Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs - Full Length Movie

page: 1
42
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

Over the last few years, our understanding of Genetic Engineering has increased
significantly, even so we are only beginning to observe the detrimental effects.

Genetic Engineering of plants has been shown through scientific study disruptive to
entire cellular mechanisms of plants, animals and humans, along with severe negative
impact on the environment.

The Big Ag companies; Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta--are dead set that the world's
populations remain in the dark, ignorant about the devastating health and environmental
risks, and argue their manipulation of genes is safe, yet increasing study shows the opposite.

To counter the lies, another award winning documentary hits back with the truth.


Award-winning documentary, Seeds of Death, exposes the lies about GMOs and pulls back
the curtains to witness our planet's future if Big Agriculture's new green revolution becomes our
dominant food supply.


The full length award-winning documentary Seeds of Death:



GMO proponents argue:

“that each gene had a single, unique, independent function,
and that moving a gene from one plant or animal to another would allow that gene to express
that particular function wherever and however it was located.” Now that our understanding of
genetic functions has advanced substantially, in fact is transformed from the unsophisticated
linear thinking of the past, the corporate argument is completely false.

Genes are also involved in other cellular regulatory processes and not just simply expressing traits. For this reason, the genetic engineering of plants is now being shown to disrupt the entire cellular mechanisms of an organism and we are only beginning to observe its detrimental effects.
prn.fm...



A Question and Answer fact sheet deconstructing Monsanto's GM claims and
Big Agriculture's propaganda to accompany the film is available here:

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution: prn.fm...

Related Above Top Secret Discussion Threads:

Toxin from GM crops found in human blood
Research Proves GMO Foods Alter Organ Function
Genetically Engineered Food Alters Our Digestive Systems!
Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

edit on 24-5-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs



Every time the topic of GMO crops comes up on ATS, I keep saying the same thing.
There should be easily enough material available on what evil the corporations have ACTUALLY done that there should be no need to invent bogus falsehoods to throw at them as well.

But this documentary does that.

As one example, Percy Schmeiser gets a free run in this film to say whatever he wants, and so the film completely massively misrepresented his case. In the video it tells you a bit of wind blown contamination occurred, and thats why Monsanto prosecuted. Not true.
Percy says "hundreds" of farmers have been driven off properties for the same "contamination" reason. Not true. In fact there is not a single case of "contamination" prosecution.

Ignoring the other issues with the film, its hard for me to understand why the filmmakers needed to do this.
Surely, surely, they could have built up a solid film just by presenting the truth.
Couldnt they?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
To be honest I have no real problem with GMO foods being grown and sold. My problem is how Monsanto seem to be attempting to totally destroy the organic food market and position themselves to provide all of the worlds food, without having to label it as modified. That company seriously seems to have no morals or ethics, they will stoop very low to get what they want. If they were less of a monopolistic food empire and they had more oversight and regulation I might support them. As it stands they basically make the rules up as they go along, it's a company which clearly places profit above the well being of people. Although at least some people in that company could admit the truth:


"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

- Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, 1998.
edit on 25/5/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
To be honest I have no real problem with GMO foods being grown and sold. My problem is how Monsanto seem to be attempting to totally destroy the organic food market and position themselves to provide all of the worlds food.



Actually trhats one of the other problems I have with this film.
If the film is about GMO food safety, then it should be a film about GMO food safety.

But they instead spend much of it talking about the evil of international corporations, eg Monsanto, as if that in and of itself has anything whatsoever to do with whether GMO food is ok or not. Because the reality is that as gene technology becomes cheaper, more and more companies around the world are entering the GMO food industry. The size of the company involved should be of no importance as to the safety of the technology. If Monsanto went out of business tomorrow, the safety of the technology doesnt change.

And they spent too much of the documentary ranting againt the principles of modern large scale agriculture and promoting "organic" farming (as if that had anything whatsoever to do with GMO food safety).

