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

reply to post by Phage


The Suzuki argument is irrelevant for 2 reasons.

1-

paper cited

www.springerlink.com/content/xuw611l537537873/

Chandra, M., Riley, M.G., Johnson, D.E., 1992. Spontaneous neoplasms in aged
Sprague-Dawley rats. Arch. Toxicol. 66, 496–502.

itself cites the Suzuki paper.

By citing the above, Gilles-Eric Séralini is aware of the existence of Suzuki's research.

2-

paper cited

tpx.sagepub.com/content/33/4/477.long

Brix, A.E., Nyska, A., Haseman, J.K., Sells, D.M., Jokinen, M.P., Walker, N.J., 2005.
Incidences of selected lesions in control female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats
from two-year studies performed by the National Toxicology Program. Toxicol.
Pathol. 33, 477–483.

also has upwards of 50% for spontaneous tumours

Abstract

The NTP has a long history of using Fischer rats and has compiled a large database of incidences of lesions seen in control animals. Such a database is lacking for Harlan Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats. The intention of this paper is to report spontaneous lesions observed in female vehicle control Harlan SD rats, and to compare the incidence in 2 strains of rats (Fischer and Harlan SD) used in NTP studies. Female Harlan SD rats served as the test animals for a special series of 2-year studies. Male rats were not used in these studies. Complete histopathology was performed on all animals, and the pathology results underwent comprehensive NTP pathology peer review. The most commonly observed neoplasms in these female control Harlan SD rats were mammary gland fibroadenoma (71%), tumors of the pars distalis of the pituitary (41%) and thyroid gland C-cell tumors (30%). Female Fischer rats had incidences of 44% for mammary gland fibroadenomas, 34% for tumors of the pars distalis, and 16% for thyroid gland C-cell tumors. Fischer rats had a 15% incidence of clitoral gland tumors, while the Harlan SD rats had an incidence of < 1%. In contrast to Fischer F344 rats, the Harlan SD rats had a high incidence of squamous metaplasia of the uterus (44.2%). Squamous metaplasia is not a lesion commonly observed in NTP control Fischer rats. The Harlan SD rats had a very low incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia (0.5%), compared with an incidence of 24% in female Fischer rats.

reply to post by XPLodER

are you accusing the researches from presenting only one side of the story?
like monsanto did with its trials?

I am wondering why no pictures of the control rats which developed tumors were shown.

Can you show me Monsanto research which "presented only one side?"

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

By citing the above, Gilles-Eric Séralini is aware of the existence of Suzuki's research.

Perhaps. Why not cite it? Why use only the (apparently lower) rate of spontaneous development? Why not compare the rate to that of the control group?

also has upwards of 50% for spontaneous tumours

Fine. Not that different from the Suzuki study. The same problem. Seralini's small control group showed an unusually low incidence of tumors and the overall test groups did not show an unusually high incidence.

From VIB (the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology)

The VIB scientists had serious reservations about the Séralini publication, which appeared today in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. The conclusions drawn by Séralini could not be derived from the publication. The data will have to be subjected to a thorough analysis.

www.eurekalert.org...

reply to post by Phage


wonder why 90% of the population want it labelled?


if its safe label it,
consumers will choose to "trust" monsatan
or not\

free market means free to choose with education
why mansanto so scarred to label?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

I don't have any problem with labeling but the food producers (no so much Monsanto, they don't sell food) do. Higher costs to track and verify labeling would lead to higher costs, which of course get passed on to the consumer. And of course, there are those who wouldn't buy GM food no matter what (in part due to flawed studies and the sensationalism that goes along with them). That worries food producers.

Myself? I love my GM Hawaiian papayas. Without genetic engineering the Hawaiian papaya industry would not exist.

it really cant be good either way. i wonder why nature is nature

do a test at home if you don't believe it

Phage
There was one time, some time ago where I had nothing but respect for yourself and your insights
But about 6 months ago something seemed to change in you, and I couldn't help but see something of an agenda or indeed ignorence in some of your responses

Astrophysics and phenomenon may well be your bag ........but your out of your depth here, and as far as I'm concerned you're only exposing yourself

And I know I'm not the only one that feels this

I'll admit I only read the first 2 pages before posting this ........but come on dude ........remove those blinkers........or refuse that pay check

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by antar

 

Yeah....pretty much already debunked because of bad science. news.discovery.com...

