GMO Foods Cause Tumours and Organ Damage - With Pictures

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by beckybecky

 

All food you eat is genetically modified. What do you think selective breeding and planting is?

This gawd-awful line of argument is getting so tired...you either don't know what your saying, or you do and your intentionally misleading.

Originally posted by BenReclused

Yep! It seem's like ingesting "Roundup" is a pretty bad idea. But hell fire, I already knew that!

Do you have any statistics on rats that eat genetically modified food that hasn't been laced with Roundup? That's what I would be much more interested in seeing.

See ya,
Milt

Genetically modified food, or at least all the "RoundUp Ready" varieties, which is the most common GM food on the market is inherently laced with roundup. They make the plants resistant to the pesticide and they can then apply the pesticide at alarmingly high levels. Thus, the GM food (soy and corn especially) has a lot of glyphosate (roundup) already on and in it, which makes it's way into our food - LOTS of our food. Try to find something at the store without a corn or soy derivative in it...it's a challenge. List of corn and soy derivatives in food.

The soy derivatives page is not a great source, but the list is pretty robust from what I can see. Also, the study that is linked in the OP from the IJBS (2009) is about rats fed GM corn without any roundup added aside from what was present from growing the corn, they say this about it: "[it] has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation"

The Agent Orange/Roundup Varieties all are deadly, destroy immune system and STERILIZE YOU, as they do with rabbits.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is one of the best posts I've read. This is major depopulation and sterilization.

reply to post by beckybecky


Thanks for the post; 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?

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by beckybecky

 

All food you eat is genetically modified. What do you think selective breeding and planting is?

Selective breeding is crossing two plants from the same family to create a desirable plant, selective breeding is taking two animals of the same species and breeding them for desired traits.
GM is forcing you two unrelated species to produce a desired outcome, a bit like making you breed with a cheetah in the hope of making a faster person. of course with no safety precautions

reply to post by UdonNiedtuno

I already said ingesting "RoundUp" is bad. Mkay.

Many genetically modified foods are not considered "RoundUp Ready", but are only modified to be disease and insect resistant. Those foods would, indeed, require smaller doses of, and fewer, "poisons" to produce. That's good! Mkay.

"GMO Foods Cause Tumours and Organ Damage" is, if not an outright lie, an overt exaggeration. Mkay.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by UdonNiedtuno

 

I already said ingesting "RoundUp" is bad. Mkay.

Many genetically modified foods are not considered "RoundUp Ready", but are only modified to be disease and insect resistant. Those foods would, indeed, require smaller doses of, and fewer, "poisons" to produce. That's good! Mkay.

"GMO Foods Cause Tumours and Organ Damage" is, if not an outright lie, an overt exaggeration. Mkay.

See ya,
Milt

edit on 19-9-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo

If a plant is modified to be pest resistant, wouldnt that mean that the plant has an insecticide in it?
many plants have natural insecticides in them, the ones humans generally don't eat because of the poison factor.
Throw a gene gun full of another plant with a naturally occurring insecticide into a crop food like corn and what you now have is a plant that didnt have the insecticide gene now producing it.
Can you see any problem with this?

Raw bitter almonds are chock full of cyanide. A 150-pound adult could die from eating 10 to 70, we know this and that is why we cook them.
green potatoes produce Solanine as a natural insecticide, place that into corn and then feed the raw product to livestock, can you see a flow on effect?

Now this next bit I add for a bit of an explanation how the food chain works and how as the apex preditor we in turn ingest everything along the way.