Personally I would have been happier with the documentary if they'd
a. Made it a documentary about GMO food safety and nothing else
b. Stuck to the facts.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


please do continue to make this perspective heard. i am bombarded daily by the most transparent LIES i have ever seen...by people from whom i would otherwise expect rational discourse.

as a biotechnologist, there are a number of legitimate arguments against genetic modification that i would entertain. but i have never not once seen these arguments presented by these purveyors of anti-GMO smut.

they appear to prefer the lies.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


What sort of transparent lies? To start slowly think of the most prominent you think of.

Any rational discussion should start from the point that not all opponents share the same objections and possess the same knowledge base, thus to avoid circular group/hive thought like political discourse of US.

The biotech industry also have their share, a prominent transparent lie is the digestive lie.

A host of issues with digestion they dance around that directly relate to safety.

BTW alfa1 is not the most objective. He doesn't post all details and tend to use cheap fun of posters to decrease their credibility and make them look loons



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



PERCY SCHMEISER:

It came like a — like a time bomb, like a shock to me, that my seed was ruined through cross-pollination or direct seed drift by a substance, by a seed I didn’t want in my land. And so, it was very disgusting and hard to take that I had lost something that I worked fifty years on.

www.democracynow.org...


What is your take on it then, you side with Monsanto?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
My problem is how Monsanto seem to be attempting to totally destroy the organic food market and position themselves to provide all of the worlds food, without having to label it as modified.


Very good point, and it strkes at the heart of the matter!

We should have labels, the people have spoken loud and clear. Monsanto
says it is the job of the FDA to make sure our food is safe, which is true
to some degree for those who wish to rely on government for food safety.

Those of us who have studied GE know that it is a crude technology that was invented
long ago, the GMO was approved for mass consumption about 1990, since then
we now know that GE is implicated in a wide range of disorders and disease, diabetes,
tumors, organ failure, digestive issues, cancer and death!

The revolving door between the FDA, and the large Bio Tech corporations such as
Monsanto and Bayer pretty much seals the deal there will not be labels on GMO
as that would wipe out the profit for them. As it is, they are not even satisfied to
earn profit from the poision they grow, as you have said they are out for the little
organic farmers, and those who are competition.

There is not enough space in my post for the long list of evils that these corporations
carry out, suffice it to say they are a cog in the wheel of eugenics, and it is perpetrated
upon the people of the U.S as bad as third world countries for a purpose of population
control and soft kill.




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
www.democracynow.org...
What is your take on it then


My take on it is described in this thread, after having read the court documents.
Wind blown pollen from 5 miles away does not create 100 percent crop contamination.

And as far as the more general claim made by Percy in the documentary, that "hundreds" of innocent farmers have been chased off their land by Monsanto because of contamination,
the recent case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. vs. Monsanto the organic seed growers could not list a single example where that scenario has ever happened.
(again, please read the court decision)




Originally posted by burntheships
you side with Monsanto?


I dont care about Monsanto. They can burn in hell as far I'm concerned. Their factories can burn down, fall over and sink into swamps. I'm only interested in the reality of the situation when it comes to discussions like the one we're having. What actually happened. Not fiction.

edit on 25-5-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1
Wind blown pollen from 5 miles away does not create 100 percent crop contamination.



Are you saying that Percy planted GMO, and then claimed it was not?

Who claimed 100% contamination?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   


Are you saying that Percy planted GMO, and then claimed it was not?


Multiple tests on multiple occasions by multiple laboratories found unanimously that his crop was 100 percent GMO.
Its the simplest explanation.

The simple explanation is much more convincing than the "musta been a bit of pollen from a farm 5 miles away" defense put forward by PERCY SCHMEISER.

Edit - that url isnt working right now, so instead find it at
part1
part2
edit on 25-5-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Wow, finally a GMO thread that is being conducted on an intellectual level.

That's a first.

There is no solid evidence yet of health risks from GMO foods, and I've debunked every single one that people bring up so that is not the major issue at the moment.

We can certainly argue that Monsanto and others are operating extremely nefarious business practices and I don't think we will find many people that could reasonably say they are not.

It is these issues that must be addressed instead of the fear mongering that happens whenever this issue comes up. Will GMO foods ever replace all the worlds food supply?

