It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
82
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


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.
I don't see anyone defending "this company".




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage



I want to hear what other people have to say on Genetic
Engineering of the food crops, and the research they find.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
well i was not far off with Prof David Spiegelhalter, and Novartis.




External work I have acted as a paid statistical consultant to a variety of organisations, including the Healthcare Commission, World Anti-Doping Agency, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.




Novartis
Novartis and AstraZeneca spun-off and merged to become Syngenta, a Swiss global agribusiness company formed in 2000 from the agrochemical and seed divisions of Novartis, and the agrochemicals and biotechnology research divisions of AstraZeneca. Syngenta is the world’s second biggest player in agrochemicals and the third biggest seed producer. [2]




Syngenta
Syngenta is a global agribusiness, agrochemical and biotechnology corporation based in Basel, Switzerland. It has substantial interests in the seed industry and genetically modified (GMO) crops. The company produces insecticides, herbicides -- including the controversial weedkiller Atrazine -- fungicides, field crop seeds (soybeans), vegetable seeds (corn, beans, tomatoes), and flowers. It is one of the "Big 6" Biotech Corporations, along with BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, and Monsanto (so called because they dominate the agricultural input market -- that is, they own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries).[1][2]


so three of the four so have ties to gmo company;s or support them.
working on the fourth.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Phage



I want to hear what other people have to say on Genetic
Engineering of the food crops, and the research they find.




I don't know what you were replying to. But what's the point if all you will do is close your ears if it casts any doubt on the anti-GMO research.

How about telling us what is wrong with the criticism of those scientists. You asked me to provide it and you just say "no". That's a real good way to deny ignorance. That's a real good way to demonstrate that you have even the slightest understand of what was said.

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



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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"?




Specific Reply to Mark Lynas, Critic of GMO Pig Study

ML: Funding for the research was derived from anti-GM advocates and therefore biases the results.
Summary: Funding for the study was actually derived from a current supporter of GM technologies. Detailed answer:

It is clearly stated in the paper that the major funder of IHER’s involvement in the study is the Government of Western Australia, and the current governmentt is a supporter of GM crops.


ML stands for Mark Lynas

now if you want i'll go dig it out of the paper you linked to.

and i will in just a few see if i can't point a few details out.
edit on 3-8-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

I see. So if the government funds anti-GMO work it's believable but if it funds pro-GMO it isn't. Got it.



It is clearly stated in the paper that the major funder of IHER’s involvement in the study is the Government of Western Australia, and the current governmentt is a supporter of GM crops.
On the contrary it is not clearly stated at all.

This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms.
gmojudycarman.org...

IHER is Judy
www.iher.org.au...

Verity Farms. A food production company which is actively anti-GMO.
oneradionetwork.com... ng-us-november-6-2012/

George Kailis. Another anti-GMO food producer.
www.kailisorganic.com...


Show me where it is clearly stated that the government provided major funding.

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

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



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I see people making every kind of excuse for "this company" though, and some are even in just about every GMO related thread making excuses for "this company" poisoning food.

Not naming names or anything.

edit on 3-8-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

I don't see anyone defending, or making excuses. You don't really have to name names though.

So what do we have? "Scientific studies" that claim to show that GMOs are harmful. "I" say, "Wait, this study has some problems." No "defense". No "excuses". Just, "wait a second, let's look at this more carefully."

And what is the response? Is there any explanation of what is wrong with the criticism? Nope. Just; "How can you support Monsanto?" "Shill!"

Is there any effort spend on trying to understand the study and why it may not show what it claims to show? Nope. No critical thought at all. Just kneejerk ignorance.

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



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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 believe the "Act" is silent on specific labeling.
(p.10)

‘‘(B) NO ADDITIONAL LABEL
.—Subparagraph (A) does
not provide authority to the Secretary to require a label
that is in addition to any label required under any other
provision of this Act


The pesticide issues are apparently set by the EPA, and also by the FDA.

The story probably was just emphasizing the label issue.

The EPA sets guidelines for labeling on the pesticide products themselves.

The FDA sets limits for amounts of pesticide residues allowed and tolerances.

But no exact label requirements are in the law that I can see either.

I think the pesticide monitoring is mostly for 'fresh' produce and not so much for a manufactured / packaged product.

My opinion is that they are using the "Silence is Golden" rule.

There could be conflicting language in other laws also.

More research needed.


The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes EPA to set maximum residue levels, or tolerances, for pesticides used in or on foods or animal feed. FFDCA:

    mandates strong provisions to protect infants and children

    provides the authority to set tolerances in foods and feeds (maximum pesticide residue levels)

    also provides authority to exempt a pesticide from the requirement of a tolerance

    rule-making process required to set tolerances or exemptions

    before a registration can be granted for a food use pesticide, a tolerance or tolerance exemption must be in place

    mandates primarily a health-based standard for setting the tolerance--"reasonable certainty of no harm"

    benefits may be considered only in limited extreme circumstances, very unlikely

    pesticide residues in foods are monitored and the tolerances enforced by FDA (fruits and vegetables, seafood) and USDA (meat, milk, poultry, eggs, and aquacultural foods)

Laws and Regulations
 



EPA Action
Under a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, published in 1998 (63 FR 10717), FDA was given full regulatory authority over the components of food packaging that has been impregnated with an insect repellent impregnated with an insect repellent. This rule eliminates the need for EPA to conduct tolerance assessments on the non-pesticide components (such as paper and paperboards, glue, adhesives, and polymers) of food packaging, as they are excluded from the "pesticide" and "pesticide chemical" definitions. Without this rule, EPA would be required to evaluate each component of insect repellent-impregnated food packaging to either establish food residue tolerances or exempt the component from tolerance requirements on a case-by-case basis. The rule still requires EPA to continue maintaining full regulatory authority over actual pesticides and any potential residues.

