Will GMO supporters enroll their families in a five-year exclusively GMO-only-diet program?

reply to post by Kurius

When one willingly takes part in such an "experiment" one signs what is known as a "waiver". While signing a waiver does not preclude a lawsuit it greatly diminishes the likelihood of a successful outcome. When one signs such a "waiver", one would have a hard time finding an attorney who would take on the case on anything but a "pay me first" basis.

You can sue. But chances are, you're wasting you money.
Judge: "Hmm. Says here that you accepted the risk."

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

When one willingly takes part in such an "experiment" one signs what is known as a "waiver". While signing a waiver does not preclude a lawsuit it greatly diminishes the likelihood of a successful outcome. When one signs such a "waiver", one would have a hard time finding an attorney who would take on the case on anything but a "pay me first" basis.

You can sue. But chances are, you're wasting you money.
Judge: "Hmm. Says here that you accepted the risk."

edit on 8/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Again, don't worry about the technicalities, Phage. We will cross the bridge when it comes. As long as you are willing to sacrifice your entire family...That's important. Besides, the waiver form will be between the subject and experimenter....ensuring that you do not sue the lab technicians, for example. Monsanto's payout will still be up for grabs.

Originally posted by Kurius
I think if more than half develop cancer/tumor, that would be acceptable, don't you think?

You'll have to do better than that.
Its rather well established now that if you look hard enough, you can find cancer in everyone, so by your test, its unwinnable.

Everyone has cancer cells in their body.

So, even if GMO had no cancer effect at all, you could declare yourself a winner.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Kurius
I think if more than half develop cancer/tumor, that would be acceptable, don't you think?

You'll have to do better than that.
Its rather well established now that if you look hard enough, you can find cancer in everyone, so by your test, its unwinnable.

Everyone has cancer cells in their body.

So, even if GMO had no cancer effect at all, you could declare yourself a winner.

Again, don't worry about this argument for now (we will make sure it is iron clad later). Besides, we will get the best lawyer that Monsanto HUGE payout could afford when Phage and family, God forbids, develop detectable cancer/tumor formation.

Sorry, are you and family in or out again? We didn't hear you volunteering...

Originally posted by Kurius
Sorry, are you and family in or out again? We didn't hear you volunteering...

Like I said, there's no point volunteering, because in your test, if ANY member of the family develops any form of cancer during the five year period, despite the fact that almost everyone has some form of miniscule cancer, then it is declared "GMO dangerous".
Similarly, if any member of the family ever consumes anything non-GMo is the whole five year period, that is also declared as a "win".
You have no controls, no standards, the "pass" limit is something pulled out of the air, and lets be honest here, this experiment is never going to happen anyway.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Kurius
Sorry, are you and family in or out again? We didn't hear you volunteering...

Like I said, there's no point volunteering, because in your test, if ANY member of the family develops any form of cancer during the five year period, despite the fact that almost everyone has some form of miniscule cancer, then it is declared "GMO dangerous".
Similarly, if any member of the family ever consumes anything non-GMo is the whole five year period, that is also declared as a "win".
You have no controls, no standards, the "pass" limit is something pulled out of the air, and lets be honest here, this experiment is never going to happen anyway.

What if all the conditions are satisfied? Would you volunteer? What's the worse that could happen? You and your loved ones get free GM food for five years? That ain't so bad? C'mon. Be a hero.


Don't worry...we will have to have a control group too. I would be the first to volunteer for the non-GMO control group.

Click here for more information.

According to the USDA, the average monthly food cost for a family of four is between $551 - $1250 (thrifty-liberal). Assuming it is $1000 a month (maybe less since GM food is reportedly cheaper), a five year program cost will be $60k for a family of four. We will probably need a sample of at least 30 people. So funding for food will be around $450k for the entire five years...without inflation factored into consideration. Maybe another same amount of $450k for a control group of non-GMO gluttons.

USDA data

Fortuitously, I just read a new technology that could potentially measure the lifespan of a person. If accurate, this could help in the implementation of the diet program too.

A painless laser pulse is applied to the surface of the skin through a wristwatch-style device. This measures how a person’s body will decline with age by analysing endothelial cells. These cells line the smallest blood vessels, capillaries, in our bodies and respond to complex activity elsewhere in the body. By measuring the oscillations within the cells, the scientists say they can calculate the length of time before death and also test for diseases including cancer and dementia.

News link

reply to post by _damon


It is absolutely crucial to only recruit samples only from groups of people who believe Monsanto's propagandas or those totally clueless. It will only make the class-action suit much stronger should they end up with major ailments. For their sake, let's hope not. But either way they will be compensated well. Free food or huge Monsanto (and regulator's) payout's.

