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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Please watch this if you think GMOs are not a problem.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

So you think they are lying about what Nature said? Ok. You can read it yourself.

Publication of the new version of the paper gives critics no reason to change their mind, says food-allergy researcher Richard Goodman of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and biotechnology editor at FCT. "To my knowledge, no-one has demonstrated that a two-year feeding study of Sprague Dawley rats has uncovered any hazard that actually poses a risk to human or farm-animal health," he says, referring to the breed of rodents used in the study.

www.nature.com...

edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well upon checking into that...

It appears that Nature has had journalists in the past take money from Monsanto without noting they had done so!

Not really a surprise, as can be seen from that list, it is not an uncommon practice!



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

It appears that Nature has had journalists in the past take money from Monsanto without noting they had done so!
What does that have to do with the article about Seralini republishing? That, contrary to Seralini's claim, it was not peer reviewed? What does that have to do with the fact that the experiment was deeply flawed?

The Washington Post quoted food activist and GMO critic Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University: “‘[I] can’t figure it out yet….It’s weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can’t think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this…..So even though I strongly support labeling, I’m skeptical of this study.’”

source
edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I think we can all agree that there needs to be a new, unbiased, 3rd party study that is closely watched and does not receive any "compensation" from big spenders.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

See, with my condition, I am not allowed to ingest soy...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad




India fell for the same trap over and over again. That is their own fault. They chose not to do business with China instead with the West. China hasn't been touched since the 8 nation alliance. Russia isn't playing the alliance game anymore. Let see if EU countries are going to fall for it. Under NATO they seem to be stuck.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Phage

Well upon checking into that...

It appears that Nature has had journalists in the past take money from Monsanto without noting they had done so!

Not really a surprise, as can be seen from that list, it is not an uncommon practice!


Don't be surprise. West have been fully infiltrated. Its either assassination or spell it out. Everybody keeps thinking the East is an enemy in fact they have an option to run there and boycott the living hell out of the West since Assange.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I have a deep distrust of gmo's.. I don't know if it's wholly justified, but I do. I was just thinking though.. maybe the bigger problem is the enormous amounts of glysophates in the ingredients, that often go hand-in-hand with gmo's? It's everywhere..you can't get away from the stuff.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I can not "officially" watch this Video

Youtube states: The user has made this content not available ...etc..etc..

Even when i use the search on the vice youtube video's. it does not even show !

I live in the Netherlands. I tested some other Vice youtubes and they play ok.

So why is this blocked for me? Some will answer rights.. revenue.. but i doubt it.

My best guess is that they want no discussion of GMO's at all. So they will do all they can to avoid spreading (dis)info about the subject at all.

I find it really disturbing

Edit: Hmm after some more testing , i have to be fair to say some other vice/hbo vids are also not playing. Some do, some don't




edit on 26-9-2016 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad


a reply to: Phage

See, with my condition, I am not allowed to ingest soy...

So in your case, GM or not is irrelevant.
You need labels that say "Soy free."
"May contain soy" tells you nothing you don't already know.



edit on 9/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I prefer a consumer be as educated as possible, so mandatory gm labeling as well as mandatory labeling for organics that use toxic pesticides and the like.

I believe business should be as free as possible but the food market is one where I believe in forms of regulation - we are putting this stuff in our bodies. I have a right to know if it was grown in a Chinese sump pond or if it's been genetically altered - I'd likely even buy some gmo products still, I'd just get to pick and choose what I want to buy as a consumer - isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be?

As far as the fear side goes.. Should we really avoid a reasonable law to label foods more accurately, even as to their source, nutrients, gmo status and what not because a business is worried about profit loss?

No offense, but I'm putting this stuff into my body, corporate shareholder meetings be damned. I have a right to know every detail about something I'm going to ingest in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope




I have a right to know every detail about something I'm going to ingest in my opinion.
How does "May contain GM products" help?

Rather than go through my entire line of thought in this thread you can consider this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 9/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Meh I wrote a reply but lost it.

Long story short - simple items should require it. Produce, meat, and the like.

Not every item on every shelf, though.
edit on 26-9-2016 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
Another one that didn't watch the video...


I can't watch the video because it's geoblocked in my country, but I know what it contains because I've read several critiques (there's a particularly good one here).

Feel free to address the facts in my post when you're ready.


edit on 26/9/2016 by MongolianPaellaFish because: added some other stuffs...



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Phage

Yes that was the mantra used in order to get the study originally retracted...

However as time has gone on, he one the a defamation and perjury case as well has having his study published once again.

Study found here.


Yes, he was republished by a journal that is not as reputable as Elsevier (LINK)But let's forget about the journals and let's analyze the study ourselves.

The premise of his study is to compare mice in various dose groups and mice in control groups (control groups were not exposed to GMO). However Seralini never shows any statistical analysis of the comparison which is a must. If there isn't any statistical analysis it's because statistical significance could not be reached. Lack of statistical significance and analysis means the data present is uninterpretable. This is why Elsevier said in their retraction statement that although the results were not incorrect, they were definitely inconclusive.

I think the problem with Seralini was not the data he found, but the fact that his results were inconclusive and yet he was not honest and published them as irrefutable.

But please, prove me wrong and show us the study was good by pointing out where the statistical comparison between dose groups and mice are.

(I posted the above on another thread and yet nobody was able to refute my statement .)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
Another one that didn't watch the video...


I can't watch the video because it's geoblocked in my country, but I know what it contains because I've read several critiques (there's a particularly good one here).

Feel free to address the facts in my post when you're ready.



How can I refute this AMAZING review without them even citing sources or facts? This article seems to be written by a sassy teenager who just got tired of their parents telling them what to do. No sources. No studies. All opinion. Try again.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove




You are have come to epitomize the official stance of the state on every single topic that you have shared an opinion on!


I must concur on this one. It poked my eye...rarely does one see so much support on all things official...by a single person. Makes me wonder why are they wasting their beautiful carefree lives on a conspiracy site.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: elementalgrove




You are have come to epitomize the official stance of the state on every single topic that you have shared an opinion on!


I must concur on this one. It poked my eye...rarely does one see so much support on all things official...by a single person. Makes me wonder why are they wasting their beautiful carefree lives on a conspiracy site.


For the simple rise of it all. lol It's quite amusing at this point.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

I see you joined recently. You will find it difficult to find support for the anti GMO on a US site.

They have been successfully brainwashed.

One of the most ridiculous arguments for GMO I have ever heard is that we need it to feed the hungry world


Anyway...good luck with the thread



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join