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.

 

New 90-Day Rat Study Destroys Corporate GMO Propaganda

page: 5
75
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Which country are you in ? I assume you are in the U.S.... You really have GMO products at the farmers markets. ?..


I was being sarcastic. In the United States, no-one is having GMOs "forced down their throat." Farmer's markets have actually been growing over the past few years. Even before laws requiring food containing GMOs to be labelled, many products advertised themselves as being "GMO free." America is blessed to have the luxury of being able to indulge in food fetishism. It is not enough that we get sufficient calories and enough protein to avoid malnutrition, a scourge that is still rampant across the globe. We get to pick and choose how and where our daily calories come from.




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Absolutely correct and for the result's to be valid enough for peer review multiple run's need to be performed in a more extensive trial period along with better control's put in place, a selection of natural wheat's or which ever grain they were analyzing and a selection of treated and untreated grain's, for the result's to be more precise they would need to be grown in a controlled environment so as to ensure soil type and chemical composition are also known factor's.

That said I am biased as I believe that introducing these Frankenstein crop's to our diet when we have not had time to adapt to eating them and there tailoring for our body's to ingest them is rather suspect.

Also the whole knock on effect of how the biological system of these organism's will react to there new nature, what unpredictable and random mutation's may and indeed will take place over the subsequent generation's, what rogue enzyme's and chemical's they may produce and of course last but far from least how the natural world will adapt to accommodate and eventually take advantage of them as there resistance to bug's and pathogen's is actually not a permanent fix.

Nature adapt's and surprisingly quickly when given the impetus to do so and these type of resistant crop's offer such impetus, this mean's that newly adapted pest species which WILL mutate to accommodate these new crops' and to take advantage of them as well as to resist the pesticides used on them may (Will) become a far more serious problem than the current naturally ecologically balanced species.

Also the fact that many of these crops, especially Monsanto's variety's are adapted to the carcinogenic round up and other pesticide's mean's that there may be deliberately compromised genetic alteration's based around a profit motivation over human health consideration's and so I truly do not believe Monsanto and there ilk are qualified to even be working in this field as there motivation's are not therefore wholly ethical.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Grammatical error in the first paragraph replace OR with AND were I discuss the trial's they need to make this case stick, we all know it is correct but to make it into undeniable research it has to be done with a certain methodology and also to be repeatable so as to provide irrefutable empirical finding's.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Those poor rats. Humans kinda make me sick.
And I have to believe those who perform tests on other living beings have no souls.
Kind of off topic but oh yah, GMO's and Monsanto totally suck. Of course they are poisoning us for profit.


a reply to: seattlerat



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

As the ability to simulate organism's in computer's grows ever more complex and realistic it may become a thing of the past, Vivisection was and is one of the cruelest form's of animal experimentation (human under the nazi's).

Now I am of a mixed mind on that subject, I too feel empathy and would find it difficult to use a living innocent animal as an experimental subject as there is most definitely something cruel and inhumane about it that must affect the mind and consciousness of any sentient empathic being.

But there are still thing's that can only ever be tested using a living subject, this potential proof of GM crop causing harm and mutation in the animals is a prime example, without this test we would simply not have known and of course that mean's more GM crop's planted in that time and far more people made seriously ill, it MAY or it MAY NOT moderate this crisis in agriculture but it will certain join a mountain of growing evidence proving Monstanto and it's Ilk are nothing but reckless criminal's out to make a quick buck at the expense of us all.

So while I personaly hate animal experimentation and the cruelty that this entail's it does remain a necessity in certain circumstances no matter how we may wish otherwise.

There is however absolutely no excusable reason to experiment upon higher animals such as primate's and porpoise as have been used in the past and are undoubtedly still being used today.

Most pharmacorp's simply moved there animal testing to other nation's were animal right's was not an issue such as to China and I believe Monsanto themselves are one such pharmacorp that has done so, they also use proxy company's in which they have shares or controlling contracts to make themselves appear clean if the animal right's lobby's find out so while we may not be comfortable that this is necessary we can be certain that such big pharma also probably knew about the dangers of the crap they were selling to the farmers but continued to do so anyway in order to recoup there investment and that prove's they are willing to murder people by poisoning them in order to make a profit and therefore they ARE criminal's.
edit on 11-1-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
From what I have read into this, it's not GMO's in general that are bad, it's the GMO's designed for pesticide purposes.

Any crop that is naturally poisonous to bugs is likely going to be poisonous to humans as well, poisons usually don't discriminate.

Exactly. People who argue that what they are doing with modern GMOs today is the same thing people have done for thousands of years through natural breeding techniques are more or less correct - with *some* of the GMOs.

What they simply refuse to ignore are the cases where the GMOs are splicing DNA material from sources that would never, under any circumstances, be able to be done naturally, like pesticides, or fish genes in plants, etc.

The lack of distinction, and equating them all as the same, is madness, pure and simple.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Which country are you in ? I assume you are in the U.S.... You really have GMO products at the farmers markets. ?..


