama Roger Beachy Director, Monsanto Danforth Center Director USDA NIFA Obama Islam Siddiqui Monsanto Lobbyist Ag Negotiator Trade Rep Obama

edit on 4u1212America/Chicago311 by nugget1 because: (no reason given)


www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/ne
edit on 40000001212America/Chicago311 by nugget1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nugget1
 


I'm not too concerned about GMO (am I supposed to say GMOs, if O stands for organisms it seems off but whatever not directed at you nugget1) but I am against having someone with a clear conflict of interest after working in a certain field land a government job regulating that field. The flip side is also just as vexing to me.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   


4) There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the genetically engineered item in question has been approved, not a single country on Earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.


That is incredibly scary.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Slickinfinity


articles.mercola.com...


I am not a scientist and only have a grade 7 education but I was able to read the article and as I understood it, it explained that certain studies have shown GMO's to be very harmful to humans and animals. It also seems to say there is evidence some of the leading pro GMO scientists have made false claims and have improper research. I am hoping some people with scientific knowledge could verify what is being said a little better or disprove the article's claims.
edit on 12-3-2014 by Slickinfinity because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by Slickinfinity because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by Slickinfinity because: (no reason given)


Mercola sells "natural & organic" produce so will obviously be biased against anything GMO if only to promote his wares even more.
Here's an article which shows the other side of the coin as it's always important to see every side of an argument before making a decision.
www.geneticliteracyproject.org... uSo



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Even if GMO's are not as dangerous as I think they are and I acknowledge I have no academic background to make any scientific claims I still do not want a small group of MNC's to control our food supply. The control and monopolization of food imo will be worse then the holocaust.

Farmers in India really took it hard from GMO's because of greed and I truly believe every living human should have the right to nutritious food, not just those who can afford it.

In the near future if we can shake the shackles of greed and corruption then I would support science doing whatever it has to do to honestly provide clean food for the masses.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Slickinfinity
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Even if GMO's are not as dangerous as I think they are and I acknowledge I have no academic background to make any scientific claims I still do not want a small group of MNC's to control our food supply. The control and monopolization of food imo will be worse then the holocaust.

Farmers in India really took it hard from GMO's because of greed and I truly believe every living human should have the right to nutritious food, not just those who can afford it.

In the near future if we can shake the shackles of greed and corruption then I would support science doing whatever it has to do to honestly provide clean food for the masses.


I'm more than with you on the multi-national side of things.
I just don't like attacking the science to attack them though.

This is what can happen when you do that (and this tallies with your second sentence).
Greenpeace & Golden Rice




top topics



 
5

log in

join