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.

 

100 Billion animals. 30 Years. The Largest GMO Study. Ever.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Voyaging
This study was funded by the king of GMO"s himself. Why would you or anybody take this study seriously? It's equivalent to a study done claiming alcohol is healthy, but funded by major alcohol companies...


That's for sure.

Maybe some tobacco studies from the period 1950-1975 would be comical too. Or perhaps studies that showed lead added to gasoline was perfectly safe.

No wonder people don't trust science and academics at this point. This stuff is primarily funded by corporate marketing budgets.




posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
GMO is probably the most obvious conspiracy in human history and the most worrisome considering food is crucial to survival unlike most topics discussed on here.

When a company is determined to make sure that your seeds will work once and only once there's a problem. That's like if some company made a medicine that sterilized a woman unless given an antidote.

Even if there is no motivator past greed, it's frightening how concentrated the control of food production has become and they're not even done yet. Don't trust an industry that claims to be helping starving people get fed when they sell third world countries seeds designed to produce only one crop before more have to be purchased again.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

I always laugh a little when I see theses desperate, corporate funded studies come out. I suppose because it is a University study that we are all suppose to just relax and eat our GMO.

Common sense tells us that eating anything that produces its own pesticide or is designed to withstand even greater use of glyphosate probably shouldn't be eaten. And using animal models is just a cheap and sneaky way of doing business by corporations with an agenda.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

I don't think the "book" on GMO will ever be closed. Eventually we will modify something in a way that is not predicted /intended. Each GMO has to looked at separately, there should not, from a scientific approach ever be stated that ALL GMO are harmless, just like it shouldn't be stated that ALL GMOs are dangerous.

You need to test each one.

edit on 29-9-2014 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   


This is what scientific 'studies' have been reduced to.

You cannot claim accuracy and fair measures when your being funded by people with a vested interest in the study coming out a certain way.

Monsanto funded research into the effects of GMO's are not reliable, period.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Is study made by pro GMO scientist like when tabacco company's hired scientist to study and say ciggs have adverse effects on yr health



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: AlphaHawk

Too bad she has ties to Monsanto! Odd isn't it?


ALISON LOUISE VAN EENENNAAM

July 2000 PROJECT LEADER, Monsanto, Calgene Campus - June 2002 Davis, CA, U.S.A.
July 1998 RESEARCH SCIENTIST, Monsanto, Calgene Campus - June 2000 Davis, CA, U.S.A.


FDA



Good Find


I bet something is omitted from the "studies" to make them look credible.

Now what?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The only thing coming from these studies is just more studies and the passionate debate about them.

For me I just use common sense, and screw all the studies.

The only shocking thing to me about this particular study was the 100 billion animals used. How can any corporation boast a product that took 100 billion animals in an attempt to show safety?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: xuenchen

The only thing coming from these studies is just more studies and the passionate debate about them.

For me I just use common sense, and screw all the studies.

The only shocking thing to me about this particular study was the 100 billion animals used. How can any corporation boast a product that took 100 billion animals in an attempt to show safety?



That's a great point.

Probably one of the many ways they were able to fudge their data.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Or create the illusion that out that many nothing happened.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I wonder what they serve at the Monsanto cafeterias?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SlimBoom

I believe that somebody answered that question in a previews post a few months ago, the Monsanto give the choice to their employees to either eat food with GMO or organic foods.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: SlimBoom

I believe that somebody answered that question in a previews post a few months ago, the Monsanto give the choice to their employees to either eat food with GMO or organic foods.



If that is true that they have non GMO food in their cafeteria for their employes then that is screwed up. Giving the employes a choice when they oppose allowing consumers making a choice. If you cannot stand by the product then you should not work on it or profit from it.

www.monsanto.com...



Myth: Monsanto Only Serves Non-GMO and Organic Foods in Its Cafeterias Myth: Monsanto Only Serves Non-GMO and Organic Foods in Its Cafeteria. Fact: The food in our cafeterias is no different than what you’d find in most cafeterias, restaurants or supermarkets – some of it is from GM crops and some of it isn’t.

We don’t go out of our way to have either GM or non-GM food in our cafeteria, with the exception of occasional specialty meals that showcase food grown with our seeds. There is a belief that Monsanto won’t serve GM foods – or that we only serve organic food – in our cafeterias. It’s entirely untrue. Our cafeterias serve all types of foods – including foods with ingredients from GM crops – every day. None of it is singled out as conventional or organic.

Occasionally, though, we will have special menu items that feature our products. For example, over the summer, our cafeteria specifically featured menu items that include GM sweet corn, and we held a farmer’s market to directly offer employees an opportunity to purchase GM sweet corn. (See photos and a video on our blog.) And to address a related myth – each of us purchases food for our families at grocery stores in the communities where we live and work. We do not have a private organic farm at our headquarters for our executives or employees.

edit on 29-9-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

I know, I know, the irony of the corporate power, they get to chose who gets the right or not.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

The fact they dont even try to conceal it because they know they have free way to do whatever they please prove how relaxed they really are. Most dont see it but they are taunting you. They totally mock people's opinions. They are untouchable from the look of it.
edit on 29-9-2014 by _damon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

This one about Gates and Rockefeller is very funny.

templestream.blogspot.se...

Not saying it is true or untrue. But below video is my answer.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I wonder if anyone is thinking out the consequences, or even the meaning, of their ideas here.

The vast majority says a GMO study funded by Monsanto is unreliable because they have an interest in the outcome. That belief, if carried to it's conclusion, forces one to say that there is no evidence of any sort on GMO's so there is nothing to be said about it.

Consider what would have happened had this particular study had shown that GMOs were dangerous. Now, be honest. Would any of you have said the results are unreliable because Monsanto money was involved? Of course not. Your position is that studies favorable to GMOs have to be attacked, and studies antagonistic to GMOs have to be supported no matter how bad the study is.

I've seen some people still citing the Seralini study as evidence against GMOs, even after it had been thoroughly debunked by at least half a dozen governments and scholarly associations.

But think even further. You reject this study because an interested party put money into it? What study isn't funded by an interested party? Do you think the US government has no interest in the outcome? Natural News doesn't care one way or the other? All of these studies are funded by people who are interested in the results one way or the other. If they're all bad, then you have no grounds to attack GMOs. Without any evidence, there is no reason to listen to mere opinions.

Look at the Forbes article linked in the OP. Two thousand individual studies showing safety, compared to a few considered by some to be of low quality? Now you know why there is opposition to labeling GMOs. There is so much false information going around that the consumer can not make a rational choice. Instead, fear tactics and emotions are being used to replace scientific results.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I suppose monsanto funded all these studies too..

www.fass.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...

And why would they need to label gmo food when a lot of organic companies label their products non gmo and charge an arm and a leg for it.




edit on 29-9-2014 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

You miss the point? The need to label GMOs especially is because they are health hazards and anyone should be able to choose if either they want to eat # or not and know what they are buying. I dont know why you want absolutely to believe in gmos but i think you are a compulsive skeptic. You are at the opposite of extreme gullibility, which is no better. You should do well to consider all the options because things are never what they seem to be in this world.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: _damon

Have you ever heard of "begging the question?" That means assuming what is trying to be proved. Let me give you an example:


The need to label GMOs especially is because they are health hazards and anyone should be able to choose if either they want to eat # or not


Begging the question is seen as a logical fallacy. How do you know that GMOs are health hazards and are # ? You don't, that's whats being discussed. It has never been proven, and the evidence is against it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join