Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

reply to post by burntheships


Maybe its new or not I'm not big on blog sites but this one may bring you some more answers or questions it's all for you to discern.. good luck!

Trinity

pimpinturtle dot com /2009/08/2 the-strange-case-of-joseph-moshe

reply to post by Phage


Those are not actual "condemnations" so as you make it out to be.
Those are just comments on Mark Lynas Website!
Much like people making comments here on ATS.

Granted, they put their name up, but dont you think if they had anything
valid to challenge the study with they would publish a review or a formal challenge?

This is getting better by the minute.

And, for the readers here on ATS, who is Mark Lynas?

Mark was just a Global Warming enviromentalist, he is not a scientist or even
a biologist! He cashed in to make big bucks in promoting Monsanto and other big Bio Tech corps.

When the Global Warming scam was exposed, he cashed out,
and then cashed in with Monsanto.

Mark Lynas Monsanto Hired Gun

Wow, so, your just using one of Monsanto talking points to condemn a
Scientific Epert from Australia - who continues to do independent
research with other independent scientists on GMO for food crops.

My my.
So, it seems you are the one, using a few comments from some Monsanto
website to soley determine what bad science is. :shk:

reply to post by burntheships


So we have Mr. Mark Lynas who has apparently changed his mind on GMO issues.

Hmmm

He fought so hard and now all of a sudden does a 180 turn

I bet he was blackmailed into a long term anti-GMO stance that may have been designed to sound subtly wacky and probably had some time bombs built in, and when the time was 'right', they clicked the magic detonator button.

Monsanto shills are 'cropping' up all over the place.

I bet many of the 'questionable anti-GMO' scientific studies and experiments are actually designed to fail. Many are probably funded by Monsanto back-door agencies.

Very clever technique.

They 'create' the failure and 'solve' the problem all in one payoff.

Originally posted by xuenchen

I bet he was blackmailed into a long term anti-GMO stance that may have been designed to sound subtly wacky and probably had some time bombs built in, and when the time was 'right', they clicked the magic detonator button.

Monsanto shills are 'cropping' up all over the place.

Yes, like superweeds!

Indeed, apparently Mark Lynas was sort of caught...ahem exposed during a leak
of documents.

Leaked Documents Link Lynas to Biotech Industry Lobby Group In 2011, leaked documents were obtained from the Brussels-based EuropaBio, the continent's "largest and most influential biotech industry group," detailing an intricate plan to fracture the European green movement in hopes of undermining its near unanimous opposition to the biotech industry agenda.

EuropaBio's members read like a who's who of multinational pesticide and biotech corporations notorious for endangering human health, polluting the environment and deceiving the public. Members include Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Eli Lilly, and Dupont. According to the leaked documents, Mark Lynas was one of the biotech industry's most sought after "ambassadors" (i.e. undercover spokespeople).

The lobby group's plan was to recruit high-profile, non-affiliated, "ambassadors" like Lynas to lobby European leaders to adopt more GE-friendly policies. Designated spokespeople would have bestowed upon them an undeserved aura of independence and objectivity.

So, he was set up to be a non affiliated lobbyist for GE poliices, and he was sort of....exposed.

OC.org

Here we see the very first Monsanto shill exposed right on TV...

""Frito Bandito TV Commercial 60's""


Monsanto used "cornie" commercials back then

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Superweeds, they are rampant everywhere thanks to Monsanto.

Herbicide resistance started before glyphosate showed up and it is not exclusive to qyphosate.
www.sciencedirect.com...
www.jstor.org...
www.nrcresearchpress.com...

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I've seen shilling but this takes the prize
building a strawman out of superweeds in order to compare apples to...

gmo apples

I'd ask how you can look at yourself in the mirror but...

This goes right along with corporations buying up small farms in the US. Large food producers are forcing out small farms so they can produce any type of foods they want, putting what ever chemicals they want, on our foods.

reply to post by Phage


www.patexia.com...

Yes...


edit to add:
"The engineering of transgenic crops resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has greatly improved agricultural efficiency worldwide. Glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup, target the shikimate pathway enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase, the functionality of which is absolutely required for the survival of plants. Roundup Ready plants carry the gene coding for a glyphosate-insensitive form of this enzyme, obtained from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4. Once incorporated into the plant genome, the gene product, CP4 EPSP synthase, confers crop resistance to glyphosate"

Here's a quote I'm trying to verify....

A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

Monsanto's Government Ties

The article also shows some Federal officials that were Monsanto agents.

AND furthermore;

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

I wonder if any of them are lying ?

Hmmm..Very suspicious !

Originally posted by xuenchen
Here's a quote I'm trying to verify....

A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

Hey Xuenchen, great find!

And, I did find it right where its supposed to be, in The New York Times!

