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

Originally posted by emberscott
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.

Phage has a reputation for being cool headed and accurate with his information. Normally, Phage doesn't post unless he post something he can readily back up with scientific facts. Some of his recent postings seem out of character for him. People are surprised and taken aback. I would think he's just slipping but that's not accurate either. As in my post above, If Phage is willing to believe something so silly - something that isn't based on facts or even common sense then it brings into question what else he believes about science. This is important because he is respected as being scientifically correct most of the time. He may actually be misleading people who put a lot of faith in his opinions. People tend to iconify Phage.

I agree people should not so harsh as to post in hate or ugliness. I don't think that's anyone's intention. Phage is well respected, even if he's disagreed with.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Beautifully put

Because of things like this I have come to question his input and motives in other threads

It's got to the point that if phage argues against it .........I look deeper

Which is a real shame. Not an attack dude..........just naturally paranoid .......with good reason.......and not often wrong

But it does happen from time to time

Edit
I wonder?
if someone like phage who has a strong following, often debunks threads with science or logical insight, to the point that when he posts .......most pay attentention......and coz phage said it ......it must be true.......whom better to recruit ?

It's the first thing I'd have done if I was in the business of hiding something .........recruit phage to my cause $$

And that's meant as a compliment lol

reply to post by Neocrusader


May deserve its own thread... Now getting back to the gmo study issue please.

It is like the subject of this has all just ground to a halt. I do not want yell thread hijack here... but appearances.

They (the ones who make GM foods) tell you the test are no good.
and YOU Belive this??? are you stupid?

what do you think they should say?
that GM will give you tumas and kill you?

Any one Remember Cigarette ?
"They Dont give you Cancer"
you ALL fell for that one for years !

reply to post by Phage


i pead with you not to come down on the wrong side of the debate and of history,
i think you are just trying to be scientific about this and i like that,

but dont you think attacking a secret food trial, that could not be done openly because of retribution,
that shows "doubt" about saftey requires a cautious approach.

why were the seeds only sold if you dont test them?
why were other studies shut down after govenment pressure?
why did the original studies only last 90 days when the total experiment went on much longer?
why does the US govenment "pressure" smaller contries to accept gmos?
why is the bio tech industry sponcering anti labelling advertising?

WHY DO 90% OF PEOPLE WANT THIS STUFF LABELLED?

xploder

Originally posted by antar
I am sorry. It is like living in a nightmare, a holy living hell, to be awake and KNOW but have no power to change anything.

Actually, you do. I found this organization yesterday called Avaaz (voice).

Avaaz empowers millions of people from all walks of life to take action on pressing global, regional and national issues, from corruption and poverty to conflict and climate change. Our model of internet organising allows thousands of individual efforts, however small, to be rapidly combined into a powerful collective force. (Read about results on the Highlights page.)

According to their press page, they've accomplished quite a bit since '07. The way it works is pretty efficient it seems with over 16 million members in 194 countries.

Taken over 50 million actions online and offline, including messages sent, phone calls and petition signatures.
Raised over $15 million online, including millions in funding and high tech support for human rights and democracy advocates in Burma, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Iran, Haiti and more.
Organized almost 10,000 rallies, flashmobs, vigils, marches and other online events—giving a massive boost to the climate change movement and other vital campaigns.
Won several significant victories, from establishing the world’s largest ocean preserve and protecting the bans on whale hunting and ivory trading, to passing strong forestry and anti-corruption laws in Brazil, to shifting Japanese, German and Canadian policies on climate change.

I'm a subscriber.
Avaaz

And lo and behold, here's the petition to sign for dismantling Monsanto.
Petitions

Originally posted by Phage

I don't have any problem with labeling but the food producers (no so much Monsanto, they don't sell food) do.

Several untruths all in one sentence, wow Phage thats slick.

First, Monsanto sells GMO seeds that grow into....wait for it - Food.
How can you say Monsanto does not sell food? Thats splitting hairs if ever
I have witnessed such a blatant attempt of obscurification.

Then for you to assert in the same sentence that it is the food manufacter's that buck
at labeling. What a load of B.S. It is the U.S.D.A. that refuses to acknowledge the need
to do so, even though millions of consumers have petitioned, and that includes farmers.

The U.S.D.A. and its revolving door...with Monsanto execs...leads to the big bed
in the back room. Monsanto is allowed to do its own research, and no one questions
them, no peer reviews needed. Hows that for scientific huh?

