It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Whistleblowin' Dr. OZ Confronts MONSANTO: Disease-causing GMO Foods Taking over Food Supply!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 04:37 AM

Originally posted by 1nfiniteLoop
And while we're discussing the hypothetically toxic nature of a pro-toxin on non-target species, I should reiterate that GM grain contains far less actual toxins from fungi which are harmful to humans and livestock.

Indeed, isn't that ironic in one instance where GM grain has been fungicidally GE, no genetically modified wheat is being grown anywhere in the world still, as plans to introduce GM wheat in North America were abandoned since way back in 2004.

so, why is it taking so many years for such an American breadbasket staple as WHEAT where studies have yet to show any ill effects, yet for random crop like potatoes and corn, where they have been studied and found to have toxic bt effects, they are already widespread commercially produces for years upon years now (other than banned in up to 27 countries).

Something doesn't add up as far as safety and circulation, in the GMO sector.

Hint - Monsanto calculated it is actually 30% more profitable in the wheat sector, to keep producing NON-GE wheat/seeds.


posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:11 AM
thats why i grow my own food fot the last 7 years

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:11 AM
reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop

Good to see a post from a Science student ! I would like you to consider a few pieces of information.

Is the bt gene always inserted in the same single location of the genome ?
Is there only 1 inserstion ?
Does it matter where the operater ends up, what could it's placement effect genomic expression?
What genes are normally on/off, and what methods are we using to assess the impact of operator placement ?
Does form effect function in other biochemical processes ?
If we only test for some nutrient composition and known toxins in a plant and nothing else what could we be missing ?
Is it a health concern that the anti-biotic resistance marker gene has been proven to transfer in the human gut to gut bacteria ?
What could be the result of recombination between the plant-produced viral genes and closely related genes of incoming viruses ?
Should we been concerned about the anti-biotic enzymes produced in the plant being eating my immune compromised patients ?
What economic damage does genetic drift cause ?
Is your university or proffessors accepting funding from Monsanto / Novartis / Bayer etc, what impact could that be having on how genetic engineering is being taught ?
Do we really fully understand how the genes, chromosomes and the cell structure in organisms work ?
Could there be an Epigenics issue in humans/animals/soil microbes etc. ?

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:44 AM
We are changing the chemistry of our foods faster than evolution of the diet can keep up with. At no time in history has man ever done this and had a sane culture. No person alive can adapt as fast as we are changing out diet. This initially will cause distorted perception then irrational behavior caused by untreatable messed up brain chemistry. Society will fall apart. During this peoples immune systems will fail or get turned on and start attacking their bodies........Oh, I guess I am just saying what is already happening....Maybe just say things are going to get a lot worse.....Boy, my research is a little late....
I should have woke up earlier...

edit on 30-3-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by BiggerPicture

Wow, I've been looking a lot into Dr. Oz's stuff but this gives me a lil more faith in him. I did my ethics paper on Monsanto in college... it opened a few eyes.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by BiggerPicture

I suggest if you want to win an argument please post a single link of evidence that does not come from an organic website!

I am not including my self in this argument as I previously stated, I suspect that you are either someone who own/submits to an organic web site or someone who actively contributes to it, using homemade YOUTUBE videos to back up your claims.

I will restate I want nothing to do with the debate as on ATS I feel it's a waste of time, but at least earn your flags and quote reputable websites!

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Another10Pin
reply to post by Mark_Frost

Two things.

First, I clicked on the link, what is it you want us to read? And what kind of web site is this, exactly? I am a 'sheeple', so please indulge my ignorance.

Second, in regards to your comment about YouTube Videos, have you ever read the book The Alphabet versus The Goddess by Leonard Shlain? It's a light read, you might be interested. Then again, maybe not.

Nothing against using YouTube (on occasion) it just shouldn't be used to prove scientific points!
It's more for entertainment value. Chopped and screwed and for the most is used by people trying to push an agenda to fool the weak minded.