It doesn't matter. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels.

I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe. But this time he went even further. ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,'' he said. ''Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.''

www.nytimes.com...

It could be a case where Monsanto really doesn't know how it will effect humans, so they are just trying to cover their butts... I guess if cancer rates skyrocket, they can blame Fukishima...we've only been eating them for a little over decade...

reply to post by burntheships

And, I did find it right where its supposed to be, in The New York Times!

It doesn't matter. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels.

I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe. But this time he went even further. ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,'' he said. ''Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.''

www.nytimes.com...

Interesting....

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels

**how convenient**

Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe

"" assuring "" ??
How 'bout "positive proof"

It's only our health and life at stake for God's sake !!

No wonder they need government officials and the military !!

wait a minute, my phone is ringing......

it was the Frito Bandito !!

He said I should tell everybody that Fritos will soon be using only organic corn !!

Please throw me off this site if u want but I have 1 question before you do. All American embassies are being closed down tomorrow/today for a very specific threat. This has never....NEVER been done before. My guess is that it will be a nuclear or dirty bomb FF. Why on God's green earth is this not at the top of the page? Who is running the show here? I thought this was ATS........Who is running the show?

reply to post by burntheships

Mark Lynas, yea I knew it.

Sorry, I don't see his name on the list of scientists.

this is nothing more than Monsanto talking points

Perhaps you like to address the criticisms of the study.

reply to post by burntheships

and here is some more on the sciencists she quoted, me thinks her sources are one sided.

Meet Andrew Kniss
Research:
My research program focuses on developing sustainable weed management programs in agronomic crops, especially sugarbeet, winter wheat, corn, and dry beans. Recent research projects include:
shade avoidance responses in sugarbeet

long-term management of jointed goatgrass in imidazolinone-resistant (Clearfield) winter wheat synergistic herbicide combinations for management of feral rye

new herbicide options in proso millet

effect of long-term glyphosate use in glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) cropping systems

use of ethofumesate in glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) sugarbeet

management of volunteer corn in dry beans and sugarbeet

use of ethofumesate in glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) sugarbeet

statistical modeling of herbicide absorption into plants

Austailian geneticist David Tribe (Ph.D.)
David is involved with helping the Australian farming community get access to choice about technology. His current area of research is food risk analysis and management. David collects news about biotechnology at GMO Pundit.

everything i've found that Tribe has written seems to be pro gmo.

Prof David Spiegelhalter,he also was used as a hatchet man in the rat study.

researchers and professors. David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge writes that the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. Among the concerns highlighted:
The published does not present all the data. “All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here’”—this is a quote from the paper, which means that no reader can evaluate the findings, which mean the data may have been cherry picked
Small sample size. The control group is inadequate to make any deduction. Only 10 rodents some of these develop tumors. Until you know the degree of variation in 90 or 180 (divided into groups of ten) control rodents these results are of no value.
Maize was minimum 11% of the diet—that’s nor a normal diet for rats and invariably distorted the data In Fig. 2, the bars with a zero appears to be for the non-maize control, yet those bars don’t look significantly different from the bars indicating 11, 22, and 33% of GM maize in the diet. The authors do not appear to have done analysis of their data.
The data from the control group fed non-GM maize is not included in the main figures making it very difficult to interpret the results
No results given for non-gm maize
The same journal published a paper showing no adverse health effects in rats of consuming gm maize (though this is a shorter 90-day study)

so far i haven't found any connection or conflicts of interest with the other one named, but if i do i will post it.




i posted thesome wrong things about Spiegelhalter, retracted it.

reply to post by burntheships

Those are not actual "condemnations" so as you make it out to be.

They aren't? They seem to be so to me.

Granted, they put their name up, but dont you think if they had anything valid to challenge the study with they would publish a review or a formal challenge?

Please explain why you think the critisms are invalid.

Wow, so, your just using one of Monsanto talking points to condemn a Scientific Epert from Australia - who continues to do independent research with other independent scientists on GMO for food crops.

No. None of the quotes came from Lynas.

reply to post by dingleberrydan

Yes...


edit to add:

Yes. That is how glyphosate works. And the reason that glyphosate tolerant plants (GMO and otherwise) are tolerant. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Can you clarify it for me. Or is it that you find big words scary.

reply to post by xuenchen

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels

Can you please provide a citation for that claim. I can't seem such a regulation.
www.fda.gov...

I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could sit back and defend this company after all the stories about their shady business practices coming out.

Please be shills, because I would hate to think some people are actually that blind or brainwashed to defend a company like Monsanto.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

so far i haven't found any connection or conflicts of interest with the other one named, but if i do i will post it.

So maybe you can explain what is incorrect about their critisms.

Oh about conflict of interest. Do you happen to know who funded Carman's "study"?