Monsanto and Big Food Pull Out the Big Guns

reply to post by burntheships


The only thing Monsanto can do good is Lie. They've been kicked out of India the second most populated country on the planet and half of Europe as well, the only thing that keeps these criminals in business in the U.S.A. is our own Money Grubbing POLITICIANS.

reply to post by burntheships


Oh of course, my post is against the T&C's, and you're quick to point it out.

So why didn't you point it out here or here or here or here?

Oh, it's because they agree with you so it's ok for them to break the T&C's.

So transparent.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


I have not read every post in this thread, however they were not questioning me as you are.
In any case, my previous assertion stands. You are attacking other posters here,
and myself which is poor form, and there can be no conversatiion or discussion.

The title of this thread is Monsanto and Big Food Pull Out the Big Guns,
the subject is the large chemical companies that are trying to monopolize
the food industry, and prevent labeling of genetically modified food; transgenic
manipulations so that people can avoid eating it. We would also like
an end to the toxic pesticides that are killing the bees, the birds, the bats,
the butterflies, and detroying the ecosystems.

Originally posted by Siddharta
What I learned from this and other threats on GMO is that GMO causes some people to be Supertrolls.

Why did that put the image of "The Most Interesting Man in the World" in my head...

"I don't always Supertroll... but when I do it's for Monsanto"...

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by SwissMarked

 

So you're happy to stoop to MSM standards then?

I guess I'm not surprised, anything goes as long as it confirms ones beliefs.

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

Nope... just pointing out how people will pick and choose their "facts" to suit their desired outcome...

I personally think everyone is lying about everything all the time... even me...

reply to post by burntheships


Well, here in Aus all products have to be labeled if they contain GMO's:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hell, the consumers here even got all the big dairies to label their milk showing if it was permeate free or not.

So I don't know why you yanks are having such a hard time getting it done when plenty of other countries can manage it.

As for the bats and bees, I'm more of the opinion that it's more to do with farmers and their spraying regimes than GMO crops.

Using more chemical than needed is a common issue.

It gets in the waterways too.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by burntheships

 

Well, here in Aus all products have to be labeled if they contain GMO's:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hell, the consumers here even got all the big dairies to label their milk showing if it was permeate free or not.

So I don't know why you yanks are having such a hard time getting it done when plenty of other countries can manage it.

As for the bats and bees, I'm more of the opinion that it's more to do with farmers and their spraying regimes than GMO crops.

Using more chemical than needed is a common issue.

It gets in the waterways too.

So now wait... your country already has it but you're against it being done in the United States...

Tell me... has the labeling caused the prices of food to skyrocket... has it "put a burden" on the food companies to add a couple extra words to a nutrition label they're already required to have on the products in the first place...

The reason "us Yanks" are having such a difficult time is because when someone files suit they have to pay lawyers... corporations pluck kids right out of college and they'll retire on that companies dime doing nothing but filing motion after motion and appeal after appeal until the family farmer is bankrupt and in swoops the GMO factory farms to buy up more land and make more money to hire more lawyers to bankrupt more family farms...

If you haven't figured out by now that the U.S. government is by far the most corrupt in the history of the world I don't know what to say... they are (long story short) Nazis that wised up to the fact that wearing armbands and heiling every time you enter a room gives away your agenda... but if you creep into every facet of every day life slowly and methodically eventually controlling all of the media and education system sooner than later you'll wake up and say "holy crap... this is the 4th Reich"...

Originally posted by AlphaHawk

As for the bats and bees, I'm more of the opinion that it's more to do with farmers and their spraying regimes than GMO crops.

Spraying what? Pesticides?

Which Pesticides?

reply to post by SwissMarked


Where did I say I was against GMO labelling?



I'm all for it.

I'm against pointless polls and mindless slandering though.

reply to post by burntheships


Herbicides, insecticides, fungicides.

I mean just think that if every property, on average, over used chemicals when they spray by 5%. Not much individually, but it all adds up.

Couple that with beekeepers setting up hives on a property to pollinate crops and a neighbouring property spraying at the same time.

This is what's killing bees if you ask me.

This paper suggests this as well:

Our results show that beekeepers need to consider not only pesticide regimens of the fields in which they are placing their bees, but also spray programs near those fields that may contribute to pesticide drift onto weeds. The bees in our study collected pollen from diverse sources, often failing to collect any pollen from the target crop (Fig. 1). All of the non-target pollen that we were able to identify to genus or species was from wildflowers (Table S1), suggesting the honey bees were collecting significant amounts of pollen from weeds surrounding our focal fields.

www.plosone.org...

Originally posted by AlphaHawk


This is what's killing bees if you ask me.

This paper suggests this as well

Yes, however are you aware that when Genetically Modified Corn is planted
it has mass quaunties of that pesticide altered into the plant itself,
so that the plant creates Neonic laden pollen?

So this really has everything to do with GMO, transgenic crops.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Obviously you are the kind of guy that turns out his brain as soon as somebody asks you for an own thought.
Congratulations! You are the typical American as we expect them to be.

reply to post by burntheships


I'm aware of that, but I think you have missed my point as well.

