Expert panel rejects French study linking GM corn to cancer

reply to post by Maxmars

The first reaction by Pfizer (who owns Monsanto) to any dissent aimed at their products is to destroy the credibility of the dissenters.

Do you have a source for that relationship between the two companies?
I looked at the Wikipedia articles for both and found nothing connecting them.

Of course, it is not impossible that GMO food can be designed and implemented in a safe and effective way.

I would disagree with that. There is a process for developing specific traits called hybridization, but 'genetically modified' means placing seeds and/or plants next to radiation sources to damage the genes and to basically produce a new, mutant form, with no controls whatsoever on what exactly those changes are, since it is all random and dealing with things we don't thoroughly understand yet.

reply to post by XPLodER


Good post, almost looks like you know what you are doing. Strengthen the plant and it can strengthen it's defenses. Lease the wasps and hornets alive so when the corn plant needs to attract them to kill the bugs they are there. We are messing up bad, what happens when science screws up the bugs so they can eat anything. The whole commercial food industry is a lie, a very dangerous lie.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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 tothetenthpower


Forum Moderator

You state, and I quote "The tobacco lobby also fought real hard to pretend like cigarettes didn't cause cancer."

Please provide your proof that cigarettes cause cancer.

As far as I know - there is NO proof that cigarettes cause cancer as the biological pathway has not yet been identified. The only "proof" that cigarettes cause cancer to date is one of association - which proves correlation but not causation.

Am I mistaken?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

. . . proves correlation but not causation . . .

Right, it's only anecdotal evidence, and not scientific proof.
Just because people smoke and then die, does not mean the smoking made them die.
Rats eating GMO corn and getting tumors does not mean that, in itself, eating the corn caused the tumors.
You have to first create a good theory of the mechanism at work in the rats that produced the tumors, then prove your theory is correct, meanwhile don't worry, and keep eating GMO corn.

Please go to school and get a scientific background and read the actual journal article......don't read natural news (biased, and scare sheep to flock them). There are so many flaws with their methodology. I'm not saying that GMO causes cancer or doesn't cancer. I'm saying the scientists involved did a really bad job representing their case, so of course they got rejected.

Look up the # of rats used, the type of rats used, how they had so many other variables involved. Someone just needs to do the experiment better, if they want a anti-GMO law passed.

Here is some scary stuff about GMOs and what we have to look forward too over the next several decades!
www.globalresearch.ca...
God help us!

There is no way to prove something would cause cancer.... because there are many factors thru out an individuals life that could affect it. Unless someone willing to born in a clean room, away from outside exposure and only fed GMO products... EVEN then you gotta look at genetics and other crap.

So good luck linking it to GMO.

GMO is bigger part in your life than you think, and no its not just food(crops and meat).

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Maxmars

 

The first reaction by Pfizer (who owns Monsanto) to any dissent aimed at their products is to destroy the credibility of the dissenters.

Do you have a source for that relationship between the two companies?
I looked at the Wikipedia articles for both and found nothing connecting them.

Of course, it is not impossible that GMO food can be designed and implemented in a safe and effective way.

I would disagree with that. There is a process for developing specific traits called hybridization, but 'genetically modified' means placing seeds and/or plants next to radiation sources to damage the genes and to basically produce a new, mutant form, with no controls whatsoever on what exactly those changes are, since it is all random and dealing with things we don't thoroughly understand yet.

edit on 23-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I'm very glad you asked because there is an interesting effort by some 'reputation' water armies on the internet to obfuscate the reality....

"...on March 31, 2000, Monsanto was merged with Pharmacia & UpJohn Inc. to become Pharmacia Corp.

Pharmacia Corp. (Monsanto) is owned by Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company."

Neither of these two statements is incorrect....

However, technically, Monsanto does not exist as anything but an Agro-Biz subsidiary of Pharmacia.... so technically they can claim that Pfizer is not the owner.... as if a company they owned can in turn, own another company that they do not "own."

Yet, if you go to one of the more popular "ask"-type site and simply ask "Does Pfizer own Monsanto?" you will inevitably get a one word answer. "No."

On Pfizer's website:

In April 2000, Pharmacia & Upjohn completed a merger with Monsanto and Searle creating Pharmacia, a dynamic new competitor in the pharmaceutical industry. This top-tier company's innovative medicines and other products saved the lives of many and enhanced health and wellness. Following the merger, Pharmacia continued Searle's agreement with Pfizer to co-promote Celebrex, which was originally co-developed by Searle and Pfizer.

In August 2002, Pharmacia completed the spin-off of its agricultural subsidiary, Monsanto Company.

