The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening huma

reply to post by seudonymous


Woah.. Looks like I'll never watch another Discovery documentary.. that's done it for me. They're supposed to be objective! They're entire existence is science and nature. Not pseudoscience and the highest bidder. Is nothing sacred anymore?

Some excellent responses to this thread so far. And of course a few ostriches spouting party line propaganda and nay saying... Two very important things people can do is of course read labels and buy organic as much as possible and educates others.

Local farmers markets and craigs list or throw away papers are good sources to find produce. They may not all be organic certified but you can usually see there operation so you know where your food is coming from and how it is grown.

Organic certified labels in the market are no guarantee but better then not. I would rather by from local farmers and gardeners and co-ops etc. then worry to much about certified organic labels.

And of course grow as much of your own as you can.

I still think the farmers in India who burn Monsanto fields have the right idea. But here in America farmers are brainwashed and think Monsanto is great and don;t want to hear about how they may be growing food that is harmful to humanity and the environment. They need to be educated and the only way to do that is to make this information prolific enough so that they cannot help but hear about it and see other farmers embrace it.

Hey check this out... its along the same line... California has a vote coming up for labeling of GMO, and monsato has a big money gamble in on this...

Organic Consumer Association

To help you avoid gmo

www.nongmoproject.org...

www.nongmoshoppingguide.com...

And shop no gmo ( can't get a link soz)

These also have apps available on iphone and other platforms

reply to post by hawkiye

we all know by now how bad all this is, the real question is what do we the people do about it besides huff and puff on the internet?

reply to post by hawkiye


How are GMOs related to colony collapse syndrome?

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

I'm sure someone has already posted a reply to your question. I have posted on the article site as well. What many are confused about is the pesticide residue. No, the pesticide is not a reside on the food. It is pesticide that is genetically placed 'inside' of the seed and thus produce. You can't get away from it no matter how much you wash the food. It's inside. That is the HUGE difference. That is where the crime is taking place. That and the way they are taking advantage of farmers and suing them. Another hot topic and major issue.

Hope that clears up your confusion. Then again, I'm sure someone else already cleared it up for you.

Monsanto has done stuff like this for decades. They get sued and pay fines and then begin the next big cover up. They know that the huge profits they obtain will never be damaged by the small fines they have to pay after 2 or 3 decades.

These people must go. Period.

Not gonna happen.
Do a web search on GMO in news and see how hard the media is cranking up the PR machine.
"Flawed study" is the term I'm seeing the most.
"Anti-GMO study is appropriately dismissed as biased, poorly-performed"
"Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince."
"Monsanto goes on offensive over GM/cancer study"
Enough to make the public go back to sleep.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Bayer Kills Bees

US company Monsanto has the portfolio with the highest proportion (60 percent) of pesticides that are particularly toxic to humans and the environment. However, Monsanto only ends up in the middle of the overall ranking due to its small share of the market.

So the corn has a gene in it as the pesticide. The bee gets the pollen ingested and takes in the gene and dies.

This is called Horizontal Gene Transfer -- and normally pesticide washes off in rain but this new type of corn has the nicotine pesticide in the seed as a gene.

the last few weeks beekeepers have reported staggering losses in Minnesota, Nebraska and Ohio after their hives foraged on pesticide-treated corn fields. Indiana too, two years ago. What's going on in the Corn Belt? No farmer in their right mind wants to poison pollinators. When I spoke with one Iowa corn farmer in January and told him about the upcoming release of a Purdue study confirming corn as a major pesticide exposure route for bees, his face dropped with worn exasperation. He looked down for a moment, sighed and said, "You know, I held out for years on buying them GE seeds, but now I can't get conventional seeds anymore. They just don't carry 'em." This leaves us with two questions: 1) What do GE seeds have to do with neonicotinoids and bees? and 2) How can an Iowa corn farmer find himself feeling unable to farm without poisoning pollinators? In other words, where did U.S. corn cultivation go wrong?

More info here -- so the EPA and FDA are controlled by Monsanto, etc. so the bees keep dying

reply to post by Sabreblade

A group of plant scientists is warning federal regulators that action is needed to mitigate a growing problem with biotech corn that is losing its resistance to plant-damaging pests. The stakes are high - corn production is critical for food, animal feed and ethanol production, and farmers have increasingly been relying on corn that has been genetically modified to be toxic to corn rootworm pests. "This is not something that is a surprise... but it is something that needs to be addressed," said Joseph Spencer, a corn entomologist with the Illinois Natural History Survey, part of the University of Illinois. Spencer is one of 22 academic corn experts who sent a letter dated March 5 to the Environmental Protection Agency telling regulators they are worried about long-term corn production prospects because of the failure of the genetic modifications in corn aimed at protection from rootworm.

So nature is taking revenge against Monsanto

I'm not a fan of GMO food but the new study of the effects of GMO corn on rats is not accurate. The site natural news is just another propaganda website. If you read the study and have some scientific background you will realize that the methodology used to experiment was not done properly. Thus making the claim partially invalid.

The best way to say no is to not buy the stuff. That takes discipline, but I'm sure you'll save a lot of money in the process of not eating GMOs. Anything that tries to act as a key in gene-flipping of any organism, without it being crystal clear what genes are being flipped, is something more like medical malpractice. Do you want some company telling you that the genes you were born with, because of a certain family lineage, are not acceptable and must be suppressed with modified food?

You know they are flipping the genes to make you sick to get dependent on pharmaceuticals right? If they aren't putting it in your body, they are putting it into the cows and chickens to change them. Poisonous breeds, especially the wheat. These things manipulate your hormones, the stuff in charge of your emotions. Now you know where the chemical imbalances come from! It's the food! It took a lot to get it to germ-embedded food, lots of money and lots of farmer-rights wars. Last chance is to boycott.

reply to post by Sandalphon


Yeah 50 percent of sweet corn in the U.S. is now Monsanto genetically engineered.

