Mainstream Media (FOX News) Admits GMOs Are a ‘Real Safety Issue’

Just a preview of what's to come:

"Show me the studies, real evidence that GMOs are the slightest bit dangerous."

And then no matter how many links, studies etc. are shown, they are all somehow suspect, already debunked, not good enough, mainly because they haven't been talked about by the official media, as if the people who are pro-GMO are armed with a bunch of studies that couldn't be debunked in exactly the same way, but aren't because there's a huge belief, even among people here, that if the king is saying it isn't so, it isn't.

This is great. More public awareness is needed for this issue, hopefully at least one state will pass a labeling initiative soon and start a domino effect. Interesting that it is fox news reporting.

Or did someone realize the only way to truly save us from Climate change would be to genetically engineer food to withstand it (which they were doing to kill us). And since they want to kill us all, they can't let that happen! Har Har think of the irony!

reply to post by dreamingawake


Perhaps because there's nothing to debunk?

Anyway, It's funny that Fox News constantly gets lauded here on ATS...except when it confirms a bias or course.

Then it's gospel.

All irony aside though, let's hope the Fox News watchers do write to their senators and you guys can get GMO labelling.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

Perhaps because there's nothing to debunk?

Anyway, It's funny that Fox News constantly gets lauded here on ATS...except when it confirms a bias or course.

Then it's gospel.

All irony aside though, let's hope the Fox News watchers do write to their senators and you guys can get GMO labelling.

well, you see, that's the thing about fox news.....they're traditionally so pro-establishment, pro-BS, that when they actually do report something factual, you kinda hafta say "wow, that's kinda cool"

thebtheb
Just a preview of what's to come:

"Show me the studies, real evidence that GMOs are the slightest bit dangerous."

And then no matter how many links, studies etc. are shown, they are all somehow suspect, already debunked, not good enough, mainly because they haven't been talked about by the official media, as if the people who are pro-GMO are armed with a bunch of studies that couldn't be debunked in exactly the same way, but aren't because there's a huge belief, even among people here, that if the king is saying it isn't so, it isn't.

That's it then.

Anyone who disagrees can be dismissed with a brief "I told you so".

thebtheb
Just a preview of what's to come:

"Show me the studies, real evidence that GMOs are the slightest bit dangerous."

And then no matter how many links, studies etc. are shown, they are all somehow suspect, already debunked, not good enough, mainly because they haven't been talked about by the official media, as if the people who are pro-GMO are armed with a bunch of studies that couldn't be debunked in exactly the same way, but aren't because there's a huge belief, even among people here, that if the king is saying it isn't so, it isn't.

Nah I am tired of asking for studies which I have done in almost every thread but let me correct you. The links that are given are generally from Natural News who are known for pseudo science and false information and as you pointed out have been debunked so excuse me for wanting good science. One of the biggest studies that have been used has been discredited even retracted for being bad science by the publisher. The ones that are going on a huge belief system are the the anti-GM crowd because they don't have evidence to support their claims.

However if you have a peer-reviewed article that actually shows them as being dangerous I would love to see it because to date I have not been linked to one in any of these threads.

Just a preview here of what's to come:

But Monsanto doesn't feed its own people GM foods. False. A catering group claimed they offered the choice of GM and non-GM foods back in 1999 however the claim was never confirmed but that hasn't stopped people from repeating it in these threads.

Nevermind it's like talking the brick walls nothings going to get through. Anyway I don't see what there is to debunk this is coming from Fox news the ones who won the right to lie on TV in court besides I caught part of the show it seemed more like a infomercial than anything. It wasn't part of their news show it was in an opinion show where they do not have to to get you factual information. It's what you want to hear so I'm sure you'll believe it.

Grimpachi

thebtheb
Just a preview of what's to come:

"Show me the studies, real evidence that GMOs are the slightest bit dangerous."

