Expert panel rejects French study linking GM corn to cancer

Expert panel rejects French study linking GM corn to cancer

www.france24.com

A controversial French study linking GM corn to cases of cancer was dismissed by an investigative panel on Monday. Experts, asked by the government to examine the study, found there was no link between the corn and tumours found in rats.


An investigative panel on Monday rejected a contested French study linking transgenic corn to cancer in rats but called for a "long-term, independent" probe into the product to advise the public.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
France will push for GM ban if cancer threat confirmed (Update)
Study finds tumors in rats fed on Monsanto's GM corn

The results are in and the French have concluded that the correlation between GMO and cancer are non existent and even accuse the original report of being exaggerated to sell headlines. France, I guess, will not be banning GMO anytime soon

Now do I trust these French findings? Being a regular on this site the answer should be obvious , but either way I'll do my best to boycott GMO and to support any and all farmers who choose to not grow GMO foods.

www.france24.com (visit the link for the full news article)

I sell a product, I am proud to taught the benefits, the origins and my participation. A great many entrepreneurs are.

GMO's are supposed to be the greatest thing for human food consumption ever. Why does Monsanto seek to AVOID labeling their product in the proud tradition of self aggrandizement for the purposes of marketing? Why does Monsanto not only label their product in their UK offices but offer GMO free food as well?

If it is great, I say label it! I can't grasp the concept of saying that the GMO food is not only safe but great for us, and avoiding actually saying that in writing, on the record, in the label used to sell the very thing that is so great. I'm lost on that line of thinking.

reply to post by crankyoldman


That's because GMO is not safe.

It is not yet fit for human consumption.

There is no reason the world's largest chemical company should be making your food. Their new crops use agent orange. Tasty.

Until there is a body of evidence that is un-disputable which clearly points to GMO foods being better than traditional foods, then I will eat it and I will support it.

Until that time, I demand to be told what is in my food, how it was grown and where it actually came from. As a consumer I should have the ultimate choice. Monsanto fights aginst GMO labeling because, at least I think, they know that their GMO's are not good for you.

The tobacco lobby also fought real hard to pretend like cigarettes didn't cause cancer.

GMO is the tobacco of the 21st century.

~Tenth

reply to post by crankyoldman


Yeah my thoughts exactly. If we have nothing to fear from GMO then why are they fighting so hard for foods to NOT be labeled GMO? The simple fact that they refuse to let us know this is all I need to know about Monsanto.

The same company who gave us Agent Orange. I don't want these guys making my food.

Originally posted by Swills


The results are in and the French have concluded that the correlation between GMO and cancer are non existent and even accuse the original report of being exaggerated to sell headlines. France, I guess, will not be banning GMO anytime soon

Now do I trust these French findings? Being a regular on this site the answer should be obvious

, but either way I'll do my best to boycott GMO and to support any and all farmers who choose to not grow GMO foods.

www.france24.com (visit the link for the full news article)

Benign tumours are not cancer...it is no brainer why experts rejected the study!

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

Yeah my thoughts exactly. If we have nothing to fear from GMO then why are they fighting so hard for foods to NOT be labeled GMO? The simple fact that they refuse to let us know this is all I need to know about Monsanto.

The same company who gave us Agent Orange. I don't want these guys making my food.

edit on 22-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

Sadly, and most appallingly, the discourse is only centered around cancer. Poor health, digestive issues, fatigue, pain, is not considered any sort of human issue. The Monsanto's of the world have somehow created a reality where, "if it doesn't cause cancer it is fine" is the mantra for agra businesses. My guess is, the hesistation to proudly proclaim their product as "GMO King of Food" is due to the failure on both the basic health effects and the cancer one. While this protects them, it still defies logic that a single person on the planet would not see the resistance to label their glorious product as such as a real problem.

Lets not forget that Monsanto employees refuse to have GMO products in their canteens that to me speaks volumes

reply to post by Swills


the only reason for GMOs was extra crop yeild and lower fertilizer use,
PROBLEM IS THAT WAS SIMPLY MARKETING

Researchers compared the systems on productivity, profitability, and environmental health and the findings—published earlier this month in the journal PLOS One—according to Bittman, "are stunning:"

The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

GMOs are bad for the enviornment and health

xploder

reply to post by Bilder

Lets not forget that Monsanto employees refuse to have GMO products in their canteens that to me speaks volumes

Actually, it was a single canteen that the 1999 article was talking about.