Monsanto's big selling point of g.e. is less use of pesticides but it's not true since the insects breed resistance so then pesticide use has to be increased.

05/17/99 BMA CALLS FOR BAN ON GM CROPS AND FOOD By Maxine Frith and Eileen Murphy, PA News The British Medical Association today called for an open- ended ban on the introduction of genetically-modified crops and food. Sir William Asscher (correct), chairman of the BMA's Board of Science and Education, said more research was needed into the health and environmental impacts of so-called Frankenstein foods. The Board today published an interim statement on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and food, calling for strict regulation and assessment of crop trials and other tests. It made 19 recommendations, including an open-ended moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops, a ban on releasing GMOs into the environment, and a review of the World Trade Agreement to ensure that Governments rather than companies determine whether imports of GM foods and seed are restricted.

Whether the science has proven genetic engineering is harmful is not the real issue.

Genetic engineering has not been proven safe -- and the precautionary principle holds when something is released that self-reproduces on its own and can not be recalled.

British Medical Association Call for Ban on Genetically Engineered Crops and Food

Over the last 15 years, U.S. corn cultivation has gone from a crop requiring little-to-no insecticides and negligible amounts of fungicides, to a crop where the average acre is grown from seeds treated or genetically engineered to express three different insecticides (as well as a fungicide or two) before being sprayed prophylactically with RoundUp (an herbicide) and a new class of fungicides that farmers didn’t know they “needed” before the mid-2000s. A series of marketing ploys by the pesticide industry undergird this story.

GE corn & sick honey bees – what’s the link? By Occupy Monsanto | April 24, 2012 | GMO, Pesticides, Round Up, Sustainability

Then, as if on cue, Monsanto introduced three different strains of patented, GE corn between 1997 and 2003 (RoundUp Ready, and two Bt–expressing variants aimed at controlling the European Corn Borer and corn root worm). Clothianidin entered the U.S. market under conditional registration in 2003, and in 2004 corn seed companies began marketing seeds treated with a 5X level of neonicotinoids (1.25 mg/seed vs. .25). … and in the space of a decade, U.S. corn acreage undergoes a ten-fold increase in average insecticide use. By 2007, the average acre of corn has more than three systemic insecticides — both Bt traits and a neonicotinoid. Compare this to the early 1990s, when only an estimated 30-35% of all corn acreage were treated with insecticides at all.

S&F See the top of my avatar

Cant believe some of the responses in this thread. WAKE UP YOU MORONS!!!

GMO is going to kill YOU and your CHILDREN.

Dont just sit back and think there's nothing you can do, theres lots you can do.
TELL PEOPLE WHAT YOU KNOW

Make a poster that says "GMO IS KILLING PEOPLE - GOOGLE IT" and put it in the back window of your car. Those with half a brain cell still working will go online to seek more info.

Support organic farming.
Support local markets.

want something to do... Right to Know Petition

this one too... Take Action monsaton

LOVE∞

MayAllSoulsBeFree

There are several significant limitations to the research, including the following:

-Although the study did include a large number of rats overall, there were only 10 males and 10 females in each group. All comparisons were made with just one control group of 10 male rats and 10 females, and a larger group of control rats may not have given identical average lifespan and health data. Such a small control group makes it more likely that the results are due to chance.

-Humans are biologically different from rats, and we may not have identical susceptibilities to disease and illness.

-One expert argument was that the rats in this study were a breed already susceptible to tumours, especially if they are given unlimited access to food. This seems plausible as the rats are described to have been virgin albino Sprague-Dawley rats; however, their tumour susceptibility is not discussed in the paper.

-The method of statistical analysis used to assess the results was described by the researchers as being a "robust method for modelling, analysing and interpreting complex chemical and biological data", but is complicated and fairly impenetrable, even to those with training in statistics.

-The rats were fed a regular, concentrated diet of the test substance, and how this dose relates to any human intake is unclear.

-This two-year period roughly equated to a rat’s lifetime. It is difficult to equate this directly to humans. Does it represent lifelong, daily consumption of GM foods treated with herbicides, and at what age adverse effects – if any – may be expected to be seen in humans?

The very unusual way in which the trial was conducted makes it hard to lend much weight to its conclusions...

Source here

reply to post by dimburg


That's already accounted for in the OP. The criticisms of the study were just superficial attacks and the researchers already took those factors into account.

reply to post by Neocrusader


What whores these individuals are................check out the administration at the FDA............there are former Monstano employees in positions of authority within the FDA............vested interest anyone?

How can a government agency remain objective in the interest in the public when they are controlled by the corporate state?

Such utter abuse of the free market............and representative government.

We are the manipulated masses of the corporate state........stop being a blind consumer and learn independent critical thinking........ and don't cave into their marketing of manufactured consent...........

Originally posted by Heresy
First of all, EACH GM PRODUCT IS DIFFERENT.I thought I should point this out.

My second point is that someone accidentally produced a poisonous potato a few decades ago that poisoned a bunch of people (too much solanine) by normal selective breeding. So, all new foods need to be checked.

My third point is, duh, some of the plants contained self generated pesticide that yopu couldn't wash off. What did Monsanto, and the rest of the world, expect?

The rest of the world expected organic maybe???? just sayin

I'm still waiting for everyone to contract gobs of cancers due to Fukushima. That will take time. If/when everyone does am I to believe it was the Rads or GMO? PCB's or Dioxin? Flouride or Mercury and Lead? Or all the worry about all that? Worry causes disease to. Not if you're at ease though...

At ease

Dis ease