Most people that state claims upon research have no Academic validity.

No matter what topic conspirator or not, money is to be made.

If people only knew how much money was being made on (Organics) for example.

I have not read the book but will be sure to take a look.

- my stand point is clear I have never once stated my position on this argument of GMO vs Organic but am just sickend by the way certain individuals treat the topic scientifically.

I'm better of in the UFO forum lol

Anyway, it's been some years since I read it, but if I remember correctly, his primary hypothesis is that with that advent of the alphabet, a more masculine society developed due to the use/overuse of certain areas of the brain associated with reading ... to the detriment of the feminine side of society.

Another one of the proposals in his book is that with the advent of film, television, and image-based advertisement, our current generations are moving away from reading and into more of the image aspect of information gathering and understanding, therefore reinforcing the feminine aspect of society.

And although I don't recall him stating it, I am sure it will be to the detriment of the masculine aspect of society (use/overuse).

At any rate, I got the distinct impression that your comment regarding the use of YouTube Videos came from sarcasm, and only sarcasm. My point would be that no matter the source, written or image based, there is fiction and non-fiction. There is propoganda and fact. There is a mix of both. I don't know that I would completely disregard a bit of information just due to that fact of what form in which it was presented. Just sayin ...

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by 1nfiniteLoop
reply to post by BiggerPicture

Again, without the actual studies, not biased commentary on anti-GMO sites, there is no information to argue beyond the interpretation of non-scientists with political agendas or financial incentives. I can say that, from what I've read, apparently both regular and Bt potatoes are toxic according to the commentary, at least one study was funded by Greenpeace and was published in a dubious journal, and it appears that the other studies were on small groups which would greatly exaggerate any statistical data that might have occurred as a result of individual differences in cows.

I can provide some links that show that, consumed long term, Bt crops are safe if you would like. on feeds from genetically Anim Feed Sci a Techn.pdf

This second is a link to a PDF which contains 18 animal studies, none of which indicate harm from Bt feed. These are studies done by people who would profit by having the healthiest, most productive animals. If Bt feed was killing or harming animals, especially livestock, they would not be purchasing it as feed since it would decimate their livestock and ruin them financially.

As discussed here relating to the EPA's response to a Greenpeace petition to essentially ban Bt crops, the EPA has done extensive safety testing of the effects of Bt crops on a variety of environmental organisms. The gene is the same as found in the bacterium, and is not a novel or more dangerous version as Greenpeace would like to fabricate.

As a side note, I actually worked for Greenpeace for a short period of time. I was involved in trying to raise awareness of the dangers faced by the world's current fish populations. After being told that fish farming was going to destroy the environment and that Greenpeace promoted the consumption of only wild-caught fish as a part of this campaign, I realized that they were a political organization with too many conflicting positions and were really more interested getting member donations to fund legal fees due to the fully or at least plausibly illegal nature of some of their activism. Anything coming from or connected to Greenpeace would be highly suspect to me.

I wouldn't waste too much time or energy, you are educated on the topic and have a base for argument, it's not what people on ATS want to hear unfortunately.

The Marketing for Organics has worked so well (even though the US has the worst grade of organic levels compared to EU) most things in the US stated as Organic really aren't!

There is no point scientifically looking at using science to fix our food crisis /end sarcasm

It's a waste of energy and just pure evil!!!

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by Mark_Frost

Here’s my critique of the Long term cow feeding study with Bt corn kindly provided by our BioTech student:

