Study Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

a reply to: neo96

really? look at fat america and ask yourself what the h3ll happen. look at the little girls getting breast cancer and 9+ years old. Developing double D's at the age of 12 what the h3ll changed? the food. I hate to tell you dude. it is your food!

eat up. you will be 6 ft under sooner then later.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Corn is a nutrient dead food normally. In most places throughout europe they don't even eat it because it's got no nutritional value.

Yes, that's true. But the "normal" corn isn't natural either. It is the result of selective breeding. That sweet taste it's got? That was bred into it because people liked it better. No scientific study has found anything harmful about GMO corn.

a reply to: Parthin

Hybridisation is not the same as genetic modification.

originally posted by: neo96
Study Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

Then how come I aint dead ?

How come you aren't dead ?

People been eating GMO foods, and products made from them for near 20+ years.

Fear mongering is right.

How come I aint scared then?

originally posted by: jonnywhite
As long as the companies are held accountable and the government is able to police them. I really don't care whether we genetically modify things or not, I just care about whether things are being monitored for safety and to ensure law abiding activity. So... I cross my fingers for our future.

This is one benefit of having different countries. If one country becomes corrupt, the others may act as a defense against it.

Monsanto? Accountable? ha ha that's hilarious

originally posted by: Parthin

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Corn is a nutrient dead food normally. In most places throughout europe they don't even eat it because it's got no nutritional value.

Yes, that's true. But the "normal" corn isn't natural either. It is the result of selective breeding. That sweet taste it's got? That was bred into it because people liked it better. No scientific study has found anything harmful about GMO corn.

No scientific study? Here's a well known one...

rt.com...

a reply to: robbo961

Here's the retraction:

www.businessweek.com...

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: robbo961

Here's the retraction:

www.businessweek.com...

Of course, yes. Two sides of the story. However where there's smoke there's fire. The way I see it, until proper research has been done on the subject and presented to the public, then I would be in favour of GMO's being clearly labelled so we can make our own bloody minds up. How do you stand with labelling AH? any objections to that?

a reply to: robbo961

Incidentally AlphaHawk, where are the safety studies? you seem to be a man driven by the strength of his convictions? Motivation is a huge factor in an argument. You seem well motivated to argue that we are in no danger eating GMO's. What is your motivation exactly?

a reply to: robbo961

My motivation?

The truth, wherever it may lead.

Cliched I know, but I have no bias either way. If I see untruths I'll point them out.

Problem is, there's never a pro monsanto thread here, therefore no need to pick it apart to see if it's BS.

It just really grinds my gears when people accept something at face value all the time, both sides of the spectrum.

Question EVERYTHING.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: robbo961

My motivation?

The truth, wherever it may lead.

Cliched I know, but I have no bias either way. If I see untruths I'll point them out.

Problem is, there's never a pro monsanto thread here, therefore no need to pick it apart to see if it's BS.

It just really grinds my gears when people accept something at face value all the time, both sides of the spectrum.

Question EVERYTHING.

And your view on GMO labelling?

a reply to: robbo961

Depends on the reasoning really, if products get labeled out of fear and ignorance, then I can see why companies trying to sell products that contain GM In their ingredients would be against it.

But what about, say a large bread maker, they could produce a hundred different products, ones with GM wheat in and others not, they're not going to strip everything just in case cross contamination occurs are they?

So even supposed non GMO food probably has GM food in it anyway.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: robbo961

Depends on the reasoning really, if products get labeled out of fear and ignorance, then I can see why companies trying to sell products that contain GM In their ingredients would be against it.

But what about, say a large bread maker, they could produce a hundred different products, ones with GM wheat in and others not, they're not going to strip everything just in case cross contamination occurs are they?

So even supposed non GMO food probably has GM food in it anyway.

How can labelling products be born out of fear and ignorance? Too much salt is bad for you, too many calories, too much sugar etc. People want to know what they are eating. Let me rephrase the question... Do you think people have a right to decide whether or not they wish to eat GMO's?