I was being sarcastic. In the United States, no-one is having GMOs "forced down their throat." Farmer's markets have actually been growing over the past few years. Even before laws requiring food containing GMOs to be labelled, many products advertised themselves as being "GMO free." America is blessed to have the luxury of being able to indulge in food fetishism. It is not enough that we get sufficient calories and enough protein to avoid malnutrition, a scourge that is still rampant across the globe. We get to pick and choose how and where our daily calories come from.


No need of GMOs to feed the hungry. Europe may be example.

Both main used GM traits - glyphosate resistance and insecticide production - proved to be at least problematic if not directly harmful in many ways (superweeds here, resistant root worm while other insect species vanish there).



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius


No need of GMOs to feed the hungry. Europe may be example.


Europe has long been a net food importer. It fought two wars over arable land in the Twentieth Century.


Both main used GM traits - glyphosate resistance and insecticide production - proved to be at least problematic if not directly harmful in many ways (superweeds here, resistant root worm while other insect species vanish there).


I agree. Neo-luddites damage their own cause by linking benign modified organisms like "golden rice" together with products designed to create a monopoly for a particular company's chemical products. It muddies the debate, but perhaps that is why they do it.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001
EU is net importer because imbecile agricultural policies - in last 10 years namely biofuel production. Czechoslovakia was net exporter until 90's. Then capitalism came and agriCULTURE declined. Final nail was EU membership ...

Results after 25 years of capitalism and 15 years of EU policies are:
1. degradation of soil, rapid erosion - water retention capacity of farming soil is on 50% of what was normal 25 years ago
2. higher use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers
3. degradation of gene pool, eradication of many varieties of traditional crops

25 years ago was farmland managed on base of 7 - 12 year crop rotation plans. It was completed with small scale cattle operation in every second village. There was manure and fresh milk. Now we have no manure, dry fields and milk in tetra# produced in Poland.

We do not need GMOs, we need rational agriculture and country management. Landscape in central Europe is by 99% cultural. Intensive use driven by market forces and supported ad absurdum by stupid subsidies is documented way to hell.
edit on 19-1-2017 by JanAmosComenius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
The Poison Business: The Monsanto Papers Reveal Media, Science, and Regulatory Collusion


On March 13, 2017, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled — over Monsanto’s objections — that certain documents obtained by plaintiffs through discovery could be unsealed. These documents are being collectively referred to as The Monsanto Papers. Following the unsealing of the first wave of documents in March 2017, the headlines began flooding in. Evidence was shown, via email exchanges and documents, that Monsanto ghostwrote studies on Roundup® for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, these documents contained evidence that Jess Rowland, former deputy division director at the EPA who chaired the agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), had an unusually close relationship with Monsanto. Under his watch in 2016, the CARC determined that glyphosate was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” a conclusion that vastly differed from what the available research pointed to and what IARC concluded a year prior.

The latest round of Monsanto Papers has now been released to the public. Shortly after, Forbes was forced to pull a popular piece titled On GMO Regulation, USDA Hits ‘The Cluelessness Trifecta’ due to the uncovered deep collusion between Monsanto and the article’s author Henry Miller. Did this longtime media mouthpiece for Monsanto and its products offer up his position and name to be used as a propaganda arm by the company? An email exchange between Monsanto executives states: “Henry agreed to author an article on forbes.com. John will work with a team internally (within Monsanto) to provide a draft and Henry will edit/add to make it his own.”

Prior to being a contributor at Forbes and many other media outlets, Miller served for 15 years at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), holding a number of appointments, including that of the medical reviewer for the first genetically engineered drug evaluated by the FDA and the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Miller’s unethical tendencies as a media writer now call into question the credibility of his previous work within the US regulatory framework.

Perhaps the most damning piece of scientific evidence showing harm from genetically modified organisms (GMO) was published in September 2012 in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Known as The Séralini Study, it documented liver and kidney toxicity, hormonal disturbances, and an increasing trend of tumor formation in rats fed GMO corn treated with Roundup®. The study was a deathblow not only to Monsanto, but also to the entire agrochemical sector that utilizes this herbicide. But as Séralini and his team had their study published, emails show that the FCT Editor-in-Chief A. Wallace Hayes was offered a payment from Monsanto for “consulting services.” By early 2013, Hayes announced that former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman would be in charge of biotechnology publications at the journal. Another Monsanto scientist, David Saltmiras, was then shown to be involved in coordinating the “third party” expert letter-to-the-editor campaign to get the Séralini study retracted.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
BTW the study this OP is based on has been retracted, not once, but twice.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Any plant poison to bugs is poison to humans ?/ That is the dumbest thing i ever read .
So here is a list of plants most bugs can NOT eat ( as it will kil them that humans do eat and some we LOVE .
Onions and garlic .
ALL peepers green yellow and so on- Mustard - pepper ( as in table pepper )
Gold rods ( yea you can eat alot of flowers most people just dont .( on a pet note Cat nip grown on your property will keep mosquitoes away better then deep woods off .
Many herbs to many to list will keep aya bugs lemon - apple cider ( kills fruit flys and they love the stuff lol )
well .

More then i could list and more tehn i even know about these are just the ones i know of off the top of my head .
Luck for use poisons that kil bugs does NOT harm humans after all we have all used raid to kill bugs and we should all be dead hu?"



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join