Expert panel rejects French study linking GM corn to cancer

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

It doesn't take over use to have the effect. Any use at all does it. And it occurs with "natural" pesticides as well. Natural selection causes pests to become resistant to anything.

The solution is crop rotation which also means pest rotation. Some bugs don't eat some plants. When you change crops the pests leave. But again, crop rotation is manageable with smaller plots, is not really an option when you are talking about thousands of acres which are in production of corn or soy.
edit on 10/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
And this 'panel' is funded by who? There are a lot of sell out 'experts' out there that the 'industries' use to continuously put out bad information either for money or because of extortion and blackmail.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
The extremely fast criticisms came from a 'scientific institute' who is funded among an extensive list by biotechnology corporations.

The critics' arguments are so weak it's a dead giveaway of their bias.

EFSA's report rehashed the old "strain of rat prone to cancer" bit, which is not accurate.
edit on 23-10-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 

It doesn't take over use to have the effect. Any use at all does it. And it occurs with "natural" pesticides as well. Natural selection causes pests to become resistant to anything.

The solution is crop rotation which also means pest rotation. Some bugs don't eat some plants. When you change crops the pests leave. But again, crop rotation is manageable with smaller plots, is not really an option when you are talking about thousands of acres which are in production of corn or soy.
edit on 10/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


SO knowing this info^^^^^^^^^

AND STILL making pest resistent and disease crops is never going to work long term?
how is this not the meaning of insanity?

doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is what again?

xploder



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
 


On Friday, six French science academies joined the accusers, saying that the work "does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn" and had "spread fear among the public".

www.france24.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is what again?
What is your solution? How would you produce thousand of acres of crops? Maybe you should tell the farmers who are raising GMO crops how to do it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


ok but if i get banned its your fault phage,

its simple,

you plant rows of different crops that have a symbiotic relationship with one another,
the husbandry "between" the plants is co efficient,
the species naturally defend "each other"

secondly the crop rotation of food crops with non food crops like textiles and oils and seeds,
the best plants for the secondary rotations are dependant on the first group of crops and what nutrients are depleted from the soil

an example is wheat and mustard in rows with a secondary rotation of hemp,

the hemp is grown for fibre and seed (highly nutritious) and then plowed back into the soil to make up for the lost nitrogen from the wheat,

this is the most simple example i can give ATM
but there are many many more examples of co operative rotation planting cycles,

some lasting 7 years or more.

xploder



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

And the labor involved to do that (and plant and harvest at different times) with thousands (millions) of acres? Is it still feasible?
edit on 10/23/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


yes we practice things of a similar nature in my country minus the hemp,
we use inferior crops n the secondary rotation because hemp is currently not legal to grow here.

the seed from hemp is pound for pound the most nutritious food known to man (other than bee pollen)

the crop rotation we use increases yeild and also has the side effect of redistributing nutrients for healthier plants that are MORE disease resistant because they are not deficient in critical nutrients

if it works here why not in the us?

xploder



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


if it works here why not in the us?

I don't know. Are you talking about millions of acres? Are you talking about corn, wheat, and soy?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


our citizens pay a higher price "willingly" for ecologically sustainable farming practices,
its not significantly higher in cost,
and over time the "extra" labour allows workers to have jobs,

it works because of higher yeilds with lower fertilizer and pesticide costs, this offsets the extra labour costs
and the good part of mustard and wheat is you can crop one (tall) and wait till the smaller plants can be harvested at a later time.

xploder



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 


if it works here why not in the us?

I don't know. Are you talking about millions of acres? Are you talking about corn, wheat, and soy?


every different crop has a different pest symbiosis with other plants,
and different nutrient needs and replacement cycles. (plowing over back into the soil)

you simply cant keep spaying soil over and over again on the same crops without degrading nutrients,
at some point you require actual vegetable matter with nutrients to be tilled in.

as far as size goes, why not the whole world?
8% unemployment = remove expensive pesticides and fertilisers,
and hire people = jobs

same out put same costs, less environmental impacts

xploder



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Keep in mind these so called "Experts" are from the Higher Biotechnologies Council. Biotech is famous for being in bed with Monsanto and GMO's. I bet you they were paid off.

Perhaps we should look up exactly who these people are and look into their past associations.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
The two things which concern me the most about GMO's are:

1-terminator seeds.These will not produce viable seeds for the next year of plants,so farmers(many very poor)are forced to buy new seed stock each year,when for centuries they could use the naturally produced seeds every year at no extra cost.
This,IMO is immoral and unfair.

