Evidence of GMO Harm in Pig Study

page: 3
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by fluff007
 




Maybe there is a correlation there I am not sure.

Or maybe he fed his animals contaminated feed.

A direct and important correlation can be made between mycotoxin-contamination and fertility problems; data collected in five Swedish pig farms showed that 85 % of all sows presented zearalenone in the bile liquid. Furthermore, the level of this mycotoxin in the bile liquid was significantly higher in farms having fertility problems in comparison with control farms.

www.biomin.net...




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 

I say there is no reason to think that GMOs are inherently dangerous.
I also say there is no valid experimental evidence (including this, um , "study") which shows they are.

edit on 6/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Lol I love this 2 line post.
Who knows... I don't like being a candidate for the experiment I didn't sign up for



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
From the Monsanto Detailed Testing Abstract Genuity® SmartStax® MON 89034 Corn Product Safety Summary

GMO Corn is safe because:

1. The gene insertion is above confidence constrained to its target locus. Which is good because even a couple displaced codons indicate volatile expression, especially if conserved in a substitution role over AT or TA sequences.

2. Expressed protein assays essentially match control corn for the primary 17 corn aminos

3. Tests confirm that human toxicity and allergenicity are likely to be low

4. The compositional nutrition is essentially the same as conventional corn

5. MON 89034 has a low likelihood of becoming a plant pest (petitioned to be cleared as not a Plant Pest similar to the recent Monsanto Company petition to clear Soybeans as NOT being a Plant Pest - APHIS (APHIS number 09-082-01p) for a determination that genetically engineered (GE) soybean (Glycine max) event MON 87701 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should no longer be regulated


Since food is guilty until proven innocent, as a matter of public safety, I would say the above PROVES that GMO corn is safe.

Especially with regard to those toxicity and allergenicity tests or tests to prove non-conservation of errant codon expressions. Those take decades to assess, and I am sure they put in the decades of testing with humans to prove this out.
I am certain of it. Otherwise it would not constitute science.

And, of course, they are receiving approval on several GMBO to be cleared as not being Plant Pests, which is moot really, since recently, we all were told by very informed and authoritative people that corn and soybeans could never be defined as Plant Pests in the first place.

What say all ye?


edit on 13-6-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)


What say all me? More questions, in order, from your talking points (thanks for numbering them) =)

1. "The gene insertion is above confidence constrained to its target locus." -- Explain what this means, and why above confidence is certainty? What does it mean by constrained to its target locus"? How is this good for the consumer and ecology where it is grown, long term, over 40+ years?

2. "Expressed protein assays essentially match control corn for the primary 17 corn aminos" -- So? What is the significance/advantage compared to normal non-modified corn? It's almost the same? You're talking with fancy terms like assays - what's the match? You have provided no link to any Monsanto sanctioned study. Please provide it/them =D

3. "Tests confirm that human toxicity and allergenicity are likely to be low" -- What test(s) are you talking about? And "likely" to be low is not confident or more than confident, is it? The term "likely" does not instill confidence.

4. "The compositional nutrition is essentially the same as conventional corn" -- Wow. Define your terms please. What are you comparing between the the modified corn and conventional corn to make that claim?

5. "MON 89034 has a low likelihood of becoming a plant pest (petitioned to be cleared as not a Plant Pest similar to the recent Monsanto Company petition to clear Soybeans as NOT being a Plant Pest - APHIS (APHIS number 09-082-01p) for a determination that genetically engineered (GE) soybean (Glycine max) event MON 87701 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should no longer be regulated" -- WOW. You have your corporate/trademarked terms spot on.

You should have no problems answering the other questions?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes maybe he did. I do remember reading that. I cannot say that I am convinced that GMOs are safe. That is just from my perspective. I do not understand how they can go about saying GM is safe when the GM companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF and Pioneer and others have so things they want to hide. They have made an agreement which means that scientists have to ask for permission from the corporations before publishing any independent research on GM. Why is that.... Also you have both the Séralini affair and the Pusztai affair both claiming that GM has had a adverse effect on lab rats used in their studies.

And seemingly in 2011 Australia. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) had been conducting studies on feeding GM wheat to rats and pigs and they wanted to extend the tests to human trials. However eight scientists and academics from Britain, Australia, US, India and Argentina urged Australia to not go forward with their human trials. As there have not been enough studies of the affect of GM wheat on animals to approve human trials... Has that changed now....?

I think we can manage just fine without GM. People are welcome to eat GM if they want. But we should have the right to a choice. They say they are doing it to create food for the whole world. There is enough food for everybody already. It is just the distribution and economics of it that is messed up. They want to control and monopolise the entire food supply. Just to make sure that their pockets are well lined... All I would like, is to have a choice of whether I want to purchase and consume GM or not. But they do not want to give us that choice...

Thank you for your contributions Phage...





new topics
 
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join