Of course not, that's just a ridiculous statement but it is obvious they are trying their best to make as much profit as possible, as any corporation will do.

Are they having a negative impact on farmers?

Absolutely, and they need to be reigned in on that issue.

Should they be forced to label their products with what is contained within? Once again, absolutely....I don't recall anyone saying they shouldn't be.

Gene research, in my opinion, is a vital component to unlocking many things that will affect humanity over the next couple of hundred years and should continue. With proper regulation I see no harm with GMO foods or the corporations who make them and research should definitely continue to ensure that the negative effects are identified and corrected before they have an impact.

Calling for the removal of GMO foods however should not be anyone's priority. Break up Monsanto if you want to in order to eliminate their growing monopoly but don't blame the product because of their business practice. This research may be a key to medical breakthroughs or helping to solve the world malnutrition problems. It may help us one day grow food on a distant planet or in environments that usually do not see productive agriculture.

In Australia, the massive irrigation they must do to grow food is raising the salination levels of the soil, 50-100 miles inland from the coast, and rendering the soil absolutely impossible to grow anything. Australia is running up against a wall and will soon lose almost half their agricultural production. GMO foods could/may help prevent situations like this before its too late.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Well, you make it sound like Percy bought the seed from Monsanto, when he did not.


In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.


BUT....Percy had a right to use those seeds...as he never signed an Agreement with Monsanto,
from your link

The parties agree that the defendants did not at any time sign a Technology Use Agreement ('TUA'), the plaintiffs' form of license for growers of the seed containing the patented gene.
en.wikipedia.org...


In any case, GMO crops have been found in multiple studes to be harmful, even detrimental.

Further, Monsanto breaks the law often, and considering that, especially concerning the
sugar beets scandal, why pick the Percy story to focus on? Red herring?

If you want to bury the whole issue in your mind, so be it. If you think that Monsanto
has a right to all seeds that are progeny by way of contamination, maybe you would
be a good candidate for a loyal Monsatan employee.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
There is no solid evidence yet of health risks from GMO foods, and I've debunked every single one that people bring up so that is not the major issue at the moment.



Hopechest, you certainly are optimistic, maybe a bit naive. For one, many threads here on
ATS about GE, and the devastating health effects it has on vital organs, the digestive system,
and the viral genes in them.... several of which I authored, I dont recall you debunking anything.

Lets see all of your work, that way we can discuss it, shall we?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
gmo + DNA = goDAmN

waking up to smell the organic

LOVE



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Well, you make it sound like Percy bought the seed from Monsanto, when he did not.


I have no idea where he bought the seed from. Whether it be Monsanto directory or from some other third party. But since you bought up the 1997 crop (that is NOT the one he was being sued for)...


[37] In the summer of 1997... The defendants' farm was included in this audit process after an anonymous tip was received indicating that Roundup Ready canola was being grown in Schmeiser's fields...


[41] Before the 1997 crop was harvested, ... took pod samples of canola from the west side...
Four seeds from each sample were planted for a grow out test.
Mr. Mitchell believes this demonstrated that Roundup Ready canola was growing on Mr. Schmeiser's fields.


[44] In early 2000 Dr. Downey arranged for a grow-out test of the sample provided by Mr. Mitchell from seeds retained from the 1997 sample. ... demonstrated that the canola plants growing there were not the result of pollen movement into those fields, or out crossing between glyphosate-resistant and susceptible plants. Rather, in his view, the high percentage of glyphosate-tolerant plants, among those which had germinated, indicated they were grown from commercial Roundup Ready canola seed.


So what we have is a situation where it is clear even in 1997 before that crop was harvested, that the GMO version was being grown in commercial quantities. As I've said before, that doesnt work with the "wind pollen blown" story.
I dont know where he bought it from, but he he clearly bought it from somebody.





BUT....Percy had a right to use those seeds...as he never signed an Agreement with Monsanto,


The court (and myself) agree that he has the right to use any seeds (and any crops that came from them) in the case of what would have been accidental contamination.
What Percy got hauled over the coals for what that he knew the 1997 crop in field 2 was 100 percent Roundup Resistant, and decided deliberately to use that seed as the basis for the 100 percent roundup resistant crop in 1998.