And then no matter how many links, studies etc. are shown, they are all somehow suspect, already debunked, not good enough, mainly because they haven't been talked about by the official media, as if the people who are pro-GMO are armed with a bunch of studies that couldn't be debunked in exactly the same way, but aren't because there's a huge belief, even among people here, that if the king is saying it isn't so, it isn't.

Nah I am tired of asking for studies which I have done in almost every thread but let me correct you. The links that are given are generally from Natural News who are known for pseudo science and false information and as you pointed out have been debunked so excuse me for wanting good science. One of the biggest studies that have been used has been discredited even retracted for being bad science by the publisher. The ones that are going on a huge belief system are the the anti-GM crowd because they don't have evidence to support their claims.

However if you have a peer-reviewed article that actually shows them as being dangerous I would love to see it because to date I have not been linked to one in any of these threads.

Just a preview here of what's to come:

But Monsanto doesn't feed its own people GM foods. False. A catering group claimed they offered the choice of GM and non-GM foods back in 1999 however the claim was never confirmed but that hasn't stopped people from repeating it in these threads.

Nevermind it's like talking the brick walls nothings going to get through. Anyway I don't see what there is to debunk this is coming from Fox news the ones who won the right to lie on TV in court besides I caught part of the show it seemed more like a infomercial than anything. It wasn't part of their news show it was in an opinion show where they do not have to to get you factual information. It's what you want to hear so I'm sure you'll believe it.

I would never link a Natural news article because Mike Adams is a crappy journalist who cavorts with Alex Jones. And I have given up linking any studies anywhere. I have before linked peer reviewed studies published in journals. But if anyone doesn't want to believe them, they can always, ALWAYS find some way to "debunk" them - not that it always is real debunking, half the time it's semantics or the citing of some other often questionable source saying the study was flawed in this way or that way, and they say it as if the information promulgated by Montanto, by the FDA isn't subject and rife with just as many flaws.

Therefore, I give up, no links! It comes down to the simple idea that if someone is arguing, they will always try to be right, and if someone believes something that they WANT to believe, nothing will really sway them. So much of anyone's beliefs in GMOs, UFOs, crop circles, one way or the other, is based on stuff other than evidence or peer reviewed studies. A big chunk of their stance is often based on emotion, political leanings, etc. including me.

I mean, I truly wonder what it would take for some people to finally say in some circumstances, "Maybe I was wrong." It's not something anyone hears very often, ever.

reply to post by Grimpachi


You criticize sources, without providing your own?

But Monsanto doesn't feed its own people GM foods. False

I'm not saying with certainty that you are wrong but could you provide a source please?

I prefer that it's not Snopes as anything from that site is pure propaganda meant to deflect from reality and promote disinformation with the goal to reinforce the political mainstream agenda. But if that is all you can come up with, then so be it.

One of the site owners likes to bust into awesome threads, and then link a Snopes article as "proof", then closes the thread without allowing us the chance to point out the obvious ridiculous disinformation which was provided. I have pondered on creating a thread about this, but we all know that it would not last very long.

Thanks.

reply to post by thebtheb


I agree that Mr. Adams can sensationalize things at times, and he does associate with AJ, but attacking sources and not the content is not the proper way to debate in my opinion. I rather attack the content as that's what's relevant. Even a broken watch is right twice a day...right?

Was their any content in the article that you disagree with, or did you just want to knock down Mr. Adams?

ETA:

I must point out that I have agreed with all your posts in this thread so far and my current response was not meant to be confrontational. As I just re-read it I realized it may have seemed rude, that was not my intention.

Cheers!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Sure I have no problem providing links. I have posted this in three or four threads already I just thought everyone already knew about it since its been around so long.

Back in 1999, a story by the UK press Independent reported:

...that Monsanto employees don't eat their very own GM (genetically modified) foods, in their High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire UK facility. .

Of the 1999 article, Greenpeace locked on to the news story, reportedly exposed by Friends of the Earth, was subsequently spread by the local and international media.
(no reference found on the FoE site)



"The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."


The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group......not their employers, Monsanto.
That UK facility is now closed.


