Study finds tumors in rats fed on Monsanto's GM corn

page: 2
66
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Wow! This is totally shocking and unexpected! Monsanto really does have our best interests at heart and want nothing more than to stop world hunger with their delicious, innovative foods loaded with good nutrients!






posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
everybody needs to grow and prosess there own canabidoiol



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
I know i am probably going to catch flak for this but...

I consider myself among the camp in support of genetic modification. Let me add that though i am in favor of genetic modification, i only support it for the greater good of our species.

Genetically modified foods, in a ideal sense, could potentially yield larger volumes of crops, perhaps provide more nutritional foods and things of the like.

Additionally, the potential for the genetic manipulation of the human genome has almost limitless potential and is inevitable in my opinion.

Now as for the genetic modification as per the OP, it is pure exploitation of current scientific means to improve the economic bottom line. Assuming the study is yielding accurate results, Monsanto has obviously rushed into things far to quickly and could potentially harm the global population.

I will conclude this post by reiterating that genetic modification will one day be reliable enough to potentially solve world hunger, disease and human suffering and companies like Monsanto are unfortunately building a bad reputation for this field.
edit on 19-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)


i don't think mankind can handle, in an appropriate manner, such science and may never be able to without great risk. we can't even live together on the same planet without fighting. lol



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Well this makes sense....They give monsanto grown food to RATS and they can't survive from it. They can eat dead animals and feces, but not the "great" foods constructed by Monsanto. This is a great outlook on why they want to outlaw farmers and organics. Looks as though they are trying to kill us....



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
A part that doesn't make sense to me is, why must the crops be modified against insects AND sprayed with chemicals? Wouldn't it make more sense to just, spray them and only use the modifying part for other purpose?

I am sure that they could come up with profiting modifications like growth, taste and nutritional value.
Now it's pretty much the other way around other than growth...

Another good idea would be to separate pharmaceutical corporations from the same people that create those killer crops.

It's actually hard to imagine how better this world would be if unproductive plans like people selling weapons to both sides and creating a disease to sell the cure would actually do something constructive for everyone AND their power.
edit on 19-9-2012 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
you left out a part of the story



news.yahoo.com...
Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.

"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Were doomed lol oh well gosh the mods on this site are intense



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk
 


pot calling the kettle black on that one, to say the least!

monsanto is one of the worst at not letting anyone see their research or lack there of...



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
More instant marketing karma for Monsanto:

Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned

In a rapid-fire series of press releases, several news outlets, mostly involving the scientific establishment, have used a press release which calls into question the research provided to the effect of the OP.

This is how what they want is protected from what they already know....


Are the findings reliable?

There is little to suggest they are. Tom Sanders, head of nutritional research at King's College London, says that the strain of rat the French team used gets breast tumours easily, especially when given unlimited food, or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance, or just allowed to age. There were no data on food intake or tests for fungus in the maize, so we don't know whether this was a factor.

But didn't the treated rats get sicker than the untreated rats?

Some did, but that's not the fully story. It wasn't that rats fed GM maize or herbicide got tumours, and the control rats did not. Five of the 20 control rats – 25 per cent – got tumours and died, while 60 per cent in "some test groups" that ate GM maize died. Some other test groups, however, were healthier than the controls.

Toxicologists do a standard mathematical test, called the standard deviation, on such data to see whether the difference is what you might expect from random variation, or can be considered significant. The French team did not present these tests in their paper. They used a complicated and unconventional analysis that Sanders calls "a statistical fishing trip".

Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh, UK, adds that in any case, there should be at least as many controls as test rats – there were only 20 of the former and 80 of the latter – to show how variably tumours appear. Without those additional controls, "these results are of no value", he says.


the remainder I leave to you my friends... be prepared to see how someone who is a core component within 'establishment' "science in academia" along with the author of "Urban myths of organic farming" can cast doubt on the research....