I might actually have to do a thread on it, so as not to derail this one further.

reply to post by dominicus

Mediteranean low cancer rates and Japanese long lifespans have been around before any lab based genetic modification ever started!!!

Just so we are clear, you just said that the low cancer rates have nothing to do with GMO. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you were saying before?

They sold seeds, and used the marketing technique of showing proof that their crops were big and healthy. Once you bought the seeds and grew crops from them, you were free to reuse the seed. It was natural selective breeding.

You are conflating two different subjects here...

Not lab based gene splicing poison proof and sprayed crops of which you are forbidden to re-sue the seeds. That's some evil crap right there to deny the natural born right to reuse the seeds!!!!

lol natural born right to reuse seed? Where do you come up with this crap? You know farmers don't have to sign up to those terms if they don't want to right?

That's exactly whats going on with GMO's. All studies biased and paid for by Monsanto......eventually 50-80 year old folks will start coming down with all sorts of health problems, people start wondering if there is a conection, they start demanding independent studies not influenced by Mosanto ....which will require going to Asia/South America/India/Russia/EU......

Its perfectly normal for 80 year olds to have health problems. Do you choose to ignore that life expectancy continues to rise?

GMO's are exactly where Tobacco was in the 40'-50's.....Their time is running out!!!!

Not really, the link between lung cancer and tobacco was pretty obvious. Claiming that GMOs cause almost anything that can be wrong with you is a bit harder to show.

But are then added to food made for human consumption!!! Major Face palm, you just punked yourself with this point!!!!

Yes...i just punked myself so hard. That all you got? Because you didn't really say anything...

If you want to, go for it!!! Whatever you come up with regardless, over the next few years, you will start seeing peer reviewed, universally accepted studies coming out of Asia/EU/S. America/India proving GMO's cause a vast array of health problems......

Oh, so you are saying that those studies you posted were not peer reviewed nor accepted? Why should we have to wait years for this?

If you do that right there, and come out perfectly healthy on the other end, I'll bow down to you and start eating only GMO's myself!!!!!

I really doubt that.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


The answer site has a long list of questions about pesticides and bees.

not many have been 'answered'

look

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Hollie

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by SwissMarked
Wait... what... I thought the high and mighty Superhans was above personal attacks and stated that it means "your argument is invalid"... what a hypocrite...

it was clear that hollie was too dumb to keep up

I must admit, it is quite difficult keeping up with the crap that spews from an A$$face such as yourself. All you are doing is interrogating and faulting peoples sentences.
You are not here to discuss how growers and consumers are against GMO's. You are here to bicker about sentences.

Not sentences, their logic and horrible counter arguments.

You also feel the need to tell me that I am dumb constantly, and wish weird things about my children not respecting me, even though you already admitted to not caring about GMO. So why are you here other than to stir the pot and call me and my children dumb?

I don't remember calling your children dumb, can you find that quote for me? And I didn't say that i didn't care about GMO, what i said went over your head so naturally you got angry and confused.

I only caught a glance at the title of this thread ... I thought it said

"Monsanto and BIGFOOT pull out the big guns"!!!

you can imagine the pciture in my head for a second there!!!!!

Here's a compelling question and an answer.

How can you be sure that GMO foods won't affect human health long-term?
Question Submitted by: nicholebagbers from Albany, New York

Answer:

GMO foods have a long, safe track record (17 years in the marketplace). From their introduction in 1996 until now, scientists have found, through repeated and extensive testing, that GMO foods are no more risky than comparable non-GMO foods, nor do they differ in nutritional value.

Currently approved GM crops developed through specific genetic additions or subtractions are as safe as conventional and organic crops developed via random genetic shuffling. Most people do not realize that plant breeders have been randomly altering and admixing plant genomes for centuries. Techniques using chemicals and radiation to break plant DNA and induce mutations have been used to develop many conventional and organic crops. Whether using traditional approaches or genetic engineering, the goal of plant scientists is to develop crops with new and agriculturally useful traits. Humans have been changing plant genomes for generations – we just have new, more precise, tools.

Regulatory and food safety focus should be on the resulting trait(s), not the specific modification or plant breeding process by which the genetic changes were made. Because they have different traits, GMO foods are carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, Arctic Apples are non-browning GMO fruits that have been developed by “turning off” a gene, rather than adding any genes to the apple genome. Whether a trait occurs naturally, is chemically or radiation induced, or is purposely incorporated via genetic engineering, inherent risks are the same.

Given that we’ve been genetically modifying plants for millennia, using one approach or another, we should frame this question in terms of relative risks… how “sure” can we expect to be when it comes to long-term health impacts of GMO foods? Like most things in life (except death and taxes, as the saying goes…), 100% certainty is not possible or reasonable to require. However, safe use of GMO foods since 1996, coupled with our knowledge of human and plant physiology, points to long-term safe use of genetic engineering as a plant breeding tool set in agriculture.

Q & A

Loads of assumptions.

They must be relying on the Stockholm Effect.

Many of the supporting 'comments' refer to none other than Mark Lynas

This one sends me

Like most things in life (except death and taxes, as the saying goes…), 100% certainty is not possible or reasonable to require.