The Agency is currently developing new policy to expand on the exceptions given by this ruling, so that food packaging treated with any pesticide, rather than just insect repellents, is under the scope of the provision. The original exceptions are listed at 40 CFR § 180.4. Information on the new proposed rule and where to submit public comments can be found at 72 FR 17068.
EPA and FDA Streamline Food Packaging Regulations



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You can call it whatever you want, but to any outside observer, it's pretty clear what you're doing. In my opinion, you are trying to justify the unjustifiable, "in my opinion".

Almost any thread that I have ever looked in to that deals with Monsanto or GMO's, there you are trying to debunk anything that puts one or the other in a bad light. Why? Maybe you love the way their food tastes? I have no idea, I don't assume anything about anyone, but it is in almost EVERY thread.

Just sayin'.

I'm no expert on Monsanto or GMO's and am not one to debate it, but my gut feeling is that what they are doing and how they carry their business is WRONG, and I can't see how anyone can sit there and "defend" or "make excuses" for them, from my point of view.

But, maybe I'm just ignorant and dumb. I just know that spraying Raid on my salad probably wouldn't turn out very good, and that's how I view what they're doing.

edit on 3-8-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The story probably was just emphasizing the label issue.

Right:

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels
Can you show me where the act bars pesticide labeling? Nevermind. I know. It doesn't matter. Just like the other lies, it doesn't matter if this is a lie too because matter because they are on the anti-GMO bandwagon. What wrong with just one more lie. Right?

Do you actually enjoy being lied to if it's from the right people?



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



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Why?

Because I don't like to see good science dragged through the mud in favor of bad science.
Because I think people should use their own critical thinking skills (if they have any) and look a the claims of both sides.

But it seems like that's just me. Sorry, I don't take anything anyone says at face value.
"This study proves that GMOs are harmful!" No. It doesn't.


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



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I don't like to see good science dragged through the mud in favor of bad science.


Then, why do you do just that?
Case in point your last 20 posts in this thread.
I see right through your terms also, now a Monsanto talking point.
"bad science". And, how convenient they provide a few nut holes
on the net....blogs of those who are on the take and such.

Sorry, I don't take anything anyone says at face value.
"This study proves that GMOs are safel!" No. It doesn't.


edit on 3-8-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The story probably was just emphasizing the label issue.

Right:

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels
Can you show me where the act bars pesticide labeling? Nevermind. I know. It doesn't matter. Just like the other lies, it doesn't matter if this is a lie too because matter because they are on the anti-GMO bandwagon. What wrong with just one more lie. Right?

Do you actually enjoy being lied to if it's from the right people?



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



Well I pointed out that specific labeling in the laws seems to be silent.

And I agree that the statement from that source could be mis-leading, but may not be an outright lie.

But they are probably generalizing to a specific audience.

So why ask again ?
 


OK, I will try to come to your level (up or down I don't know yet)

Can you show me specific language in any law that says anything about labeling packages with pesticide information ???

Try to be specific please, and relax and don't get hysterical. You might be holding the golden key !!



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

I see. So if the government funds anti-GMO work it's believable but if it funds pro-GMO it isn't. Got it.



It is clearly stated in the paper that the major funder of IHER’s involvement in the study is the Government of Western Australia, and the current governmentt is a supporter of GM crops.
On the contrary it is not clearly stated at all.

This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms.
gmojudycarman.org...

IHER is Judy
www.iher.org.au...

Verity Farms. A food production company which is actively anti-GMO.
oneradionetwork.com... ng-us-november-6-2012/

George Kailis. Another anti-GMO food producer.
www.kailisorganic.com...


Show me where it is clearly stated that the government provided major funding.

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

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


here it is on page 52. from the paper you posted earlier.

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms


now as far as bad science, it's only bad science if you, or other scientists don't agree with their methods.
ie you have to follow this procedure and these accepted methods, or it's wrong. that is until , evidence is presented that is undeniable, then all will jump on the band wagon and say we knew it all a long.
all through history, there have been scientists that have not followed the methodology prescribed by the main stream, as a matter of fact you did a thread on one.. Tesla. he was far from the mainstream, in fact many thought his ideas to be mad. that is until proven and then well you see how many stole his work. [
edit on 3-8-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Why are you trying to "own" this thread?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Then, why do you do just that?
Then why don't you tell us what is wrong with the criticism.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

here it is on page 52. from the paper you posted earlier.

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms



Thank you for all of your research hdh,
Great work investigating all of the "bad science" calls.




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


OK, I will try to come to your level (up or down I don't know yet)

Can you show me specific language in any law that says anything about labeling packages with pesticide information ???
But that wasn't the claim, was it?

You accepted the claim without bothering to investigate. Then, when asked, what do we get?
Well...errr...umm...they are just generalizing.

You repeated the claim. You prove it is not a lie. Should be easy to do.

But no, demand that I prove a negative. Prove it isn't the law. Why is it that so often becomes the ultimate fall back position? You repeated the claim and you try to put me on the defensive when I question it. Good logic there.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 




here it is on page 52. from the paper you posted earlier.

Yes. I know. Try reading my post.

Oh. I see. Judy says there was no conflict of interest. That's actually a pretty odd thing to put into a "scientific" study. A preemptive denial..."No sir. No conflict of interest. We promise."



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join