It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Macabe
GMO are dangerous, plain and simple:
In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine stated that animal feeding studies on GMOs showed significant health disorders. They called on the US government to institute an immediate moratorium, and asked all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets in the meantime.
Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
Sheep don’t die from grazing on Bt Cotton
Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Research:
This is a difficult case to analyze because there is no real evidence. There are anecdotal claims made by sources that are opposed to GM crops. There are few scientific observations to explain why the sheep died. What we do know if that they appeared to die of pesticide poisoning and not from Bt exposure. Animals have been fed large amounts Bt in laboratory studies without any ill effects. One ray of sunshine is that use of Bt cotton should allow an 80-95 percent reduction in chemical pesticide application that will be safer for the farmers, their villages and their sheep. It is unreasonable for Jeffrey Smith to repeat such poorly documented cases.
1) Sheep died while grazing in cotton fields before Bt cotton. It is a fact that there are reports of sheep having died from grazing in Bt-cotton fields. These reports documented by Smith come from self-described anti-GM groups. These sources Smith cites for the most part only point fingers and ask for more investigation of the phenomenon. Unfortunately for poor farmers, sheep have been dying in fields long before Bt cotton was introduced and that they have died from grazing fields where Bt cotton was not grown. There are well-researched explanations for death of grazing sheep that do not involve Bt-cotton. Intoxication of sheep with plant derived chemicals such as cyanide, oxalate, or nitrate, or with forage contaminants such as pesticides or fungal toxins is moderately common (e.g. Mayland and others 1995, Wang and Provenza 1996).
2) The sheep appear to have died from acute toxicity. Veterinarians who examined some of the dead sheep said that they showed symptoms of exposure to a toxic agent (Smith says this).
3) Pesticide or nitrate poisoning are likely explanations. Veterinarians concluded the most likely cause was pesticide poisoning. They recognized pathological signs of acute toxicity. They could not rule out nitrate or gossypol (a natural toxic ingredient of cotton plants) as toxic agents. Other investigations showed that high nitrate levels in the cotton might explain the deaths (Karihaloo and Kumar 2009).
4) Bt has a long history of safe use and is non-toxic to mammals. Bt is completely non-toxic to animals and no veterinarian or toxicologist has suggested that Bt cotton is responsible for the deaths (Siegel 2001, Betz and others 2000, Whelon and Wingerd 2003)
5) Bt cotton is widespread and reports of problems are not. Half of the cotton grown in the world is Bt cotton. No similar reports have come from the over 10 million farmers who plant Bt-cotton (www.isaaa.org; Brookes and Barfoot, 2007). The dramatic reduction in pesticide application associated with adoption of Bt cotton may further reduce the widespread incidence of human and animal pesticide poisonings—a major benefit of insect protected crops is that they require little or no pesticides.
Summary: Mission Paris recommends that that the USG reinforce our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by publishing a retaliation list when the extend "Reasonable Time Period" expires.
Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France -- including within the farm union -- have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin to turn this issue in France.
Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory.
So all you did was take clips of it out of context. Nobody is deflecting. You've either never read the cable or you ignored 75% of it.
originally posted by: Sump3
Just to heat it up guys. In english gematria "Monsanto" equals 666.