Ciguatera is a foodborne illness caused by eating certain reef fish whose flesh is contaminated with toxins originally produced by dinoflagellates such as Gambierdiscus toxicus which lives in tropical and subtropical waters. These dinoflagellates adhere to coral, algae and seaweed, where they are eaten by herbivorous fish who in turn are eaten by larger carnivorous fish. In this way the toxins move up the food chain and bioaccumulate. Gambierdiscus toxicus is the primary dinoflagellate responsible for the production of a number of similar toxins that cause ciguatera. These toxins include ciguatoxin, maitotoxin, scaritoxin and palytoxin. Predator species near the top of the food chain in tropical and subtropical waters, such as barracudas, snapper, moray eels, parrotfishes, groupers, triggerfishes and amberjacks, are most likely to cause ciguatera poisoning, although many other species cause occasional outbreaks of toxicity.

you can go your entire life eating these reef fish and have no adverse effects, but it only takes that 1 fish and The symptoms can last from weeks to years, and in extreme cases as long as 20 years, often leading to long-term disability. Most people do recover slowly over time. Often patients recover, but symptoms then reappear. Such relapses can be triggered by consumption of nuts, seeds, alcohol, fish or fish-containing products, chicken or eggs, or by exposure to fumes such as those of bleach and other chemicals. Exercise is also a possible trigger.

Hallmark symptoms of ciguatera in humans include gastrointestinal and neurological effects.Gastrointestinal symptoms include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, usually followed by neurological symptoms such as headaches, muscle aches, paresthesia, numbness, ataxia, vertigo, and hallucinations. Severe cases of ciguatera can also result in cold allodynia, which is a burning sensation on contact with cold (commonly incorrectly referred to as reversal of hot/cold temperature sensation). Doctors are often at a loss to explain these symptoms and ciguatera poisoning is frequently misdiagnosed as multiple sclerosis.
wiki
Still want to ingest poisons?

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by beckybecky

 

All food you eat is genetically modified. What do you think selective breeding and planting is?

This gawd-awful line of argument is getting so tired...you either don't know what your saying, or you do and your intentionally misleading.

Actually, the truth is, that selective breeding is genetic modification. The hysteria over GMF is not based in any fundimental science. Let's take the OP, all of the plants in the study were treated with chemicals. Think that the chemicals were the actual cause of the deformations? Agent Orange anybody? Please explain to the class how the genetic makeup of a food when the proteins are denatured and destroyed by the digestive process, can alter the genetic makeup of the consumer and change the DNA/RNA replication process and thus cause a tumor. Basic cell biology here.

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by beckybecky

 

All food you eat is genetically modified. What do you think selective breeding and planting is?

Selective breeding is crossing two plants from the same family to create a desirable plant, selective breeding is taking two animals of the same species and breeding them for desired traits.
GM is forcing you two unrelated species to produce a desired outcome, a bit like making you breed with a cheetah in the hope of making a faster person. of course with no safety precautions

Yet, if you eat a cheeta and a person, you will not get tumors. They are talking about gene splicing vegetables with arctic fish to produce frost resistant crops. Eating neither the fish nor the parent crop will cause cancer. How would the genetic modification cause tumors? How will they change a person's cellular transcription and cause a tumor?

Chemicals can, we know this, but the fear of GM crops is unfounded. The real culprit is the chemical exposure.

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Chemicals can, we know this, but the fear of GM crops is unfounded. The real culprit is the chemical exposure.

Please explain how any proper research can be done when the crops in question remain the intellectual property of the GM companies, even after you buy the product, it is still theirs, this is why farmers are losing law suits due GM crops being found on their property.

an independent research into the crops would be beneficial to all, but this isnt going to happen when the companies who own them have the best lawyers in town.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

scientific America

so you put your faith in a multinational billion dollar company who would prefer to make a profit than care for your well being?
let the research begin I say, what have they got to hide if every thing is above board?

reply to post by NavyDoc

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

The linked study contains no new laboratory research, but it does describe how scientists used the existing data Monsanto used to say the GM varieties were safe to show that, indeed, they are not safe. They show Monsanto used some extraordinarily half-assed statistical tools (different than described in their protocol even!) as evidence for safety, and how Monsanto blatantly ignored some concerning results. They describe how the study design - insufficient number of subjects, only a single species of subject, only two feeding levels, only 3-months of feeding - was wholly unsatisfactory to show safety for human consumption. And the Monsanto study is what gets presented to the USDA, FDA, EPA, etc... to prove that is fit for use and fit for consumption. And when your ex-employee, whom you've set up handsomely is the one reviewing your "scientific study to demonstrate safety" you can be sure that not much scrutiny will be given to your poor-excuse for scientific research.