But let's look at the facts as described by the initial story.....
1) One Monsanto facility, in the UK, in 1999
2) The decision was posted by a contracted caterer, employed by Monsanto.
3) This story was never confirmed. (denied later)

Lately, the current anti-GMO activists have renewed (recycled) this story.
link

And then there is this

monsantoblog.com...
It’s 1999. Bill Clinton is in the White House. Sydney is preparing for the Summer Olympics. The world population is about a billion less than it would be in 2012.

A caterer in the United Kingdom tells the Independent newspaper that it doesn’t use GM food, which would have been difficult in the U.K. in 1999 since there wasn’t any to exclude, but that’s another story. The Independent reports it as “GM Food Banned in Monsanto Canteen.” GM critics have a field day.

Flash forward 13 years. Greenpeace, always interested in recycling, recycles this 1999 news story. People get excited, and tweet it as a current story.

The fact is, it wasn’t true in 1999, and it’s not true today.

All foods can be found in Monsanto cafeterias – conventional and organic. None of it is singled out as conventional or organic. It’s just food served in our cafeterias, the same food that everyone else eats.

In fact, the only time any food was removed from Monsanto cafeterias was a few years back, when a produce company announced a voluntary recall of spinach because of possible E. coli contamination. We remember it because spinach leaves suddenly disappeared from our salad bars.

Last year, there was a more limited recall of spinach because of concerns over possible Listeria contamination, but that didn’t affect our cafeterias, or most of them.

And, for the record, the spinach in question in both cases was – organic.



Learn more: Correction: victory against GMOs and Monsanto not achieved in UK

reply to post by Grimpachi


I thank you for putting in the effort to provide the links, cheers!

My opinion from reading this, once again my own personal opinion, is that Monsanto was exposed on this particular topic (not feeding GMO to its workers in cafeteria) and had to perform their typical PR damage control.

Monsanto is known for quickly having valid studies "debunked" due to their deep pockets and friends in very high places. I admit bias on my behalf, but I do not let my biases blind me and always keep an open mind on any topic.

As just previously mentioned, I see Monsanto getting exposed, then doing everything within their power (they possess a lot of it) to discredit the story.

I could be wrong though.

Thanks again for the links.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Maybe you missed it but what exactly could they be covering up? As stated.

A caterer in the United Kingdom tells the Independent newspaper that it doesn’t use GM food, which would have been difficult in the U.K. in 1999 since there wasn’t any to exclude

That is from the article above. You should click on the links to see the sources because you are pretty fast to dismiss them especially given that part. I don't think you clicked the links because if you did well aren't they the ones with a hard on for Monsanto.

Grimpachi
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Maybe you missed it but what exactly could they be covering up? As stated.

A caterer in the United Kingdom tells the Independent newspaper that it doesn’t use GM food, which would have been difficult in the U.K. in 1999 since there wasn’t any to exclude

That is from the article above. You should click on the links to see the sources because you are pretty fast to dismiss them especially given that part. I don't think you clicked the links because if you did well aren't they the ones with a hard on for Monsanto.

I am going to make a hypocrite of myself, but I must point out that it is a Monsanto blog making these possibly incorrect claims according to some research I have done.

Please correct me if I misunderstood what you meant, but are you saying that this blog states that there were no GMO food products in UK in 1999, or just the cafeteria. I do not want to assume your point, and I will admit that I did rush through it the first time but I did read them and now I have a firmer grasp on the articles but still want to make sure I understand the point you are making before I provide my conclusion.

Are you saying that the article claims there were not GMO's in the UK in 1999, or just the cafeteria?

I might have a little surprise for you either way

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Oh sorry I didn't realize you didn't have a basic search engine to verify when GMO was introduced.

