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.
Publication of the new version of the paper gives critics no reason to change their mind, says food-allergy researcher Richard Goodman of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and biotechnology editor at FCT. "To my knowledge, no-one has demonstrated that a two-year feeding study of Sprague Dawley rats has uncovered any hazard that actually poses a risk to human or farm-animal health," he says, referring to the breed of rodents used in the study.
What does that have to do with the article about Seralini republishing? That, contrary to Seralini's claim, it was not peer reviewed? What does that have to do with the fact that the experiment was deeply flawed?
It appears that Nature has had journalists in the past take money from Monsanto without noting they had done so!
The Washington Post quoted food activist and GMO critic Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University: “‘[I] can’t figure it out yet….It’s weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can’t think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this…..So even though I strongly support labeling, I’m skeptical of this study.’”
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Phage
Well upon checking into that...
It appears that Nature has had journalists in the past take money from Monsanto without noting they had done so!
Not really a surprise, as can be seen from that list, it is not an uncommon practice!
So in your case, GM or not is irrelevant.
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: Phage
See, with my condition, I am not allowed to ingest soy...
How does "May contain GM products" help?
I have a right to know every detail about something I'm going to ingest in my opinion.
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
Another one that didn't watch the video...
originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Phage
Yes that was the mantra used in order to get the study originally retracted...
However as time has gone on, he one the a defamation and perjury case as well has having his study published once again.
Study found here.
originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
Another one that didn't watch the video...
I can't watch the video because it's geoblocked in my country, but I know what it contains because I've read several critiques (there's a particularly good one here).
Feel free to address the facts in my post when you're ready.
You are have come to epitomize the official stance of the state on every single topic that you have shared an opinion on!
originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: elementalgrove
You are have come to epitomize the official stance of the state on every single topic that you have shared an opinion on!
I must concur on this one. It poked my eye...rarely does one see so much support on all things official...by a single person. Makes me wonder why are they wasting their beautiful carefree lives on a conspiracy site.