See the bold text above for my reply. I'll add this - this was Monsanto's own data.

With regard to selective breeding being genetic modification, I'll say this: true to definition there is unfathomable genetic modification taking place in my body and all others every second, not only that but anytime anything reproduces there is just as much genetic modification as when you selectively breed (with a few obvious exceptions e.g. splicing three or four fruit trees together). But all of this, even choosing parents based on traits is infinitely different than manually going in, splicing out chunks of DNA from one animal, plant, etc. and putting it in another completely, unfathomably unrelated recipient. These organisms would be unable to exchange any kind of meaningful genetic material via 'natural means', but we go in and play 'God', if you will, taking a little here, putting it in there - give corn a gene from this bacteria and watch it produce insecticide itself! Magic. So please don't insult my intelligence, and that of the rest of those reading, by saying selective breeding is the same as 'genetic modification' as used in the OBVIOUS context it is being used within this thread.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Manhater
[

Dude, there is so many things that can go wrong in a day that will kill you anyways, might as well have your last meal and enjoy it.

edit on 19-9-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

You obviously don't have children.. or care about anybody else in general

reply to post by TMJ1972


there is no way the gm plants can be prevented from cross pollinating the non gm plants, and when this happens, the poor farmer that unknowingly is growing gm plants end up being sued in court and the court rules against them!!!

simply not buying the crap isn't gonna work, esjpecially here in the states where their is a battle being fought just to have the right to know if the food is gm or contains gm.

those who shirk this off, well, there are certain ailments that are popping up in the livestock that is fed gm. still births, deaths, a who list of problems. they will pop up in the human population more than likelly also.

there's no way to contain the gm, at least not without some gov't regulations and the courts aren't even being reasonable in that area. there is a big question mark as to the effects on health. these gm crops could conceivable contaminate the food supply completely, prove to be very unsafe for human consumption and well....
wipe out the human race!

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by TMJ1972

 

there is no way the gm plants can be prevented from cross pollinating the non gm plants, and when this happens, the poor farmer that unknowingly is growing gm plants end up being sued in court and the court rules against them!!!

simply not buying the crap isn't gonna work, esjpecially here in the states where their is a battle being fought just to have the right to know if the food is gm or contains gm.

those who shirk this off, well, there are certain ailments that are popping up in the livestock that is fed gm. still births, deaths, a who list of problems. they will pop up in the human population more than likelly also.

there's no way to contain the gm, at least not without some gov't regulations and the courts aren't even being reasonable in that area. there is a big question mark as to the effects on health. these gm crops could conceivable contaminate the food supply completely, prove to be very unsafe for human consumption and well....
wipe out the human race!

Exactly. Montsano tried to force their patented seeds on Mexico and they fought until Montsano backed off. Our own courts threw out the law for a label on foods that contain GM. We need to get more awareness out so we can fight for our farmers and our food!

GMO's are in Everything and Everyone in the USA. They are causing sickness, disease and death in record numbers. I just finished watching this video called Genetic Roulette. See this thread on it. It's supposed to only be available for two days !!

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=15002262#pid15002262

GMO's do get transferred from plant to cow, to you, and they can still stay active inside you for years after you stop eating the GMO foods. They are in our babies, and in our baby formulas !

I'll post a link to this thread in the thread above.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
GMO's are in Everything and Everyone in the USA. They are causing sickness, disease and death in record numbers. I just finished watching this video called Genetic Roulette. See this thread on it. It's supposed to only be available for two days !!

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=15002262#pid15002262

GMO's do get transferred from plant to cow, to you, and they can still stay active inside you for years after you stop eating the GMO foods. They are in our babies, and in our baby formulas !

I'll post a link to this thread in the thread above.

Food, Inc. is also an excellent documentary to watch. Reports on chicken farms, Montanso, etc...

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Chemicals can, we know this, but the fear of GM crops is unfounded. The real culprit is the chemical exposure.