Monsanto confirms the authenticity of the notice, but company spokesman Tony Coombes says the only reason for the GM-free foods is because the company "believes in choice." Coombes says in other Monsanto locations employees are happy to eat GM foods because they are "sprayed with fewer chemicals."

www.cbc.ca...

Just keeping the facts straight.

reply to post by XPLodER

the only reason for GMOs was extra crop yeild and lower fertilizer use,

No. The main reasons are actually greater disease and pest resistance. That study used very small plots (7 acres). That doesn't really translate to thousands of acres and doesn't really have anything to do with GMO crops.

Just keeping the facts straight.

reply to post by Phage

Thanks for clarifying that point Phage I didnt realize that it was just the one canteen however as far as Im concerned Monsanto is one of the most evil corporations on the face of the earth and I wouldnt trust them under any circumstances

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bilder

 

Lets not forget that Monsanto employees refuse to have GMO products in their canteens that to me speaks volumes

Actually, it was a single canteen that the 1999 article was talking about.

Monsanto confirms the authenticity of the notice, but company spokesman Tony Coombes says the only reason for the GM-free foods is because the company "believes in choice." Coombes says in other Monsanto locations employees are happy to eat GM foods because they are "sprayed with fewer chemicals."

www.cbc.ca...

Just keeping the facts straight.

OK PHAGE

keeping facts straight about choice,

if monsatan is so interested in providing "choice" why are they advertising AGAINST food labelling?

cant have your choice and eat it too?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
please read the above thread



xploder

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

the only reason for GMOs was extra crop yeild and lower fertilizer use,

No. The main reasons are actually greater disease and pest resistance. That study used very small plots (7 acres). That doesn't really translate to thousands of acres and doesn't really have anything to do with GMO crops.

Just keeping the facts straight.

edit on 10/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

i knew you would attack the study,
without addressing the findings,

if a 200 fold decrease in water pollution is found on a "small plot"
do the math and tell me how much pollution that would be for the continental usa?

scale it up for me

xploder

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

the only reason for GMOs was extra crop yeild and lower fertilizer use,

No. The main reasons are actually greater disease and pest resistance. That study used very small plots (7 acres). That doesn't really translate to thousands of acres and doesn't really have anything to do with GMO crops.

Just keeping the facts straight.

edit on 10/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

ok scale these numbers up for me

The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.

the EXACT same results you claim GMOs are designed to achieve

88% REDUCTION in fertilizer AND increased crop yeilds

tell me how much 88% less fertilizer would mean across the continental usa?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Well for one reason, it's very difficult to ensure that any particular product doesn't have GMO components in it since the source of the product ingredients isn't always easy to track. Corn and soy come from a wide variety of sources. The sign posted in the single canteen did not say there were no GMO products, it said this:

"as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

www.cbc.ca...

reply to post by XPLodER

The problem isn't with the fertilizer. I'm sure proper crop management can reduce that. The problem is disease and pests. You see, the larger the crop the harder these are to manage. A single infection or infestation can devastate hundreds of acres. That is the main purpose of GMO crops, to have a built in resistance in each plant.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

The problem isn't with the fertilizer. I'm sure proper crop management can reduce that. The problem is disease and pests. You see, the larger the crop the harder these are to manage. A single infection or infestation can devastate hundreds of acres. That is the main purpose of GMO crops, to have a built in resistance in each plant.

edit on 10/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

so if there was a natural alternative for disease prevention that was "un-patenable" then you would be happy to agree to remove GMOs and their associated chemicals?

after all then there would be no need for them if alternatives were readably available?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

then you would be happy to agree to remove GMOs and their associated chemicals?

Sure. Why not?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

The problem isn't with the fertilizer. I'm sure proper crop management can reduce that. The problem is disease and pests. You see, the larger the crop the harder these are to manage. A single infection or infestation can devastate hundreds of acres. That is the main purpose of GMO crops, to have a built in resistance in each plant.

edit on 10/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

ill use an analogy
if the over prescription of penicillin causes penicillin resistant bacteria,
what does the over use of pesticides cause?

super weeds?

that then require ever higher does of chemicals?

xploder