Here this link will provide a swathe of information pay special attention to the history.link or here

I know some questions will come up so this link for 1990

And since we are talking about the UK

1998 'Terminator technology' moved a step closer to the fields: US Patent No. 5,723,765, granted to Delta & Pine Land Co. an American cotton seed company and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a technique that genetically-disables a seed's capacity to germinate when planted again, meaning that farmers must buy seed supplies every season instead of keeping some of what they had harvested.

April, a UK supermarket chain bans use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in its products; a move which is over the following 18 months is followed by the other UK supermarket chains.

Tat kind of puts a damper on the 1999 story. Anyway here is the link to that but it has plenty of info on the subject of GM even going past 1999 when it was claimed that Monsanto wouldn't serve GM to their own employees seeing that the UK markets didn't carry them...well I am sure you can see the point. link

Anyway if you need me to use my search engine for you some more let me know I will get to it as soon as I can but I am doing other things so just check back periodically.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Oh sorry I didn't realize you didn't have a basic search engine to verify when GMO was introduced.

Speak for yourself, I came prepared, you obviously did not even read what you posted...lol!

I was trying to be polite, but now I'm going to rub your nose in it.

You quoted:

1998 'Terminator technology' moved a step closer to the fields: US Patent No. 5,723,765, granted to Delta & Pine Land Co. an American cotton seed company and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a technique that genetically-disables a seed's capacity to germinate when planted again, meaning that farmers must buy seed supplies every season instead of keeping some of what they had harvested.

April, a UK supermarket chain bans use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in its products; a move which is over the following 18 months is followed by the other UK supermarket chains.

Here let me guide you, since you appear to have issues with reading comprehension (I'm just trying to help out, don't get mad again).

First off, only one supermarket chain banned the use of GMOs in its products...ONE CHAIN. And there were limitations/bans on actually growing the product but they products could still be imported as they were obviously available at every supermarket chain except for ONE according to YOUR OWN source. Oh sorry the other supermarket chains...which ones?

Meanwhile, back to reality:

History of genetically modified food

The first commercially grown genetically modified food crop was a tomato created by California company in the early 1990s.

Called the FlavrSavr, it was genetically altered so that it took longer to decompose after being picked.

A variety of the tomato was used to make tomato puree that was sold in Europe in the mid-1990s, before controversy erupted over GM crops.

Then in 1998, Dr Arpad Pusztai, then of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, published research suggesting that GM potatoes, modified with an insecticide gene taken from the snowdrop, were toxic to rats in feeding trials.

There was also controversy over the role of Labour donor Lord Sainsbury, appointed as science minister by Tony Blair in 1998.

There was controversy, and ONE supermarket chain stopped selling these products due to the toxic potatoes. NOTHING else was done other than a bunch of huffing and puffing from the media and the general population. GMOs were without a doubt still available.

Now, don't think I would let you get off that easy...let's get back to that Monsanto blog, and the question I asked which you sidestepped. You quoted that part of the article which claimed that it was impossible to have GMO's due to them not being available?

A caterer in the United Kingdom tells the Independent newspaper that it doesn’t use GM food, which would have been difficult in the U.K. in 1999 since there wasn’t any to exclude

Not only are you presenting misinformation, but you are lying, or at least defending the lie which I have just proven to be false.

The Monsanto blog claims there "wasn't any to exclude" and you are using the 1998 controversy that you have obviously not researched to back this claim up, meanwhile everyone and their grandma who knows how to use a search engine can see that GMO's have been available for consumption in the UK since the very early 1990s. The only hurdles were for farmers wanting to try out the new "technology". You would know this if you read your own links instead of being selective about which portions you quote. Did you think I was too lazy to read? Heck you're even too lazy to read what you post. You literally copied, hit the quotation button, then pasted, and had no idea what you were posting and what it meant.

Don't worry, I won't need you to look anything up for me since all you can come up with are Monsanto sponsored blogs and edited Wiki articles. And I don't want to embarrass you any more than I have to.

reply to post by Grimpachi


We're talking about food being served in cafeterias, not farmers growing the stuff.

Stop deflecting!

The parts you quoted were even in bold font, how could you not see?

Ha man...