On Genetically Modified Foods Propaganda and ''Conclusive Science''

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
OP NOTE: I did a search, but didnt actually find anything related to this. I suppose even if I found something, it wouldnt matter. This is just an opinion post anyway, not a news post.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I was listening to the BBC on the way to work this morning, I live in the US, so it comes on at 630am EST. You can check my story at the link I provided above, I'll be paraphrasing a bit since Im working from memory, but Im supremely pissed off at what I listened to..

First, let me say that I am a staunch Libertarian, and the host of this show is about as far left as anyone Ive EVER HEARD! More than Pelosi, Sunstein, and others. Thats probably why hes on at 630am on a saturday
. Ive heard him in past shows on climate change, and he gets riled up because the governments move so slow and dont implement his total government control plans (that everyone apparently wants) over everyones lives fast enough, so they can decide how much the world population can breathe, eat, etc.

Now Im well aware that GMO food is EVERYWHERE in American food, and I am trying to learn to grow my own food so when I buy my first home/land (Im 22, fiance' is still in college another year, Ive graduated already) in a year or so. I want out of the GMO food complex so bad. This story is about GMO Food in Europe, and lack thereof.

So I'll post a few key points that I remember off of the top of my head that these people were saying:

- One GMO Scientist claimed that citizens are ''less free'' if they DONT have the option to buy GMO food at the Market. WTF!? Were less free because we dont want a tomato-fish-monkey DNA Strawberry that we can eat now and die later from some new crazy-awesome disease?!



- The Host said the only country in Europe that was growing anything GMO was Spain, who was growing MONSANTO's ''commercially owned crop,'' maize. And I got the feeling he was saying MONSANTO is some great pioneering voice for ''food freedom''....HA, I couldnt type that with a straight face.


- One voice of opposition, and I listened carefully to this part, was a Scientist for Greenpeace(lol), who said that there are sometimes unintended and severe side effects to such fragile things as food, and it should be given more time to study those effects. Furthermore, there is NEVER ''Scientific Certainty'' on subjects like this, and as long as there are independent scientists and others who disagree, they shouldnt rush anything. He didnt bother to mention how man made global warming isnt scientific certainty though, but since the host and BBC take MMGW as a religion, no one would DARE make that statement.

NOW, this Host interviewed several people, and at the end of every interview he thanked the person for the interview. Seems courteous, right? Well I noticed after the opposing view finished speaking, he didnt bother to say anything, in fact, it seemed as if he cut him off, and moved right along to this next point..

- One woman, who was a lobbyist for the GMO Industry said that there was Scientific CERTAINTY that the food was safe and healthy. And that the ''evil gov't''(my own words) wasnt moving fast enough, like the USA and other countries. There was no room to debate with this woman that there was any other view to what she had to say, but then again, thats her job... shes a lobbyist. She and the host spoke together as if they were long lost lovers, and they both agreed so well, you HAD to believe all the propaganda filth they were spewing forth. She said that ''CONCLUSIVE SCIENCE'' should trump the slowness of goverment, and should be implemented alot sooner, and without such restraints.

So, basically for example, whenever more than 5 scientists agree that, without a doubt, bashing your head repeatedly against a hard object whilst defecating on yourself gives you better memory and motor-function, we should rush it through the legislative process and implement it.... for good of the people.

-Tan

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Tanulis]




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   


One woman, who was a lobbyist for the GMO Industry said that there was Scientific CERTAINTY that the food was safe and healthy.

Well, if there is a scientific CERTAINTY, no less, then why companies who are involved in making GMO food are opposing serious testing of their products and instead use G.R.A.S escape?
"Scientific certainty" of safety does not equal "generally recognized" as safe.
I fear it will be rerun of Roman era lead poisoning.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Why I love Monsanto - a few examples
Agent Orange, Bovine Growth fo milk

www.huffingtonpost.com...
In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.
According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and RoundupĀ® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."
"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor G
Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."


Translated into: ''We didnt pay them to say that! Bad scientists!''


Really though, thats an unbelievable find! Well, technically Im not surprised, so its ''believable'', but nonetheless fascinating!

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Tanulis]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
heck, repetition worked every time it seems and they're not going to change a winning strategy anytime soon.

i've seen earlier statements of GMO 'successes'

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they are bizarre if you know as little as a few minutes of web search worth of data. gov't and corp's are cooperating and it's obvious that they are doing it at nearly any cost. why is anybody's guess, suffice it to say that the last time an industry was deemed critical or simply 'too big or important to fail' they managed to fleece several dozen countries to the tune of trillions of dollars.

blackmail, whether you give in or not, you still get the shaft..........



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor G
 


Bovine Growth for milk - which the Mad Cowboy says lead to Mad Cow Disease. Due to the need to feed protein and calcium to the cows to prevent their deaths. Unfortunately it seems they fed dead diseased cattle to healthy cattle and gave them, and some people, Mad Cow disease. The first farmer who worked with the [?] University to test the Bovine Growth hormone for milk production, with No protein and calcium supplement in their normal feed mix, apparently ended up putting down all his cows. He had to do this since their bones became so brittle that they were easily broken from every day stresses like walking. It was only after their deaths that they figured out the need to now feed the cattle more calcium and protein to make up for the loss that was occurring in their bodies due to excessive milk production.

Did the scientists think the cows drew the calcium out of the air they breathed and the water they drank? Too many people, not just scientists, can't seem to see the big picture or consequences of what they are developing or doing.

I wonder what the big picture is really like for these crops when they can't or refuse to see it, and you develop crops that you can put even More pesticides/herbicides on them to keep the "weeds" at bay. Hmmm. I wonder if pesticides are bad for us? Are the folks who are selling the pesticides, and developing pesticide resistant crops, willing to live by the farms and drink the water from the local wells.


Perhaps we should just learn to eat weeds.
Less damage to the environment.





 
3

log in

join