“A long-term study over 25 months was conducted to evaluate the effects of genetically modified corn on performance of lactating dairy cows. 2 groups of eighteen cows, one feed BT corn, the other fed non BT corn”.
1. 9 cows from each group were replaced during the 2 year period due to illness or infertility. The paper does not specify if 50% of both groups became ill or infertile, or if 50% of only 1 group (or some number in-between in both groups) had these issues necessitating equal replacement numbers in both groups.
2. Is it usual for 50% of cows to become ill or infertile over a 2 year period?
3. No mention of how long into the trial this occurred
4. It says most of the cows experienced 2 full lactations but not all, no mention of what actual numbers were and the differences between the 2 groups.
5. Cows when not intensively farmed live for around 20 years averaging around 17 lactations; this study covers 12% of the cow’s life, but in commercial operations they usually average 3-4 years before being culled.
6. 1st lactation in cow’s feed BT corn had significantly higher fat, protein and urea (waste product made by kidneys in animals and humans normally expelled in urine) in their milk, 2nd lactation differences significantly lower lactose and higher body weight body condition scores, and back fat thickness. Then they go on to state all results are within normal levels and the differences are small, so how could we have significant differences they mentioned above?
7. No mention of autopsy to verify the state of the internal organs at the end of the experiment.

The good news is that it doesn’t make a difference in the amount of milk produced for the famer, but potentially they may have to replace cows faster than usual depending on point 1 .

They stated the components of the food were analyzed regularly during the study. The researchers found that the components of the two feed types were similar throughout the experiment, indicating compositional equivalence between Bt corn and the genetically similar non-Bt corn. Therefore why are we seeing differences as evidenced by the milk composition at first and 2nd lactation (point 6) ?

I remain unconvinced that this study proves BT Corn is safe.

Will take a look at the next link you provided later this weekend.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by Mark_Frost

It's unfortunate how well the organic marketing has worked. They convince people that they do not use pesticides but they do. Further, many of the pesticides available to organic farmers have been proven to be carcinogenic, meaning that the loaded terms "natural" and "organic" in no way correlate to a healthier healthier product despite all the marketing that insists otherwise. If they both use pesticides which are roughly equal in their carcinogenic nature, why buy organic foods at all given that organic foods are less productive, more labor intensive, and more expensive? Ultimately, it's no different than kosher products in that they're fundamentally the same as a conventional product except for being centered around a philosophy, requiring certain practices during production, and certifying agencies stand to make a lot of money.

I'm greatly concerned about the growing tide of ignorance and hostility regarding genetic engineering in particular but also science in general. If we cannot believe that science can provide solutions to natural problems, that for every technological problem that develops there is another technological solution waiting to be implemented, and that there's a way to protect the health and safety of our nation without rejecting technology then there is really no hope for the advancement of the standard of living for the next generation. It troubles me greatly that, despite all the resources available to educate them, people would rather listen to a biased opinion of groups that profit from the opposition of a certain technology than learn the basic tenants of biochemistry to form an educated opinion.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by AliceBlackman

Given that there are more questions than I really have time to answer(I really should be working on a paper that's due this Wednesday) I will instead mention that most if not all of these questions have been evaluated by the FDA and EPA long before the crops were approved for market. The safety evaluation process for GM foods is extensive and lengthy. If a safety concern is noted during test testing and evaluation phase, the crop will not be approved for market.

And for what it's worth, I'm attending a school that focuses on medical biotechnology, so my studies have a greater emphasis on gene therapy as a treatment for illness, DNA vaccines, etc. I'm still deciding whether I want to do agricultural biotechnology, regenerative medicine, or if I can't just switch back and forth periodically to work on interesting projects.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by solarstorm
God be with you Dr Oz...pray that your show does not magically get yanked.

Exactly. Imagine all the commercials during his show for foods containing GMO's. His show won't see the end of spring. And what a terrific way to send a message to any other journalists dreaming of breaking this story.

And go Dr. Oz anyways...not many more noble ways to lose your career. I had always assumed he was a paid schill like Sniderman.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Mark_Frost
I suspect that you are either someone who own/submits to an organic web site or someone who actively contributes to it, using homemade YOUTUBE videos to back up your claims.

