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

a reply to: AlphaHawk

you are quite free to eat all the GM that you like..as you are free to smoke cigarettes ...if you believe this study funded by monsatan you are free to do so...personally my diet stays free from GM as much as i knowingly can....

here does this sound familiar

a reply to: charles1952

That is why you should have a segment of the scientific community that do objective research that are funded regardless of their result that can tell the truth as it is without anyone having the chance to bribe them.

The day we get uncorrupted science that is allowed to seek without limitations (except the golden rule of course) and agenda is the day humanity gets the next golden age.

a reply to: _damon

Peanuts are a health hazard, and thusly they are labeled.

How many people a year have died from eating gmo food?

a reply to: charles1952

You should know that there is never smoke without fire. But i guess you are willing to believe GMOs are healthy because you are too afraid to consider the heavy corruption all these fake studies and manipulations suggest.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
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.

All information of what the product is should be disclosed. That crap to not label would not work here in Europe. Anyone who cannot stand by what the product is and disclose what it is should not be allowed to sell it. The consumer have all rights in this and if the manufacturer losses money over this then it is because it is not providing what the consumer wants.

Is that not the essence of supply and demand or have US become a planed capitalistic economy like Soviet Russia was that tell the consumers what they should buy and what they should know about the product. Seems false advertising and keeping the customer uninformed is what US want to be known around the world for now days.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Dear LittleByLittle,

I have no idea of your age, and there is nothing wrong with young or old people. Given that, your post seemed very young, fresh, and innocent. It did my tired old heart good. Let's review.

That is why you should have a segment of the scientific community that do objective research that are funded regardless of their result that can tell the truth as it is without anyone having the chance to bribe them.

Funded by whom? I assume you mean the government. And who decides what they study? I would suppose the people paying the money. But maybe the government would grab a bunch of scientists, say "Here's umptyleben billion dollars. Go study whatever interests you, spend the money however you want, and let us know if you find something interesting."

If the government said "Go study GMOs" the day after the President's speech on the clear and obvious dangers of GMOs, what will the results of the study be?

The day we get uncorrupted science that is allowed to seek without limitations (except the golden rule of course) and agenda is the day humanity gets the next golden age.

As you describe here, science is corrupted, it will always be corrupted, and we need to establish a system of checks and balances to reduce the effect of the corruption. Simply taking a few studies which don't survive close scrutiny, and saying "This is why we have to scare people away from this product," is not responsible behavior.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Maybe in a few thousand years society will have evolved beyond this point and realize that keeping a part of the population investigating the society without and limitations will give them the objective truth of the society. I do not consider myself young. In fact I feel very old but still able to see the potential of what could be someday.

It is better to be skeptical and let time show if you are right or wrong than to make fast judgement just because someone have an agenda to make a lot of money. I cannot say that gmo are good or bad for you to eat. But I am definitely sure that I do not want Monsanto to have patents and monopoly over the food market.

It is the control over the market that I am against more than the health risks.

I also think they have no clue what they are doing.
www.scidev.net...

The new Mexican evidence, however, appears to support Quist and Chapela’s findings, and gives weight to environmentalists’ fears. “Genetic contamination of wild Mexican varieties is taking place,” Exequiel Ezcurra, president of the National Ecology Institute at the Mexican environment ministry, told the Mexican newspaper La Reforma.

“On average, 8 per cent of plants showed signs of GM contamination, although in other fields we found more than 10 per cent.” The greatest levels of contamination were found near main roads and alongside commercially cultivated maize fields, whereas lower levels were found in more remote areas. One explanation for the appearance of transgenic varieties of maize is that farmers may have planted maize imported into Mexico from the United States for use in tortillas, unaware that the grain was from GM crops

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Oh I see, you guys can't debunk the study then?

Attack the ball, not the player remember.

Seriously?

So you don't question the fact that the study was funded by the very people who would be most at-risk if it came up with a negative determination?

You don't think the people funding it could have influenced the result of the study?

a reply to: Answer

The Koch brothers funded a study to say that smog was good because it protects us from skin cancer by blocking out sunlight.

That study was trashed, and rightly so.

Why can't anyone trash this study? Too occupied with who gave the school money and dismissing it it seems.

Argue the claims of the study please.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Answer

The Koch brothers funded a study to say that smog was good because it protects us from skin cancer by blocking out sunlight.

That study was trashed, and rightly so.

Why can't anyone trash this study? Too occupied with who gave the school money and dismissing it it seems.

Argue the claims of the study please.

It is not that we cannot if paid and educated in this field scrutinize it. The question is why should we bother wasting time on it when we want objective information from an impartial source.

I'll give you a one things that i noticed when I read the conclusion.

4274

Supplying non-GE-fed animal products is likely to become increasingly expensive given the expanding global planting of GE crops and the growing number of countries that raise them.

There is currently a pipeline of so-called “second generation” GE crops with improved output traits for livestock produc - tion. Their approval will further complicate the sourc - ing of non-GE feedstuffs. Additionally, recent develop - ments in techniques to induce precise genetic changes in targeted genes offer both tremendous opportunities and a challenge for global regulatory oversight. Given these developments, there is an urgent need for international harmonization of both regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of advanced breeding techniques to prevent widespread disruptions in international trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future

This is clearly a push for agenda even if it is true that it will become more expensive in the US. Shows clearly that the person is pro GMO and have bias towards GMO. Sounds more like a car salesman making a pitch to sell you a car. Did this person work in advertisement before?

I do not need to refute the claims but can wait for a real objective review/information.