We need some people to develop this program further and to help find us investors, I mean sponsors too. I would suggest that we limit four family members max. This would minimize the chances or argument that the illness/cancer/tumor is genetically influenced rather than GMO-induced.

So far, we have Phage, Grimpachi and their beloved families. That would be eight samples maximum from the two. Anyone else I missed? We do need more.

reply to post by luciddream


Too much change in diet in a generation can cause problems with people. There is a lot of evidence to show that in research articles. Everyone has different variations of enzymes they create and these enzymes, not the food, cause the problems. It cannot be "proven" that the foods cause this because the body actually poisons itself, consuming foods only unbalance the system.

When you drink and get drunk, it is a complex combination of different things that makes you drunk and the way you get drunk. Each booze gives you a little different buzz. Alcohol is no different than food, it is just faster acting. Sugars can be converted to alcohol by gut bacteria and absorbed into the body. Does that mean sugar is alcohol? No it doesn't but it can sometimes give people a feeling similar to drinking.

I just look at the big picture, Monsanto is changing ingredients in our food, they are not alone. Consumerism is causing an influx of many new foods on the market and promoting them as good, the problem is that even extra virgin olive oil can be a problem to people if your ancestors did not consume it at all. We can't eat everything, never have been able to. Try eating a hot pepper and observe the increase in your heartrate.

If using Monsanto products was the only change in the last two generations, they might be ok. That is not the case, and Monsanto products are in everything. Adding soy to everything is not good, it will cause physiologic changes in many people, most negative by the standards of society. You need to look at the whole picture, not just a few pieces of the puzzle.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by luciddream

 

Too much change in diet in a generation can cause problems with people. There is a lot of evidence to show that in research articles. Everyone has different variations of enzymes they create and these enzymes, not the food, cause the problems. It cannot be "proven" that the foods cause this because the body actually poisons itself, consuming foods only unbalance the system.

When you drink and get drunk, it is a complex combination of different things that makes you drunk and the way you get drunk. Each booze gives you a little different buzz. Alcohol is no different than food, it is just faster acting. Sugars can be converted to alcohol by gut bacteria and absorbed into the body. Does that mean sugar is alcohol? No it doesn't but it can sometimes give people a feeling similar to drinking.

I just look at the big picture, Monsanto is changing ingredients in our food, they are not alone. Consumerism is causing an influx of many new foods on the market and promoting them as good, the problem is that even extra virgin olive oil can be a problem to people if your ancestors did not consume it at all. We can't eat everything, never have been able to. Try eating a hot pepper and observe the increase in your heartrate.

If using Monsanto products was the only change in the last two generations, they might be ok. That is not the case, and Monsanto products are in everything. Adding soy to everything is not good, it will cause physiologic changes in many people, most negative by the standards of society. You need to look at the whole picture, not just a few pieces of the puzzle.

Thanks for highlighting that. We should take into account to have exactly the same food/amount for the GMO and non-GMO control groups then.
Of course, Luciddream is also part of the brave volunteer GMO group. So we have three families so far willing to sacrifice themselves and loved ones for Monsanto. Anyone else?

reply to post by Kurius


We are starting to incorporate too much soy into the diet, that is part of the problem. They are boosting the defense system of the soy which already has a superior defense system. If we had been eating a lot of soy for three generations or more, it would be alright, but they have incorporated the protein of soy into a lot of things. I try only to eat a little soy if possible, I use kikkomen soy sauce when I eat rice and chinese food. I go to oriental restaurants that use Kikkomens because I don't like that stuff made from hydrolized soy protein which is a quick acting free glutamate. A little won't kill you but overconsuming any free glutamate can have negative effects. Kikkomens is bound from what I have read. Most oriental countries use soy sauce that is made by aging and brewing.

Here in America though, the people can eat anything, we must have superior genetics.

Originally posted by Phage
Assuming you would also have a non-GMO sample, what other lifestyle controls would be in place? You know we are affected by a lot more things than what we eat, right?

Free food. Sure. I'm in. But I'm not really actually a "supporter". Is that ok?

There would need to be a control group for any valid conclusions. I'd volunteer to be part of the 100% organic group.

At the end of 5 years, should you live so long, I'd expect to see you struggling with leaky gut syndrome, tumors, reproductive damage and other various problems. Bon Appétit!

Originally posted by Kurius
Ok, this is only a hypothetical program. If anyone could find some source of funding this could probably work and end most of the GMO debates in five years (or less)...Boy, ATS will be rather quiet then.

