Urgent need for right to know GMO labeling *Video* of profound importance.

Many of the criticisms can be identified as pseudoscepticism and a poor debunk job.

Double standards are explicit in this case.

Here is a point Gilles-Eric Séralini made

Author defends Monsanto GM study as EU orders review
BRUSSELS | Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:56am EDT

www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-eu-gmo-safety-idUSBRE88J0WG20120920

(...)

"I'm waiting for criticism from scientists who have already published material in journals... on the effects of GMOs and pesticides on health, in order to debate fairly with peers who are real scientists, and not lobbyists."

(...)

(Reporting by Clement Rossignol; Writing by Charlie Dunmore; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

Who's in the Obama Administration?

Tom Vilsack, USDA Secretary As Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack was a leading advocate for Monsanto, genetic engineering, and factory farming. President Obama proudly lauded his new Agriculture Secretary for "promoting biotech."

Vilsack has, in fact, promoted the most controversial and dangerous forms of agricultural biotechnology, including pharma crops, plants genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals.

When grown outdoors on farmland, where most pharma crop trials have occurred, pharma crops can easily contaminate conventional and organic varieties. In one chilling example from 2002, a corn crop engineered by ProdiGene to produce a vaccine for pigs contaminated 500,000 bushels of soybeans that were grown in the Nebraska field the next season. Before this incident, a similar thing had happened in Iowa where the USDA ordered ProdiGene to pay for the burning of 155 acres of conventional corn that may have been contaminated by the firm's biotech plants.

ProdiGene eventually went out of business, but not before it received a $6 million investment from the Governors Biotechnology Partnership, chaired by Iowa Governor Vilsack. Vilsack didn't want any restrictions placed on experimental pharma crops.

In reaction to suggestions that pharma crops should be kept away from food crops, Vilsack argued that "we should not overreact and hamstring this industry."

This is just one example but the list is extensive.

www.organicconsumers.org...

Originally posted by antar
As for roundup ready crops... Well there is so much evidence from farmers that they were fooled into using it as well as the GMo seed in conjunction as they go hand in hand and one is not covered without the other, however it did not take long to realize that there was something terribly wrong and unreliable in both. The farmers were then "given" incentives to continue and to for the most part to go along with the program or risk losing everything. You do not need to do research to discover the truth in this, all you have to do is ask any of the farmers using it.

Enjoy the read. Do a simple search to discover countless hits on the misrepresentations. I fully expect all of the more recent studies and findings will be scrubbed from the internet soon because it is just too horrific to believe.

www.inmotionmagazine.com...

Excellent Link and a good read, I found it most UN-nerving that this was published in 1997? For Christ Sakes they new this stuff was off way back then?

Good but bad stuff if you know what I mean.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Phage


it would seam like the failures are swept under the rug and any scientist remeasuring finds they have no funding and are attacked

In the U.S., as well as globally, a pattern of agricultural biotech failures seems to be emerging. Although the gene engineers like to claim that genetic engineering is an "exact science," field results tell a different story. Monsanto last April was forced to recall its entire crop (60,000 bags of seed, enough to plant up to 750,000 acres) of genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" rapeseed in Canada because of unexplained errors in its genetic engineering process. Similarly in 1994-96 Monsanto/Calgene's "Flavr Savr" Tomato suffered from "technological glitches" that--combined with consumer opposition--finally caused Calgene to pull the "Flavr Savr" tomato off the market in 1996. And of course continuing controversy over Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST) has prevented the company from getting approval for rBGH in any other industrialized country other than the US. Even in the U.S., according to informed sources, fewer than 4% of all U.S. dairy cows are currently being injected with the drug every two weeks. Compounding Monsanto's problems, the Codex Alimentarius, the global food standards setting body for the WTO, has recently refused to certify that rBGH is safe for cows and humans.

www.inmotionmagazine.com...

many problems with so called safe gmo crops

xploder

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

His reply is "Ok, let's see you do better!"

The fact is there is a lot of demand for research in the field. Hopefully it will be done more stringently.

reply to post by XPLodER

A 15 year old example of self policing (the rapeseed recall) by Monsanto as evidence of its own evils?

