"If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence"- UK 'Independent'

For all the Pro-GMO'ers on here who see nothing wrong with GMO's and wonder why everyone else does.

Please make documentary of yourself eating only Monsanto, Dow, Dupont based GMO foods for 1 year with monthly medical check ups, and let us all know how you feel ....

....if you're still alive by then

Originally posted by Opportunia
reply to post by totallackey

 

Here are somearticles about actual testing.
______beforeitsnews/health/2013/06/hard-hitting-report-pigs-fed-gm-diet-experience-significant-health-problems-photos-2493508.html

www.iol.co.za...

If YOU want to go ahead and consciously eat GMO things after reading this or still think they are SAFE...Good luck to you. There are many places around the world if you only look that have shown what GMO foods do to livestock over time.

The last lines of the review (it's not the study) pretty much sum it up (anti-GMO hype study):

Anthony Trewavas, professor of cell biology at Edinburgh University, questioned the way the research had been conducted, saying the number of rats involved in the study – 200 – was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. “To be frank, it looks like random variation to me in a rodent line likely to develop tumours anyway,” he said. He also claimed Professor Seralini was an anti-GM campaigner and that previous studies questioning the technology’s safety had not withstood scrutiny.

Link: GMO Study synopsis, read last few lines

The unfortunate truth is an inflammatory banner / headline gets the attention and is remembered. The disclaimer at the bottom is either never read or is lost in all the hype. Typical propaganda tactic.

Yeah -- I'll continue to eat non Organic anything, including GMO, instead of truly dangerous Organic food.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

I agree with you, in terms of a small sample not being good enough to provide 'concrete' proof.

But when you have GMO, which is essentially still in its testing phase on mankind (20 years or so), if small sample research is indicating there could be health problems, then I would recommend avoiding GMO until more research comes out.

Eating GMO assuming it is safe based on the fact that the research out there is undermined because it only has small samples is a crazy attitude when you step back and think about it.

Personally, I'd worry much more about contamination due to people handling foods and especially organic fertilizer. I'd also worry a lot more about eating "natural" crops which are undergoing random mutations due to background radiation and inserted viral DNA than better controlled GMO crop sources. At least the GMO crops are tested.

It could just be the grocery I go to, but Organic food I see for sale at inflated prices often is over-ripe and some is almost always sitting there rotting. What's up with that? The non-Organic food is sold at discount when it gets old and I know that some Farmer's Market people buy that and take it to sell on weekends. Not all, but some in my area actually do that. Advice: ask to see the boxes and crates before you buy at a weekend market.

In any case, do you really personally feel rotting food and food contaminated with animal dung and "processed" human waste is better for you just becuse it isn't "GMO?" Honestly?

Originally posted by dominicus
For all the Pro-GMO'ers on here who see nothing wrong with GMO's and wonder why everyone else does.

Please make documentary of yourself eating only Monsanto, Dow, Dupont based GMO foods for 1 year with monthly medical check ups, and let us all know how you feel ....

....if you're still alive by then

People should be most concerned that these new seeds are under intellectual property law. It's all about the control f food production and who can farm using those seeds.

reply to post by totallackey


I did find it online a while back, if you search hard enough you might actually still find it. Technically that "study" is really screwed up. I don't recall a discussion of the protocol. I don't recall a designed experiment discussed which would provide comparable samples. I don't recall it being either single or double blind. I don't recall any mention of repeated samples or the comparison being corrected for growing conditions.

It appeared as if someone took some ears of corn from two different spots (possibly chosen ears, not random) and then assayed them. I think I read that they were ground up and a minuscule sample was assayed (I don't recall that any details were provided regarding capability of the equipment, calibration, or procedures). I don't recall seeing tests of statistical significance. IMO, the difference between the samples could be explained easily by one sample (natural corn) which included a portion of the germ in the kernel and the other (GMO corn) being the outer coating. I certainly couldn't tell from the "study" what happened. The assay could have been done by a high school student for all I know.

Also, the first line in the table at the summary online is telling: it concludes that natural corn has 3,400x the calories of GMO corn. That's impossible in a valid sample if any of the peer-reviewed studies which have shown no difference in nutrition are to be believed. No one points to that impossibility when they discuss it here on ATS. Perhaps few have a clue as to what an erg is? They do however recognize some vitamins and minerals.....