Notice how it is still muddled by the failure to explain that in all of that Pfizer is the company which is "parent."

On Monsanto's website:

Prior to Sept. 1, 1997, a corporation that was then known as Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) operated an agricultural products business (the Ag Business), a pharmaceuticals and nutrition business (the Pharmaceuticals Business) and a chemical products business (the Chemicals Business). Former Monsanto is today known as Pharmacia. Pharmacia is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., which together with its subsidiaries operates the Pharmaceuticals Business. Today’s Monsanto includes the operations, assets and liabilities that were previously the Ag Business. Today’s Solutia comprises the operations, assets and liabilities that were previously the Chemicals Business. The following table sets forth a chronology of events that resulted in the formation of Monsanto, Pharmacia and Solutia as three separate and distinct corporations, and it provides a brief background on the relationships among these corporations.

Under the "Current" portion of the table they reference you will find only two sentences....

There is no control relationship among Monsanto, Pharmacia, or Solutia. However, the indemnification obligations among the companies and certain service and supply agreements are ongoing.

Note they don't declare that there is no control relationship between Pfizer and Monsanto...or any other Pfizer subsidiary. If they did, I would not infer that Pfizer "owns" Monsanto.... but in fact, they do.

reply to post by Maxmars


So there are so many contractual agreements between them that can not be broken that they are virtually the same company by everything but name.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Layered corporate networking is by far the most common way to eliminate liability between enterprises. The ability for corporations (who are immortal and divisible) to subsection themselves like this is a protection that is impossible for human beings (who are mortal individuals.)

Thank you Uniform Code of Commerce and the legal minds that empowered the rise of the "patrician class" corporations making the descent of the human citizen to a fully lower class complete (with less power, protection, and more easily exploited.)

A corporate network rules the world; make no mistake about it. Political, social, and ideological "human" concerns notwithstanding.

For the sake of my own satisfaction I would like to add that this corporate super status could not have happened without forced economic coordination via a "Supranational Global Banking Cartel" which some will still deny even exists.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


You are going to argue that tobacco products do not cause cancer directly? Do you think there is not sufficient scientific evidence which proves that carcinogens cause cancer?

A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer. This may be due to the ability to damage the genome or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes. Several radioactive substances are considered carcinogens, but their carcinogenic activity is attributed to the radiation, for example gamma rays and alpha particles, which they emit. Common examples of carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke. Although the public generally associates carcinogenicity with synthetic chemicals, it is equally likely to arise in both natural and synthetic substances.[1]

I won't argue a known scentific fact. We can argue about semantics, direct link, indirect link etc. The fact remains that carcinogens are known to produce cancers. Period.

The primary risks of tobacco usage include many forms of cancer, particularly lung cancer,[82] kidney cancer,[83] cancer of the larynx and head and neck, breast cancer,[84][85] bladder cancer,[86] cancer of the esophagus,[87] cancer of the pancreas[88] and stomach cancer.[89]

en.wikipedia.org...

~Tenth

Very good thread and very interesting so far, I tried to search for who sits on this board and what financial backing they get and from whom do they get this.

I tried searching this......The Higher Biotechnologies Council (HCB) France.

I could not find anything probably because it is buried so deep right now because every result was more or less directed back to this news release.


The only thing of interest I found was this.
www.scoop.it...

I realize it is just a blog but thought it pertained to this thread.



Regards, Iwinder

They are calling for a long-term independent study? That WAS a long-term independent study.

reply to post by XPLodER

8% unemployment = remove expensive pesticides and fertilisers, and hire people = jobs

Are you suggesting the government, what, take over the agricultural business entirely and then relocate millions of people in order to make them work the farms?

I'm curious how many on that panel are on Monsanto's payroll.

reply to post by bigrex

They are calling for a long-term independent study?

They are calling for a properly conducted long term study.

Originally posted by PushEject
I'm curious how many on that panel are on Monsanto's payroll.

There are ways upon ways to influence people. Being compensated can come in many forms... often completely untraceable to a source. A CEO makes a call to a friend, bingo! an opportunity you had been inquiring about has just become reality. Wouldn't it be great if we could get our kid into X school? .... an opening? Wow!

A million ways.

What I mean to say that it is just speculation unless such a thing can be verified. Would they have to be "on the take" to take a contrary position? No.

Let's not forget that this evaluation team was allegedly the same team that had previously already "approved" the strain as "safe." Loss of face for politically appointed high level players? Can't have that.

Also, they could be correct. I am inclined to be ambivalent in believing that to be likely, given the ever-present echoes of the industry's past.