The findings were not debunked - they were questioned for accuracy. Not the same thing.

However, if you must have more scientific proof these GMO foods cause great harm I suggest the very scientific documentary Genetic Roulette which can be seen here for free: geneticroulettemovie.com...

Or here:

In California the issue of if we should list GMO foods or not is on the ballot for all California citizens to vote on this November.

Read about it here: www.naturalnews.com...

California is kinda of the American gauge or trendsetter. If this passes in California then the rest of America may follow suit.

Vote Yes to labeling GMO Foods in California this November !!

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Phage

 

wonder why 90% of the population want it labelled?

if its safe label it,
consumers will choose to "trust" monsatan
or not

free market means free to choose with education
why mansanto so scarred to label?

xploder

Monsanto has spent over 4 million dollars to fight this proposition. They KNOW that once consumers have a choice and there is some awareness of the dangers of eating this awful stuff, then the cat will be out of the bag and the sales of their chemicals and frankenseeds will dry up.

Someone asked why Monsanto doesn't want labeling if they stood behind the benefits of their wonderful products.

When faced with the absolute certainty of their GM foods being labeled in the UK, they put out an ad that claimed they welcomed it.

Here is a link to a very revealing article on Mercola.com where you can read the ad. Scroll down.Mercola.com

Monsanto:

One ad proclaims, "You have the right to know what you eat, especially when it's better... We believe that products that come from biotechnology are better and that they should be labeled."

In an interview with State of the World Forum, News Team journalist Alastair Thompson asked Monsanto CEO, Robert Shapiro about the consumers demand for labeling GMOs. Shapiro said, " ...it is not my role, or Monsanto's role, to decide these things. It is society's role to decide those questions after appropriate debate." "So you are open to labeling being introduced then?" Shapiro answered: "Yes. Of course."

Monsanto spokesman, Gary Barton also clearly stated, "There's a total misperception that we're against labeling." Genetically engineered products should proudly display a simple statement acknowledging this technology. These multinational businesses should have no problem promoting evidence to convince consumers of their many benefits.

Surprisingly, Monsanto appears to contradict those principles in the United States, where the company says it doesn't support labeling and will spend millions to ensure this information is concealed from consumers.

They lie.

reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway


No words can describe the bad deeds of those corporations.

The killer sponsors of No to Prop 37 shamefully out themselves below, shocking long list of corporations

www.noprop37.com/donors/

Donors

Abbott Nutrition
BASF Plant Science
Bayer CropScience
Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
Bunge North America, Inc.
C. H. Guenther & Son, Inc.
Campbell Soup Company
Cargill, Inc.
Clement Pappas & Company, Inc.
Clorox Company
Coca-Cola North America
ConAgra Foods
Council for Biotechnology Information
CropLife America
Dole Packaged Foods Company
Dow AgroSciences LLC
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
General Mills, Inc.
Grocery Manufacturers Association
H.J. Heinz Company
Hero North America
Hershey Company
Hirzel Canning Company
Hormel Foods Corporation
House-Autry Mills, Inc.
Idahoan Foods, LLC
Inventure Foods, Inc.
Kellogg Company
Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc.
Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Land O’Lakes, Inc.
McCain Foods USA, Inc.
McCormick & Company, Inc.
Monsanto Company
Nestle USA, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
PepsiCo, Inc.
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC
Reily Foods Company
Rich Products Corporation
Richelieu Foods, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Solae, LLC
Sunny Delight Beverages Company
Syngenta Corporation
The J.M. Smucker Company
Tri-Cal Inc.
Vroom
Ware

Absolutely!

not a single reason can be put forth to justify their use when the entire planet throughout history has survived without them...and most still are today, except for primarily the most overconsuming country with the most health issues on the planet!?!?!?!

choose FREEDOM∞

LOVE

mayallsoulsbefree∞

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I don't have any problem with labeling but the food producers (no so much Monsanto, they don't sell food) do. Higher costs to track and verify labeling would lead to higher costs, which of course get passed on to the consumer. And of course, there are those who wouldn't buy GM food no matter what (in part due to flawed studies and the sensationalism that goes along with them). That worries food producers.