Hint folks: ergs is a different unit for calories! Line one makes no sense at all, nor do the rest of the lines in the table frankly.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

People should be most concerned that these new seeds are under intellectual property law. It's all about the control f food production and who can farm using those seeds.

I totally agree with this -- and with concerns about BT crops possibly harming useful insects. I think the jury is still out on the BT crops as it might make insects like bees more vulnerable to diseases which affect them. Possibly enough studies have been done (I don't personally know) wrt healthy bees to show that BT crops have not been overtly harmful.

Clearing BT crops of all interactions with disease of bees may take a long time. In my mind, this is a much more serious concern due to the current hive decline disorder for which no definitive cause has been proven. A number of competing causes, including mites, have supporting data. It could take years to work through the possible causes and discern what is going on.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ScorchedFire

 

There is nothing in that article about GMOs.

It didn't intend to. I was replying to this:

And to gain the same nurishment we would have from cabbages 100 years ago - we'd have to eat 50 times more!!

I would like to see some supporting documentation for this statement.

This is also has nothing to do with GMOs...

GM crops are killing the bees. That means it's killing everything not just one person or ppl. Looks to me like the Independent got a good salesperson who went after GM and sold an ADVERTorial as they are called in the business when an article is actually a paid endorsement or similar.

The way I understand this debate is something like this

Science is a tool for control. Science does not have the ability to predict the future, and science itself is always evolving as new knowledge is gained. Many things once sanctioned by science are years later to be "discovered" to be toxic to human health. If the science was good in the first place, then the health risks/effects should have been known before allowed to be used on the people's food. See parathion, DDT, paraquat, and more [here]

If Monsanto is going after people using their seed (intellectual property) who have not signed any of their agreements - does that mean the current studies released so far have all been done by scientists who signed monsanto's terms and conditions contract, and then have their results approved by monsanto before allowed to be published? Or does monsanto allow anyone to buy or use their seed without signing a contract for that matter?

My personal problem with transgenic GMO crops is that there are no long term full ecological-spectrum studies that exist. What exactly are the long term implications for other organisms interacting with GMO crops like a tomato crossed with jellyfish genes, etc. It is not natural, and science does not know the long term effects.

Bottom line, the burden of proof should be not placed on the people -- but it should be placed with scientists, 3rd party, with no legislative interference.. And with many former monsanto employees in the FDA and probably other positions in regulating bodies, interference is going to happen.

But if you really need someone to tell you what to think, here is some recent news:

Grist - Look who’s squealing now: GMO lovers freak over new study of sick pigs

And of course, the study is here:
Organic-Systems.org - A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet

Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.

But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation — 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said.

Or maybe this study has already been mentioned, I haven't followed each post =D

'If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence'



To me this would seem to be a very stupid question. I will explain, it seems so simple, if you take and pour poison on a plant, it would be easy to accept the fact that, the plant will adsorb some of the poison, just by association of being in the same place at the same time, the poison was applied.
From there it is also very easy to realize, that if this food product, which has poison with-in it cell structure, upon being ingested by a human or animal, they will also receive a dose of the poison. With what ever, varying end results.
I am not a expert, so I am not aware of what type poison we are dealing with or what is required to neutralize this type of poison.
If I were to look further into the poison being used I could give a better answer to this part of the problem, which I'm sure has been looked into and there is not neutralization of the poison occurring in the process of being asorbrbed by plant.

reply to post by OOOOOO


You're right in my opinion. I remember a saying.. "You are what you eat."

reply to post by woodwardjnr

People should be most concerned that these new seeds are under intellectual property law. It's all about the control f food production and who can farm using those seeds.

You know that non-GMO seeds are also patented, right?
www.ers.usda.gov...

reply to post by WormwoodSquirm

GM crops are killing the bees. That means it's killing everything not just one person or ppl. Looks to me like the Independent got a good salesperson who went after GM and sold an ADVERTorial as they are called in the business when an article is actually a paid endorsement or similar.

"Objection your honor...speculation on the part of the plaintiff!!!"