So the question is assuming that it can be implemented well (this has to be thought through), how many Monsanto/GMO supporters would volunteer? Incentives: free GM-based food. Penalty: caught consuming anything outside the program to pay back all costs of the full program.

Doesn't nearly every teenager volunteer for this when they start eating pizza pockets and other crap food for the five years starting right around when they finish highschool and get into uni?

Originally posted by juspassinthru

Originally posted by Phage
Assuming you would also have a non-GMO sample, what other lifestyle controls would be in place? You know we are affected by a lot more things than what we eat, right?

Free food. Sure. I'm in. But I'm not really actually a "supporter". Is that ok?

There would need to be a control group for any valid conclusions. I'd volunteer to be part of the 100% organic group.

At the end of 5 years, should you live so long, I'd expect to see you struggling with leaky gut syndrome, tumors, reproductive damage and other various problems. Bon Appétit!

I think there will be no problem getting volunteers for the non-GMO control group. We haven't heard from all those who have been strong proponents of GM food and condemned anti-GMO activists as nutcase yet. I am not sure if they are reading this thread. If it is in the wrong category, I hope the Mod will move it to the appropriate one.

Strangely too, I just observed all threads on GMO issue have gone silent since this thread first appeared. Have all the supporters gone back to consult Monsanto for further instructions? Or perhaps their lawyers to check if they should really participate on this free-food program? If they really take into consideration the return on investment, I think it is potentially very lucrative for them to participate. It ought to be a win-win case for them, considering that they believe GM food is safe.

Looking at the big picture, should GM food be proven to have detrimental effects on Phage, Luciddream, Grimpachi and their loved ones, it will potentially also open up a floodgate of class-action suits all over the world... Can any lawyer imagine not to take up the case....even pro-bono? Not a chance!

Please ....volunteers? We would probably need some expectant mothers too who are Monsanto/GMO supporters. If I remember, according to the French rat study, the off-springs of these rats became sterile? And they (Monsanto) quickly dismissed this finding without another similar tests conducted? Although I would feel terribly sorry for the unborn human child in this experiment if it should become sterile, I think the responsibility would rest on the parents, wouldn't it?

reply to post by Kurius

Strangely too, I just observed all threads on GMO issue have gone silent since this thread first appeared. Have all the supporters gone back to consult Monsanto for further instructions?

Not that I support them but I just haven't seen any evidence showing their foods are harmful but try to remember some of us have lives outside of ATS at least I do not that everyone here can relate.

If you get this study moving where my food bills will be free make sure to let me know. BTW I am not keen on the idea of having someone dictate how much food I can eat. I am 6 ft 3 200 lbs and can eat a lot.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Kurius

 

Strangely too, I just observed all threads on GMO issue have gone silent since this thread first appeared. Have all the supporters gone back to consult Monsanto for further instructions?

Not that I support them but I just haven't seen any evidence showing their foods are harmful but try to remember some of us have lives outside of ATS at least I do not that everyone here can relate.

If you get this study moving where my food bills will be free make sure to let me know. BTW I am not keen on the idea of having someone dictate how much food I can eat. I am 6 ft 3 200 lbs and can eat a lot.

Thanks. We should definitely think of body mass. Don't worry. Nobody should be overfed though as it might taint the data. It would be more difficult for you to make your case to sue Monsanto and the regulatory bodies if all your "harmless GMO" info is proven wrong. You just have to bear with the slight inconvenience. Think about the potential pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if that helps.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Kurius

 

Not that I support them but I just haven't seen any evidence showing their foods are harmful but try to remember some of us have lives outside of ATS at least I do not that everyone here can relate..

Btw, you should ideally be a firm believer of Monsanto's data (including their funded science and conference papers) and that the regulators are acting for the benefit of the people not corporations in all GMO issues in order to participate as a subject. If you do not, please state so.

Perhaps the best way to conduct this would be:

1. Use newborn babies for 5 years (parental consent required).

2. Controlled study similar to clinical trials.

3. No life insurance guarantee to parents who might profit from deaths.

4. "Hold Harmless" clause to protect the innocent.

5. No lawsuits for 'marginal' errors and procedure differentials and/or methods.


No clinical trials have ever been documented for GMO that I know of.

Any volunteers ?

reply to post by xuenchen


I don't think any sane parent would put their newborn up for a program like this, especially if there is a death clause in it.

I say the only way to do it would be with consenting adults. A baby is not consenting and forcing them into a study like this would be unfair.