It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The NTP has a long history of using Fischer rats and has compiled a large database of incidences of lesions seen in control animals. Such a database is lacking for Harlan Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats. The intention of this paper is to report spontaneous lesions observed in female vehicle control Harlan SD rats, and to compare the incidence in 2 strains of rats (Fischer and Harlan SD) used in NTP studies. Female Harlan SD rats served as the test animals for a special series of 2-year studies. Male rats were not used in these studies. Complete histopathology was performed on all animals, and the pathology results underwent comprehensive NTP pathology peer review. The most commonly observed neoplasms in these female control Harlan SD rats were mammary gland fibroadenoma (71%), tumors of the pars distalis of the pituitary (41%) and thyroid gland C-cell tumors (30%). Female Fischer rats had incidences of 44% for mammary gland fibroadenomas, 34% for tumors of the pars distalis, and 16% for thyroid gland C-cell tumors. Fischer rats had a 15% incidence of clitoral gland tumors, while the Harlan SD rats had an incidence of < 1%. In contrast to Fischer F344 rats, the Harlan SD rats had a high incidence of squamous metaplasia of the uterus (44.2%). Squamous metaplasia is not a lesion commonly observed in NTP control Fischer rats. The Harlan SD rats had a very low incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia (0.5%), compared with an incidence of 24% in female Fischer rats.
are you accusing the researches from presenting only one side of the story?
like monsanto did with its trials?
Perhaps. Why not cite it? Why use only the (apparently lower) rate of spontaneous development? Why not compare the rate to that of the control group?
By citing the above, Gilles-Eric Séralini is aware of the existence of Suzuki's research.
Fine. Not that different from the Suzuki study. The same problem. Seralini's small control group showed an unusually low incidence of tumors and the overall test groups did not show an unusually high incidence.
also has upwards of 50% for spontaneous tumours
The VIB scientists had serious reservations about the Séralini publication, which appeared today in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. The conclusions drawn by Séralini could not be derived from the publication. The data will have to be subjected to a thorough analysis.
Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by antar
Yeah....pretty much already debunked because of bad science. news.discovery.com...
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Phage
wonder why 90% of the population want it labelled?
if its safe label it,
consumers will choose to "trust" monsatan
free market means free to choose with education
why mansanto so scarred to label?
One ad proclaims, "You have the right to know what you eat, especially when it's better... We believe that products that come from biotechnology are better and that they should be labeled."
In an interview with State of the World Forum, News Team journalist Alastair Thompson asked Monsanto CEO, Robert Shapiro about the consumers demand for labeling GMOs. Shapiro said, " ...it is not my role, or Monsanto's role, to decide these things. It is society's role to decide those questions after appropriate debate." "So you are open to labeling being introduced then?" Shapiro answered: "Yes. Of course."
Monsanto spokesman, Gary Barton also clearly stated, "There's a total misperception that we're against labeling." Genetically engineered products should proudly display a simple statement acknowledging this technology. These multinational businesses should have no problem promoting evidence to convince consumers of their many benefits.
Surprisingly, Monsanto appears to contradict those principles in the United States, where the company says it doesn't support labeling and will spend millions to ensure this information is concealed from consumers.
BASF Plant Science
Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
Bunge North America, Inc.
C. H. Guenther & Son, Inc.
Campbell Soup Company
Clement Pappas & Company, Inc.
Coca-Cola North America
Council for Biotechnology Information
Dole Packaged Foods Company
Dow AgroSciences LLC
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
General Mills, Inc.
Grocery Manufacturers Association
H.J. Heinz Company
Hero North America
Hirzel Canning Company
Hormel Foods Corporation
House-Autry Mills, Inc.
Idahoan Foods, LLC
Inventure Foods, Inc.
Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc.
Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Land O’Lakes, Inc.
McCain Foods USA, Inc.
McCormick & Company, Inc.
Nestle USA, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC
Reily Foods Company
Rich Products Corporation
Richelieu Foods, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Sunny Delight Beverages Company
The J.M. Smucker Company
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
I don't have any problem with labeling but the food producers (no so much Monsanto, they don't sell food) do. Higher costs to track and verify labeling would lead to higher costs, which of course get passed on to the consumer. And of course, there are those who wouldn't buy GM food no matter what (in part due to flawed studies and the sensationalism that goes along with them). That worries food producers.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
I recently had a row with a family member over this very subject.
This is what was thrown at me as evidence.
"We've been eating this stuff for years and its never hurt any of us"
I was shocked, this seems to be what people believe!!
The MSM certainly does its job very well.
GMO is POISON