Please explain how any proper research can be done when the crops in question remain the intellectual property of the GM companies, even after you buy the product, it is still theirs, this is why farmers are losing law suits due GM crops being found on their property.

You can't and that is a very valid point. It is wrong that farmers can be sued for crosspollination of their non GM plants and the corporate plants. After all, as it was correctly said earlier, it is almost impossible to prevent that from happening. The company want to protect its intellectual property, I can get that, but that does not sit well with me that I could buy something but still not "own" it. I don't have much of a choice with computer programs and end user agreements, but I don't think this the greatest business practice. The answer is, of course, not to buy the products. If I buy a corn seed and grow corn from it, I should be able to test it all I want as I would consider it my ear of corn. Likewise I should be able to take apart my Iphone all I want. If is steal their secrets and start making profit off their patent, then they might have a case, but not just for investigating the stuff.

Originally posted by Manhater
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Dude, there is so many things that can go wrong in a day that will kill you anyways, might as well have your last meal and enjoy it.

edit on 19-9-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

This is proof that we are turning into mind controlled losers that give up their rights to even eat uncontaminated natural food. The take over will be easy

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

The linked study contains no new laboratory research, but it does describe how scientists used the existing data Monsanto used to say the GM varieties were safe to show that, indeed, they are not safe. They show Monsanto used some extraordinarily half-assed statistical tools (different than described in their protocol even!) as evidence for safety, and how Monsanto blatantly ignored some concerning results. They describe how the study design - insufficient number of subjects, only a single species of subject, only two feeding levels, only 3-months of feeding - was wholly unsatisfactory to show safety for human consumption. And the Monsanto study is what gets presented to the USDA, FDA, EPA, etc... to prove that is fit for use and fit for consumption. And when your ex-employee, whom you've set up handsomely is the one reviewing your "scientific study to demonstrate safety" you can be sure that not much scrutiny will be given to your poor-excuse for scientific research.

See the bold text above for my reply. I'll add this - this was Monsanto's own data.

With regard to selective breeding being genetic modification, I'll say this: true to definition there is unfathomable genetic modification taking place in my body and all others every second, not only that but anytime anything reproduces there is just as much genetic modification as when you selectively breed (with a few obvious exceptions e.g. splicing three or four fruit trees together). But all of this, even choosing parents based on traits is infinitely different than manually going in, splicing out chunks of DNA from one animal, plant, etc. and putting it in another completely, unfathomably unrelated recipient. These organisms would be unable to exchange any kind of meaningful genetic material via 'natural means', but we go in and play 'God', if you will, taking a little here, putting it in there - give corn a gene from this bacteria and watch it produce insecticide itself! Magic. So please don't insult my intelligence, and that of the rest of those reading, by saying selective breeding is the same as 'genetic modification' as used in the OBVIOUS context it is being used within this thread.

Thanks.

Not insulting anyone's intelligence to point out the scientific facts of the matter. Selective breeding is genetic manipulation, sorry if that does not sit well with you. Gene splicing is certainly a more advance and quicker way to produced desired traits. However, if neither the native gene nor the added gene cause damage in people, why would the combination of hte two cause damage? The immediate fear of and reaction to this new technology reminds me of the Luddites who had a hatred of any advancement. One good piece of logic from medical school: if a substance is touted as a miracle cure, that can cure everything from halitosis to hangnails, cancer to fibromyalgia, there probably is not much good science behind those claims. Likewise if something is perported to cause any and all ills, from cancer to autism to diabetes, then there is not likely to be a good causal link proven. People hear the words "genetically modified" and get into a tizzy and fear that they will grow an extra head because they do not understand how genes work.

Processed food, genetically modified or not, is the less healthy choice. Avoid and limit processed food and you will be healthier in general.

This is bad on so many levels that I can't believe anyone would justify this.

We are still way to stupid to be messing with nature. The fact this stuff isn't tested like a medication would be, blows my mind.

They won't label it = bad
They say its safe but won't test it = bad
They won't eat themselves = bad
They do it with no regulation = bad
They have a record making unsafe products = bad

I'm glad someone is testing this abomination.