Calgene's "technological glitches" were more a matter of farming and marketing inexpertise than anything else. They couldn't make it profitable because they were inexperienced in both.

rBGH has nothing to do with GMO crops but Monsanto is not producing it any longer.

Just felt like sharing my response to a wonderful and heart felt Pm I just received, perhaps others silently reading this can relate.

Your words make me feel heavy in the heart, I know I am not alone but to actually hear from another waking individual is as hard to take as dealing with it myself.

I am so sad and let down with myself right now because I suppose I have known that the fresh foods and the produce, the multigrains and healthy choices I have made in the past years may be killing us, making my children suffer future problems that have not even surfaced yet.

They talk about being parents one day, and that scares me silently because of the messed up world we live in and the fact they have not enjoyed the full benefits of Gods plan for our bodies and health.

I do appreciate your private message, but I think I will post my reply because it is from my heart and will let others know that they are not alone either.

Thank, and we will keep pushing ourselves outside the box and do all we can to eat and drink consciously. It does feel right now like a compromise of what I know to be the truth though...

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
Many of the criticisms can be identified as pseudoscepticism and a poor debunk job.

Double standards are explicit in this case.

Here is a point Gilles-Eric Séralini made

Author defends Monsanto GM study as EU orders review
BRUSSELS | Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:56am EDT

www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-eu-gmo-safety-idUSBRE88J0WG20120920

(...)

"I'm waiting for criticism from scientists who have already published material in journals... on the effects of GMOs and pesticides on health, in order to debate fairly with peers who are real scientists, and not lobbyists."

(...)

(Reporting by Clement Rossignol; Writing by Charlie Dunmore; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

This says it all in my opinion, Money and Money and then some attitude and screw anyone who begs to differ.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by antar


found this video WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT may cause you to lose your apatite

speaks for itself



2 year study on GMO and roundup, blood test, urine, weight, hormones, diet ect
previous test 3 MONTHS

carried out by a large group of accredited scientists
very disturbing

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

As pointed out by other accredited scientists, the study is deeply flawed and biased.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

A 15 year old example of self policing (the rapeseed recall) by Monsanto as evidence of its own evils?

Calgene's "technological glitches" were more a matter of farming and marketing inexpertise than anything else. They couldn't make it profitable because they were inexperienced in both.

rBGH has nothing to do with GMO crops but Monsanto is not producing it any longer.

3 MONTHS TESTING to ensure its safety? wtf
3 montths would bearly show up any longer term effects,

question
do you support monsanto in their asserting that these products are safe?

question
do you think 3 month saftey trials are long enough?

question
is the situation of the resurch a problem (ie monsanto carries out their own saftey studies?

is this the level of food saftey we require?


at what point do you realise that monsanto BLOCKS saftey assessment of their gmo crops?

xploder

reply to post by Phage


It is not.

The most clear pseudosceptic remark is the rat choice - Sprague-Dawley.

This is funny, Monsanto itself used Sprague-Dawley rats in their protocol for safety study.

If you read the fulltext, you'll see a table comparing the 3 protocols(paper, Monsanto, OECD).

The protocol used in this work was compared to the regulatory assessment of NK603 maize by the company (Hammond et al., 2004), and to non mandatory regulatory in vivo
tests for GMOs, or mandatory for chemicals (OECD 408). Most relevant results are shown in this paper.

Monsanto paper cited, published in same journal Food and Chemical Toxicology as Gilles-Eric Séralini's study.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000547

B Hammond a, R Dudek b, J Lemen a, M Nemeth a

a Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh, St Louis, MO, 63167, USA
b Monsanto Company, Metabolism and Safety Evaluation-Newstead (MSE-N), 645 S. Newstead Ave., St Louis, MO 63110, USA

Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn

Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 42, Issue 6, June 2004, Pages 1003–1014

Article history
Received 18 June 2003
Accepted 12 February 2004
Available online 16 March 2004

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

As pointed out by other accredited scientists, the study is deeply flawed and biased.

there is no whay you could have watched that 12 min vid in two minutes

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

question
do you support monsanto in their asserting that these products are safe?

Pretty much. I think that Monsanto actively tests its products and accurately reports their findings.

question
do you think 3 month saftey trials are long enough?