Your answer seems to be avoiding the question

One thing is sure we have been eating that ^&%$ for a couple of decades now. Maybe the GMO is dangerous, maybe its not, but one only has to look to the incidence of weird maladies in the las UMMMM couple of decades and ????? lots of autism, lots of weird aggressive cancers and tumors, liver failure , you name it, we may never know for sure because in the words of Agent Gerard in the movie the fugitive : "this company is a monster".

But we have the right to know what we are buying, eating and using...its our money....

a reply to: robbo961

What does it matter what I think?

And you ask how can it be borne out of fear and ignorance? Well the whole premise of this thread is an example, if one is to blindly believe that GMO corn is nutritionally dead, don't you think that would affect their decision when buying corn?

That's what I am talking about.

Any I do think they have a right, as long as it's for the right reasons.

a reply to: robbo961

Here is current UK legislation on food labelling. Looking at article (f). I defined provenance to mean 'what it is and where it come from'. I believe the 'sprit' of article (f) is in essence there to inform the purchaser exactly what it is they are buying and where it comes from. I have to ask "Why should a GMO product be blatantly exempt from this directive?"

Article (g) makes the distinction of difficulty in making 'appropriate choice' in the absence of such instructions.

Again I ask "why is a GMO product treated differently?", I cannot make an appropriate choice if it is not labelled correctly.



The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 No. 1499
PART II Scope and general labelling requirement

General labelling requirement

5. Subject to the following provisions of this Part of these Regulations, all food to which this Part of these Regulations applies shall be marked or labelled with—

(a)the name of the food;

(b)a list of ingredients;

(c)the appropriate durability indication;

(d)any special storage conditions or conditions of use;

(e)the name or business name and an address or registered office of either or both of—

(i)the manufacturer or packer, or

(ii)a seller established within the European Community;

(f)particulars of the place of origin or provenance of the food if failure to give such particulars might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the food; and

(g)instructions for use if it would be difficult to make appropriate use of the food in the absence of such instructions.


source:
www.legislation.gov.uk...

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: robbo961

What does it matter what I think?

And you ask how can it be borne out of fear and ignorance? Well the whole premise of this thread is an example, if one is to blindly believe that GMO corn is nutritionally dead, don't you think that would affect their decision when buying corn?

That's what I am talking about.

Any I do think they have a right, as long as it's for the right reasons.

What does it matter what you think? shall I explain why it matters what you think? Here's why:

You admitted yourself that you have no evidence that GMO's are safe and yet you hold a strong conviction that you should play devils advocate against someone who believes them to be without nutritional value. To what end? I find it offensive that you would flippantly try to persuade people to not be careful in choosing what to eat. I say flippantly because you have no opinion one way or the other. Therefore you have no vested interest in the issue.

I on the other hand like to be careful not to put any nasty crap into my body and so I have a vested interest. You have no opinion on GMO labelling and avoid the question like a minister on question time. That says it all really, that you won't answer my question.

a reply to: Kali74

Trouble is we don't have the resources, and besides which - people generally assume 'authorities' to be more reliable than 'activists'. There's been a wonderful job done of inducing apathy over the years, as is witnessed in another current thread:

Conditioned Human Apathy? Why do people no longer get pissed off? (Terence Mckenna)

a reply to: robbo961

You have no opinion on GMO labelling and avoid the question like a minister on question time. That says it all really, that you won't answer my question.

I am the one who said I couldn't care less about GMO labeling AlphaHawk said it depends on the reason for labeling as to his opinion on labeling.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: robbo961

You have no opinion on GMO labelling and avoid the question like a minister on question time. That says it all really, that you won't answer my question.

I am the one who said I couldn't care less about GMO labeling AlphaHawk said it depends on the reason for labeling as to his opinion on labeling.

Good for you! I think AlphaHawk can speak for himself