In any case, GMO crops have been found in multiple studes to be harmful, even detrimental.


That may or may not be the case, but thats not the issue of this particular discussion about the case of Percy Schmeiser.





why pick the Percy story to focus on? Red herring?


I'm discussing the Percy Schmeiser case because he is a large part of the documentary.
And YOU asked for people to comment on the documentary.
And when I did that, YOU asked me (and I quote you) "What is your take on it then" in regard to the Percy Schmeiser case.

So after all that, I find it laughable that you're now asking me why I'm discussing his case.




If you think that Monsanto has a right to all seeds that are progeny by way of contamination


As said before. Nobody believes that Monsanto has such contamination rights. Not me, not the judge.


[92] Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by burntheships
Well, you make it sound like Percy bought the seed from Monsanto, when he did not.


I have no idea where he bought the seed from.


He did not buy the seed, he saved it from his crop, and then planted it.



you're now asking me why I'm discussing his case


No, I am wondering why your chose to focus on Percy, when the documentary
is about much more.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Fands OP
Natural selection - compitition - is a sin



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Wow, finally a GMO thread that is being conducted on an intellectual level.

That's a first.

There is no solid evidence yet of health risks from GMO foods, and I've debunked every single one that people bring up so that is not the major issue at the moment.

.


debunked...every one
lol....totally safe....?
Bull


Initially, long-term laboratory and field tests conducted over several years suggested that the new peas were harmless for humans and animals (excluding the pea weevil). Even independent animal feeding experiments carried out by the Hungarian scientist Arpad Pusztai in 1999 showed no negative effects.

It was only with the final molecular characterisation of the new protein and further tests on animals that scientists from CSIRO made some unexpected findings. Although the amylase inhibitor gene comes from beans, a close relative of peas, it appears that when made by transgenic peas, the protein is produced slightly differently. CSIRO researchers, working together with the John Curtin School of Medical Research (JCSMR), found that amylase inhibitor produced in peas has a slightly different surface structure than the same protein produced in beans. A different arrangement of sugar molecules was attached to the protein’s surface.

Subsequent feeding tests on laboratory mice were able to confirm this difference. For four weeks, one test group was fed transgenic peas, while the lungs of another test group was given GM pea aerosol treatments. The tests revealed immune reactions among test animals:

Mice fed GM peas had elevated levels of antibodies in their bloodstream.
The lungs of mice directly treated with the aerosol made from GM peas had above average levels of inflammation.
Control groups treated with conventional peas or beans did not have these changes.
Humans could potentially have allergic reactions similar to those observed in mice. Nonetheless, the Australian and New Zealand authority on food safety (FSANZ) maintains that results of animal tests do not prove the allergic potential of GM peas in humans.

Testing stopped

www.gmo-compass.org...



A group of scientists is calling for major federal action in order to deal with the threat posed by Monsanto’s GMO crops, now petitioning the EPA to address the issue head on. The group of 22 academic corn experts are drawing attention to the immense failure of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, which is developing mutated and resistant insects as a result of its widespread usage. Corn is critical not only as a food staple, but is heavily used in ethanol production, animal feed, and much more. As GM corn becomes the norm, currently taking over 94 percent of the supply, these scientists are seriously concerned about the future of corn production


naturalsociety.com...

sounds safe to me
edit on 26-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

I have no idea where he bought the seed from.


He did not buy the seed, he saved it from his crop, and then planted it.



I'm not sure that you're fully up to date with what went on at that farm.
Because remember here that we're talking about the 1997 crop (that you posted an extract about), and you're now insisting that it was planted because of saved seed from the 1996 crop.

Note: this 1996 crop was BEFORE the supposed wind blown contamination occurred.

I think your lack of knowledge on this case has tied you in knots.

Could you explain then, under your argument, how the "saved seed" could have been contaminated in 1996 by "wind blown pollen" that occurred in 1997?

edit on 27-5-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
42
<<   2 >>

log in

join