For human testing, no. For rats which have a very short lifespan, yes.

A 1979 paper by Suzuki et al. published in the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology looked at the spontaneous appearance of endocrine tumors in this particular line of rats. Spontaneous appearance basically means the authors didn’t apply any treatments (like feeding them GMOs or herbicides). They just watched the rats for 2 years and observed what happened in otherwise healthy rats. When the study was terminated at 2 years (the same duration as the Seralini study), a whopping 86% of male and 72% of female rats had developed tumors.

weedcontrolfreaks.com...

question
is the situation of the resurch a problem (ie monsanto carries out their own saftey studies?

Not really. Monsanto uses third party labs and the research is reviewed.

is this the level of food saftey we require?

That's a tricky question. Are people and animals dropping dead or becoming ill from the use of GM crops? They've been in use for some time now.

reply to post by XPLodER

Why should I? There is plenty of information available about the study.

Pretty much. I think that Monsanto actively tests its products and accurately reports their findings.

on rats who by your numbers have lots of aggressive tumours?
is that so they can discount any tumours and blame the rat species?
WHY USE THESE RATS IF THEY ARE UNSUITABLE?

For human testing, no. For rats which have a very short lifespan, yes.

you mean a rat with a life span over two years,
only gets tested for 3 months?
what about the much longer life span of a human,
is three months testing enough to convey confidence?
considering humans life proportionally longer and injust more over time?

A 1979 paper by Suzuki et al. published in the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology looked at the spontaneous appearance of endocrine tumors in this particular line of rats. Spontaneous appearance basically means the authors didn’t apply any treatments (like feeding them GMOs or herbicides). They just watched the rats for 2 years and observed what happened in otherwise healthy rats. When the study was terminated at 2 years (the same duration as the Seralini study), a whopping 86% of male and 72% of female rats had developed tumors.

weedcontrolfreaks.com...

so you are trying to invalidate this reasurch because they used the same rats as the original study??????
why did monsanto use these type of rats then?

Not really. Monsanto uses third party labs and the research is reviewed.

and only uses third party labs that give favourable results i suspect

That's a tricky question. Are people and animals dropping dead or becoming ill from the use of GM crops? They've been in use for some time now.

so as long as people arnt dropping dead NOW then the long term saftey of gmos is assured?
are you saying because the tumours are not evident, and people are not dying NOW
that this MUST BE SAFE????

please correct me

xploder

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

It makes no sense to compare the Hammond study to Saralini. Apples and oranges. Different purposes and different protocols.

20 rats vs 400

A long term study with rats known to spontaneously develop tumors over the long term. Something Saralini seemed to be unaware of.

reply to post by Phage


except in the french study a 6 X increase was shown,
FACTOR OF SIX MORE DEATHS THAN CONTROLS

the french had to keep the study seceret,
wounder why?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

so you are trying to invalidate this reasurch because they used the same rats as the original study??????
why did monsanto use these type of rats then?

The fact that the rats used are known to spontaneously develop tumors in the long term would tend to cast some doubt on the cause of the tumors in Saralini's study.

Because the object of the research was not the same. The object of the Hammond research was to compare

Overall health, body weight, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues

www.sciencedirect.com...

Canola oil is a total conjob. The people were force-fed propaganda and made to think it's a healthy substitute for other cooking oils.

Of course, that's not really the case as canola oil is actually a genetically modified version of rapeseed oil. It is modified in order to lower the amount of erucic acid, thereby lowering the rapeseed's toxicity to humans.

Originally rapeseed was hybridized to lower erucic acid content, but since the dawn of GMO's most companies have been using genetic modification to do it. Apparently, rapeseed oil has to be refined at very high temperatures to yield canola oil.

These high temperatures bastardize the oil and make it toxic to ingest. Canola's high amount of tainted polyunsaturated fats are toxic to the system as well. Taking an essential fatty acid and heating it at high temperatures can cause many health problems, the most well-known of which is the production of free radicals, which are directly linked with speeding up the aging process. Studies show what canola can deplete natural Vitamin E levels quickly, and Vitamin E is needed for many important physiological processes. I've also read that canola can retard growth and cause fibrotic lesions in the heart!

rickthehealthsleuth.blogspot.com...