The irony of it is all is I have made no claims nor need to. To hold a consumer who does not want unlabelled GMO slipping into his or his children's "suspect" of having an organic "website" or "homemade YT" agenda is ridiculous in light of Monsanto's pesticide/herbicide gross impact on the entire environment (including humans & wildlife), in light of Court rulings where Monsanto has been found guilty of poisoning its customers, and vast research (conducted by independent scientists, not 'organic' people lol) that shows these histological changes caused by spliced DNA toxin genes, in depth.

The problem is Monsanto has infiltrated the USA government and of course biotechnologist such as the one above are going to defend Monsanto till kingdom come because it is their very career. Whereas organic nor biotech are my career they are simply my concern.

But Americans are used to being told/forced have the experts and government officials decide for us what is "safe" to spray all over one's environment and shove down one's throat.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:34 PM
Yes, Americans are being told by the government what is safe to plant and use in agriculture after extensive testing for safety to humans and the environment. The only alternative offered by GM opponents is mob regulation by radical and special interest groups, such as Greenpeace illegally uprooting and destroying crops being field tested that might offer food production and sustainability in adverse climates or which are resistant to pathogens.

You're opposing something that you don't understand the basic science behind while supporting something that you're otherwise quite ignorant of. Do you really think that genetic engineering is more dangerous than mutagenic breeding practices utilizing mutagenic chemicals and radiation to create genetic variation, a practice that is entirely acceptable for producing new organic crop varieties without a complete knowledge or understanding of the number or manner of mutations to genes created this way?

Would you really be terrified of a yellow sushi roll that provides your children a boost of pro-vitamin A? Or if they partook of an anthocyanin enriched tomato sauce with their spaghetti which has been shown in animal tests to prevent bowel cancer? Would you rather we spray more pesticides into the air, where they could spread throughout the environment and into the population via air and water exposure, in order to do away with Bt crops?

We have totally natural agricultural practices in America, practiced by people who reject modern advances in Technology. We call these people the Amish. That's not a position that I'm comfortable embracing as a nation.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:45 PM

Originally posted by 1nfiniteLoop
Yes, Americans are being told by the government what is safe to plant and use in agriculture after extensive testing for safety to humans and the environment.

"There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops."

Well, we've heard it from the horse's mouth itself.

Or, is also an "organic" website or "homemade youtube" portal?

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by Mark_Frost

I've got many thousands of hours studying food chemistry and the cooking methods effect on foods. I am trying to compare it against it's effect on health and mental health of people. Too much change is occurring too rapidly effecting peoples body chemistry. The bodies ability to compensate for these changes has been compromised by the combination of these changes and other chemistry used in our food and medicines.

It's disturbing research, patch after patch with holes in them being used to fix something that should have been scrapped long ago. Believe what you want, it's your life.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by BiggerPicture

Nice try.

There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods--the only exceptions being highly refined materials like oil or sugar from which all cell material has been removed. Thus, DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.
When a new protein (not normally found in that plant or in other commonly consumed foods) is introduced into a plant, the safety of that protein does need to be addressed.

What you're inferring and what is actually being said are totally different things and by taking statements totally out of context you attempt to pervert the truth to support your own ignorance-fueled positions. Please, stop using such clearly willfully manipulative tactics to try to make a point if the point is grounded more in politics, talking points, and ignorance of science than reality.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:11 PM
reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop

I think Greenpeace is infiltrated by corporate troublemakers stirring things up to make the corporations look better. I would have implemented this if I was a head of a big corporation and trying to cut the reputation of environmentalists that oppose the practices of my company. Most regular people don't like the irrational behavior like Greenpeace is doing and would side with the businesses that supply jobs instead. I didn't play that game but have witnessed things similar to that in real life.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by rickymouse

Rather than assume a vast conspiracy by corporations, isn't it just easier to believe that they're childish anarchists with only vague notions of environmentalism and absolutely no idea, degree of organization, or real desire to accomplish any meaningful change?

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop

DNA and RNA that is not recognized or worse yet mis-recognized by the body can be a big problem. I can't get access to information concerning Monsanto's research on this because research was probably purposely excluded to lessen liability on part of the company.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in