- OR - alternatively... was the research a sloppy - botched job - to further create the impression that anti-GMO research MUST be stuff of kooky health nuts and "bad" science.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 



You don't need genetically engineered crops to feed the world. Mono cultures are inefficient and a failed form of farming I think before comin to a conclusion like you just did you should fully research both sides.
edit on 19-9-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Couldn't resist another paragraph...

it appears our GMO defenders in my earlier post are almost ready to claim "conspiracy"



Why would scientists do this?

The research group has long been opposed to GM crops. It claimed in 2010 to have found evidence of toxicity in tests by the GM-crops giant Monsanto of its own Roundup-resistant maize. Other toxicologists, however, said the supposedly damning data revealed only insignificant fluctuations in the physiology of normal rats.

French blogger Anton Suwalki, who campaigns against pseudoscience, has a long list of complaints about the group, including what he calls "fantasy statistics".
edit on 19-9-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I had a feeling that Monsanto would have a high powered PR team try and demonize this study from all fronts which is easy for them to do because all of their connections, but thanks a bunch for the links


We all know what is really going on though, Monsanto is just trying to save their behinds. I say we have more and more studies, from various non biased parties.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Two threads running - will make the same comment here. I'm shocked at how slow the science is in refuting the claims of Monsanto. This is the food that we eat and what our children eat, and I know it is we that are responsible for this but is it really so naive to hope that those we have elected, and those that are employed to check that no harm is being done, do their jobs?

I've been asking a question (still unanswered) for a decade now. "What is the increase in attempted gene transfers, by naturally occurring bacteria, in the presence of a GMO?"

Been yelling into the wind here, my Father has heard it all, didn’t take the warning though. He is hanging on but has lymphoma and leukaemia a few years after starting to use roundup. The medications that are keeping him alive costs $80,000 for six months’ supply. Anyone taking these bastards to court yet?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 

I agree that GMO itself is not bad. The problem is that it is today mainly used for "evil" purposes of making money and reducing global population.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Couldn't resist another paragraph...

it appears our GMO defenders in my earlier post are almost ready to claim "conspiracy"



That is how it works with the religion of anti-gmo. Pretty much every study that does not line up to what they want is "in on it" while the small amount of studies that do line up to what they want to hear is just taken as gospel.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


This stuff should be labelled or better still banned..




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Ummm how do you know I have read up on global population growth and have seen correlations in relation to food consumption?

There is a point when the global population will exceed the level in which we can sustain it. Genetically modified foods are one viable option to feed everyone. I did not say it was the only option sir.

What suggestions do you have?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Since it's related, here's a thread I put together with a list of gmo and non-gmo based foods, if any of you want to stay away from gmo.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Ummm how do you know I have read up on global population growth and have seen correlations in relation to food consumption?

There is a point when the global population will exceed the level in which we can sustain it. Genetically modified foods are one viable option to feed everyone. I did not say it was the only option sir.

What suggestions do you have?


What does me requesting you to research both sides (between farming crops natural versus genetically modified crops) fully have anything to do with global population growth?

The alternative and the only way to do it is how it has been done before mono-cultured farming came to be.

Now I'm asking again that you research both sides fully, you don't need it spoon-fed from me.

Farmers under the iron fist rule of Monsanto are forced to buy seeds, not reproduce their own. This is absolutely unsustainable and inefficient but you wouldn't know because you didn't do your homework.

Genetically modified crops don't save people from starving today and they won't save people from starving tomorrow. Why? because when compared to conventional farming, genetically modified crop agriculture is a net LOSS.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I wonder if there are certain genetic markers that are more susceptible tot he effects of these toxins? I would imagine that people are effected in different ways just like how medicine can have different reactions in different metabolisms.

Has anybody look at cancer clusters of with similar genetic markers with in families and lineage? And the cross checked them with other groups to see if there is a specific gene family which is suspectible to damage from these compounds?

Thank You, Good find...S&F






top topics



 
66
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join