"Suuuustained..."

reply to post by dominicus

For all the Pro-GMO'ers on here who see nothing wrong with GMO's and wonder why everyone else does. Please make documentary of yourself eating only Monsanto, Dow, Dupont based GMO foods for 1 year with monthly medical check ups, and let us all know how you feel .... ....if you're still alive by then

Actually, I just eat when I can...mostly at Denny's, Arby's, McDonald's...I eat a lot of chicken, drink a lot of water, tea, lemonade, coffee...

I have lost 30 pounds in the last three months and my blood pressure is 121 over 75...not bad for half a century...

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by WormwoodSquirm

 

GM crops are killing the bees. That means it's killing everything not just one person or ppl. Looks to me like the Independent got a good salesperson who went after GM and sold an ADVERTorial as they are called in the business when an article is actually a paid endorsement or similar.

"Objection your honor...speculation on the part of the plaintiff!!!"

"Suuuustained..."

Kudos on the characterization there... the lawyer-esque theme is fitting for your message, which despite your (mysterious) intentions, would appear to be in public defense of Monsanto and other GMO peddlers. If your message is intended to enlighten or help your brethren.... then perhaps the vast majority of us are missing it. Perhaps if we ate at Arby's, McDonald's and the like regularly, as you do, then we would feel the need to defend that caliber of fine cuisine as well.

I guess it will remain where it started... in subjectivity. We are all faith-driven in one way or another.

To everyone: Keep listening to your gut!

reply to post by HeyAHuman

Kudos on the characterization there... the lawyer-esque theme is fitting for your message, which despite your (mysterious) intentions, would appear to be in public defense of Monsanto and other GMO peddlers.

No public defense needed...the member made a definitive statement GMO crops are killing bees. Pure speculation, as there is no conclusive evidence as to cause of bees dying...

I guess it will remain where it started... in subjectivity. We are all faith-driven in one way or another.

I was not the one who made a subjective statement. The member whose post I addressed can lay claim to subjectivity...until such time as documentation is provided...

Originally posted by OOOOOO


'If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence'

To me this would seem to be a very stupid question. I will explain, it seems so simple, if you take and pour poison on a plant, it would be easy to accept the fact that, the plant will adsorb some of the poison, just by association of being in the same place at the same time, the poison was applied.
From there it is also very easy to realize, that if this food product, which has poison with-in it cell structure, upon being ingested by a human or animal, they will also receive a dose of the poison. With what ever, varying end results.
I am not a expert, so I am not aware of what type poison we are dealing with or what is required to neutralize this type of poison.
If I were to look further into the poison being used I could give a better answer to this part of the problem, which I'm sure has been looked into and there is not neutralization of the poison occurring in the process of being asorbrbed by plant.

Genetic Modification and poison are two WAY different things, buddy!

reply to post by RothchildRancor

From there it is also very easy to realize, that if this food product, which has poison with-in it cell structure, upon being ingested by a human or animal, they will also receive a dose of the poison. With what ever, varying end results.

You may find this interesting reading:
www.fortfreedom.org...
www.hort.purdue.edu...
www.botgard.ucla.edu...
www.amnh.org...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RothchildRancor

 

From there it is also very easy to realize, that if this food product, which has poison with-in it cell structure, upon being ingested by a human or animal, they will also receive a dose of the poison. With what ever, varying end results.

You may find this interesting reading:
www.fortfreedom.org...
www.hort.purdue.edu...
www.botgard.ucla.edu...
www.amnh.org...
6

Phage thanks alot for those links, no really, thanks. Now I can't eat anything anymore. They need to show the studies how much cancer causing crap is in all the air, water, mattresses, shoes, clothing, and even in people.

Death, the only safe way out

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RothchildRancor

 

From there it is also very easy to realize, that if this food product, which has poison with-in it cell structure, upon being ingested by a human or animal, they will also receive a dose of the poison. With what ever, varying end results.

You may find this interesting reading:
www.fortfreedom.org...
www.hort.purdue.edu...
www.botgard.ucla.edu...
www.amnh.org...

Good links indeed! Garlic and chilis do work well, but need to be applicated after a rain. We also use tobacco leaves soaked in water as a spray if needed. Lemongrass helps keep mosquitos away, and same with chopped marigold plants from my experience.

One of the best "pesticides" I have around my place are (lots of) ants and spiders. I'm lucky they're not fire ants! =)