2-The way some GMO's are engineered to be able to accept more doses of pesticides over their growing season,in order to keep the bugs off.
It does not take a genius to work out that a crop which has been sprayed with poison once,will retain less poison through absorbsion as a plant engineered to be able to tolerate multiple sprayings.
Also,the more often you spray,the less time it takes for bugs to develop resistance to whatever pesticide is sprayed,thus creating bugs resistant or immune to that years pesticides...which only ends up with big agro developing other just as toxic pesticides for us to ultimatley ingest.

In the long run,GMO's are an ill thought out and bad idea for all concerned-except for those big companies who have the monopoly on such technology,and make alot of money from it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Keep in mind these so called "Experts" are from the Higher Biotechnologies Council. Biotech is famous for being in bed with Monsanto and GMO's. I bet you they were paid off.

Perhaps we should look up exactly who these people are and look into their past associations.


Exactamente. Start handing out the fat checks and Monsanto windbreakers and you can make "experts" say pretty much whatever you want. If that's not working you go directly to threatening people's children. Then you'll notice you've got their strict support.

ETA and again we find Phage on the wrong end of the argument. Devil's advocate or...?
edit on 23-10-2012 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
at least these threads are predicatble - the " monsanto is evil " brigade really have degenerated to cultish devotion to thier mantara with any agreement being hailed as " heroic truthfull disclosure " and any dissent dismissed as " govt / monsanto shills "



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Who is this independent study? Let's follow their $worth$ pre announcement and post announcement. Let's call this panel out and have them eat this gmo #.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
This was not an unexpected development. This same panel had already declared that the GMO crops in question were "safe" ... so when they immediately reacted to the questionable study as 'fear-mongering' it belied the fact that their own 'acceptance' of GMO was the opposite, potentially reckless.

There is a common phenomenon at play here. Big Chem, Big Pharma, and Big Aggro all have a demonstrated propensity to market their "money makers" aggressively (which is in line with commerce as a goal) despite any resistance from cautionary detractors. It is exactly what happens with every drug that is "recalled" after slaying thousands of people, with pesticides that are said to be the savior of the world... but can kill those who use it, and now with foods that serve the purpose of "productivity" but not consumer interest.

The first reaction by Pfizer (who owns Monsanto) to any dissent aimed at their products is to destroy the credibility of the dissenters. It is so much like thespian politics that I would expect most to see the tactic for what it is.

There have been, for example, numerous reports of GMOs getting into the wild, with diseases and pests suddenly becoming more resilient to the very pesticides the plants are being biochemically forced to produce themselves (and we get to "consume" that because they proclaim it is "safe."

It appears that between the influence they have in the so-called "political" world; and the strength of a high-powered (and corporately protected) marketing effort; one may infer that you and I are not part of the equation except as consumers... the rest is theater. And the business model relies on the actuarial table that drives the prices to insure against any eventual termination of product distribution.

I suspect that the first sign of weakness in "industrialized food" commerce is when rather than proclaim it is safe; they will instead loudly pronounce that "there is no proof" or that evidence of danger is "inadequate."

Most in the establishment fail to acknowledge that this represents a lack of trust... a lack of trust which was not the result of spontaneous paranoia; but instead, a lack of trust that comes from the number of deaths and illnesses which point in their direction.

As I have stated before, the very fact that this peer reviewed research was published as it was - then demolished publicly leads me to a little paranoia of my own: that the exercise was a performance to influence the public by creating a pervasive meme... To deny the viability of GMO is the stuff of conspiracy lunatics, who by definition, can never be right...

Of course, it is not impossible that GMO food can be designed and implemented in a safe and effective way. But aside from cherry-picked results as examples of specially supported farmers, the proof is not there.

It's a function of the same old reality... corporations do not want to "make a living" - they want to "make a killing." And in this case.... it can, does, has, and will kill.... although they will apply more science and "free speech" (money) than anyone else to "protect their investment."



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
at least these threads are predicatble - the " monsanto is evil " brigade really have degenerated to cultish devotion to thier mantara with any agreement being hailed as " heroic truthfull disclosure " and any dissent dismissed as " govt / monsanto shills "



Go educate yourself ......

www.gmwatch.org...
edit on 23-10-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

The Higher Biotechnologies Council (HCB) said it found "no causal relationship" between the rats' tumours and consumption of Monsanto's NK603 corn or the Roundup herbicide that was part of the experiment.
France24
The criticism of the Séralini lab study concerning NK603 is not about whether the rats fed on that corn got tumors but their inability to come up with a plausible explanation for why it happens exactly.
edit on 23-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join