OK. Wait just a minute. Lucy, you got some splainin' to do.

Funded by Monsanto so we can't accept the study? Monsanto? Go back to the link to the study and click on it. The very first page says:

This work was supported by funds from the W.K. Kellogg endowment and the California Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California-Davis. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

For those of you who claim Monsanto is funding this, provide some solid evidence of that. So far, the evidence is that Monsanto had nothing to do with it. I guess that's heavy evidence that the study is good and GMOs are safe.

So now, why do you think the study is bad again? This time with evidence, please.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

And you don't think 'organic' growers don't have an agenda?

They want gmo Labelling so that people think it's derogatory to their health and scare them into buying their 'healthier, natural products', at an inflated price of course.

I suggest you look I to what organic growers can away with..like untreated human waste as fertilizer as an example.

The GMO debate reminds me of the Vaccine debate. Both claim to be safe, both are part of billion+ dollar industries, and both have the "science" to back them up. Yet people still remain skeptics for both Vaccines and transgenic GMO foods/feeds.

Why is that?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Oh I see, you guys can't debunk the study then?

We can't debunk it any more than you can prove it valid. But showing that it was funded by a huge corporation who has an extreme vested interest in the outcome it purports, is a pretty good sign that the results aren't trustworthy.

Besides, my dogs eat their own poop, too, and it doesn't hurt them, but that doesn't mean I want to eat it.

I say go ahead and make GMO food. Just label it so the consumer has a CHOICE.

Well I can't debunk it because I wouldn't know how but isn't the point of such studies is that they can be reproduced through peer review.

Anyone with the ability/qualifications should be able to review this study and I know there are a lot of anti GMO groups out there that have people that can so I would say it is on them to falsify the study and if they cant falsify it then the study stands.

Isnt that how peer review works? Peer review falsified all the studies that said GMO was harmful so why wouldn't the opposite apply.

If the science is good the study will stand. If I am wrong about that please explain.

originally posted by: Philippines
The GMO debate reminds me of the Vaccine debate. Both claim to be safe, both are part of billion+ dollar industries, and both have the "science" to back them up. Yet people still remain skeptics for both Vaccines and transgenic GMO foods/feeds.

Why is that?

If I were to hazard a educated guess it would be because there is money to be made in organic manure (I S%$T you not) One of the famous(bogus) studies came from organic manure company they have since got rid of it. There Is more money in organic produce as well. As for vaccines there is a vocal minority opposing them getting very wealthy off of fueling the controversy.

There is more but you get the point. Money talks.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Philippines
The GMO debate reminds me of the Vaccine debate. Both claim to be safe, both are part of billion+ dollar industries, and both have the "science" to back them up. Yet people still remain skeptics for both Vaccines and transgenic GMO foods/feeds.

Why is that?

If I were to hazard a educated guess it would be because there is money to be made in organic manure (I S%$T you not) One of the famous(bogus) studies came from organic manure company they have since got rid of it. There Is more money in organic produce as well. As for vaccines there is a vocal minority opposing them getting very wealthy off of fueling the controversy.

There is more but you get the point. Money talks.

Yes, seems money is the main reason for most all sides (as usual). Although I'm not sure how a vocal minority opposing vaccines would make money, since they have nothing to sell (what funds them?)

It makes sense for organic produce farmers to have a dog in the fight, since they have something to gain monetarily.

Out of all of it though, I support the end user/consumers choice in the matter to eat GMO/organic, and to choose whether to vaccinate or not. However, it seems like the ability to make an informed choice is influenced by money and politics.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Oh I see, you guys can't debunk the study then?

Attack the ball, not the player remember.

That is valid ons level playing field, not when the other player is well known for going behind the scenes, bribing the referee, rewriting the rules, paining the ball, loading the dice and buying the security company that decides who can watch the game.

Monsanto will be the reason capital punishment for companies is invented.

a reply to: asciikewl

You're quite right, depending on what you want to do. If you simply want to hurt Monsanto as much as you can, fine, throw away the rules that you'd like applied to you or those opposed to GMOs.

If you're trying to find facts, you'd look at the studies, with all of their sources, etc. You'd then weigh those against the studies saying they have evidence showing GMOs are bad, then you'd look at the reviews of the studies. Then, when you've got some actual information, your opinion will be more informed.

Unless you're saying that Monsanto has bribed the people doing every study? Is there evidence of that?

Too bad they just won't label GMO foods so the consumer and market demand can decide.

EDIT: In the USA, that is...

a reply to: Philippines

Although I'm not sure how a vocal minority opposing vaccines would make money, since they have nothing to sell (what funds them?)

I guess you never heard of this guy his company or Natural news.

Joseph Mercola

Joseph M. Mercola is an alternative medicine proponent, osteopathic physician, and web entrepreneur, who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements and medical devices through his website, mercola.com. Until 2013, Mercola operated the "Dr. Mercola Natural Health Center" in Schaumburg, Illinois. He wrote the best-selling books The No-Grain Diet and The Great Bird Flu Hoax. Mercola criticizes many aspects of standard medical practice, such as vaccination and what he views as overuse of prescription drugs and overuse of surgery to treat diseases. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons as well as several alternative medicine organizations.page

Don't forget the guy who started the whole thing with a fraudulent paper claiming autism and vaccines were connected. You know the guy who lost his license was thoroughly discredited?caught but can somehow afford to live in a huge mansion.

The ones getting rich of of it don't have to win the debate they are not even trying with the pseudo science they trot out all they need to do is create doubt sell a book or two or three endorse some off the wall remedy and make their cash withdraws.