You really believe this? Wow Phage, your really going down hill fast IMO. Why? Food producers change their labels and the ingredients constantly. They improve the products for taste or change the color of the foods using different dyes, add or remove additives like preservatives etc at the drop of a hat. They know where they get their ingredients for these foods. It's a very simple matter to find out which ingredients have GMO's in them and re-labeling accordingly is not going to cost them any more to re-label than they already do on a regular basis. If you seriously believe their straw man argument then it brings to question what else you are willing to accept about science.

Phage, I also have enjoyed many of your posts in the past because you were so spot on with keeping things real, down to earth and even settled many frightening issues that went viral which really were inaccurate.

Please explain to me and others who are so disjointed by your responses to this issue?

Your posts would do great in a debate setting but it is shocking to see you come down to a level that is not helpful in determining the safety of GMO/rBGH/ and the toxic chemicals it takes to grow them properly.

Many members trust your opinions, they trust your scientific mind and will follow your words religiously. This in my opinion is careless and irresponsible. Please do not become the typhoid Annie of GMO and its safety.

I really thought your whole issue was with the rats and not the findings but the Hawaiian GMOfruit comment made me sink...

Originally posted by Phage
Yes. Because the seed was essentially stolen.



The "study" was deeply flawed and biased. It demonstrated nothing.


Other than the whole research aspect needs to be reconsidered by both sides with INDEPENDENT scientists doing the discovery process with no fears of repurcussions from the GMO industry, but, when researchers have to sign NDA to even be allowed the seed to conduct trials, Agenda free and independent research appears to be something the GMO companies do not want to see happen.

Having to "Steal" seeds to complete research does not in any way denigrate the studies findings, or, represent in anyway a besmirching of the scientists reputations.
In my book, they done absolutely what needed to be done, i also find it telling that monsanto studies only represented data from the first 90days of much longer studies, as soon as the data began giving the products indicators that they were deliterious to health, only data from the period before that happened, the first 90 days was included in the studies findings.

Genetic modification of crops is crude and unpredictable. The industry is failing because its
products are unreliable, unstable and dangerous.
— Dr. Mae Wan Ho


I believe it is both legitimate and important to ask whether some people’s faith in the potential
of GM technology is a product of wishful thinking or of the hype generated by vested interests.
Are these methods really going to solve mankind’s problems, or just create new ones? And
how will we regulate them effectively? There are a great many examples of earlier well-meaning attempts to control pests or improve the environment which have gone drastically
wrong. I am simply not convinced that we have absorbed the lesson that manipulating Nature
is, at best, an uncertain business.
— The Prince of Wales

To want control is the pathology! Not that the person can get control, because of course you
never do... Man is only a part of larger systems, and the part can never control the whole.

reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway


Can not wait to watch this video but right now I need to wrangle the 5 teen's I have laying about after breakfast to get busy in the ORGANIC gardens! Lots to do to get ready for fall/winter. I am more prepared this year to supplement our produce, but it takes a boatload of cooperation. There is no way to grow enough to feed us all winter, but at least we can as I said supplement.

The more I discover about the food I 'thought' was a healthy lifestyle, the worse I feel and the only thing I can do is to grow our own and pray it is not contaminated by surrounding farms that are ignorant or just do not care.

reply to post by The X


We may never establish whether this was intentional or not but the reality is that farmers for generations have been supplied by the same companies for their seed. These same companies have no choice themselves but to accept it and really never even question it.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I recently had a row with a family member over this very subject.

This is what was thrown at me as evidence.
"We've been eating this stuff for years and its never hurt any of us"

I was shocked, this seems to be what people believe!!

The MSM certainly does its job very well.

GMO is POISON

This is a great example but there are many examples that leave me dumbfounded as far as the fact that many people don't seem to care about themselves or their families. Losses of civil liberties and the lies that students are fed in public schools are other examples, people generally simply don't seem to care about most of the relevant things in their lives, how's it possible?

Wait. Just wait. Ok, first great thread. I have enjoyed reading the thoughts here. Stars all around for participation.

One thing has been made very clear. The area of gmo foods warrants extensive studies to substantially determine its safety in human consumption. Why? Because there is reasonable doubt. As I have read in this thread. Reasonable doubt in both the pro and the anti studies.

That can go without saying.

But. Why is this coming down so hard on this phage? This phage offers a decent enough counter argument. No reason to be so harsh towards the persons perspective.

So before it goes into personal attacks, as is so common around these parts, please let the thread continue on the track it was for the two and a half pages.