I never understood how you could and did defend the concept of adding toxic particulate to
the stratosphere, including sulfate aerosols for Geo Engineering. Now to see you defending
Monsatan, if ever there was a doubt in my mind....its surely resolved now.

reply to post by burntheships


Glad I'm not the only one seeing the GMO chemtrail link
And the personalities that spend time and effort debunking the two

reply to post by Neocrusader


Indeed, to learn that Monsanto is working to produce Aluminum resistant GMO Seeds leaves
one wondering what in the world are they up to?

I did a thread a few years back, and was attacked...its all right here.
You can look and see the progression of the thread, it was one of the most interesting
turn of events I recall ever on ATS.

I am sure you will find it very interesting.

Conspiracy - Monsanto's Aluminum Resistant Seeds and Geoengineering

reply to post by burntheships


take a look at this HFCS (high fructose corn surp,

liver problems?

Study Reveals That 1 in 10 Teens Suffers from Liver Disease

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is known to be associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Now that we're seeing this once-rare disorder affecting one in ten teenagers, one must wonder how health agencies like the FDA can continue to ignore the devastation resulting from out-of-control Agribusiness, which is clearly profiting from the devastation of the people's health.

Instead, though, Dr. Vos is advocating the creation of community and school programs to promote healthy food, exercise, and weight loss. This is not addressing the root cause. It is, in fact, effectively blaming the victims for their poor health.

www.greenmedinfo.com... utm_medium=email

interesting that sugars made from gmo corn attack the liver just like in the experiments
makes you wounder about the people who claim

"IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WHY ARNT PEOPLE DROPPING DEAD"

well it looks like they are,

fatty liver in non obease people

1 in 10 american teenagers have sick livers WOW

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


That is frightening! Something I did not know, thanks.

Sure seems like Mother Nature has a built in "Its not nice to fool
Mother Nature".

Every year as more and more GMO are introduced, they are even starting
GMO wheat trials now...its an agenda.

Eugenics, plain and simple!

reply to post by burntheships


Ah yes
same faces, same places, same excuses
really does make one wonder

So from what we have learned, zucchinis are now on the 'list' of potential GMOs. So I am at walmart yesterday and see 2 men putting in new large packages of zucks so i ask them if they are GMO?

They were both stumped at first and tried to claim they did not know what GMO was.

After running to the back and asking, they came back out and stated that there is no way of knowing.

I told them that the time has come to GET the answers and that the next time someone asks this question they need to be informed and give the correct answer to the consumer.

reply to post by burntheships


Seems I may have missed that thread, does this have to do with the aerial spraying? This whole subject has me very depressed right now, I seriously need a plan B. for nutritious meals.

reply to post by Phage


Control group was 20, 10 females & 10 males .. there were 10 groups of 10 for each gender

Seralini based his study on the chronic toxicity part of OECD protocol no. 453. It states that for a carcinogenesis trial you need a minimum of 50 animals of each sex per test group but for a toxicity trial a minimum of 10 per sex suffices.

Seralini's team chose a chronic toxicity protocol to see if the signs of liver and kidney toxicity escalated into something serious, which they clearly did, they did not set out to do a carcinogenicity study but a chronic toxicity study.

It is also worth remembering that Monsanto used 20 rats of each sex per group in its feeding trials but bizarrely, they only analysed 10, the same number as Seralini. So Monsanto does not have a leg to stand on on this point! We wonder why Monsanto only analysed 10 rats out of 20. Were these randomly chosen or were they selected because they were apparently healthy? Monsanto's data, like most such industry feeding trial data on GMOs, is not published so we cannot check this.

Monsanto says that the increased mortality rates and tumour incidence "fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumours".

By "historical norms" and "within this historical range", Monsanto means historical control data – data from various other studies that they find in the scientific literature or elsewhere.

The only scientifically valid control for such experiments is the concurrent control, not historical control data. This is because scientific experiments are designed to reduce variables to a minimum. The concurrent control group achieves this because it consists of animals treated identically to the experimental group, except that they are not exposed to the substance under study. Thus, the only variable is exposure to the substance(s) being tested – in the case of Seralini's experiments, NK603 maize and Roundup.

With this experimental design, any differences seen in the treated animals are very likely to be due to the substance being tested, rather than due to irrelevant factors, as is the case with historical control data.
Even if we were to follow Monsanto's recommendation and use historical control data in evaluating Seralini's findings, the historical control data cited by Monsanto is invalid because it relates to rats of a different origin (SD rats from Charles River Labs) than Seralini's rats (SD rats from Harlan). Seralini took historical data on the Harlan SD rat fully into account in his study – and the results still show that the tumour increase and other effects were statistically significant. The tumour incidence in the test groups in his study was overall around three times higher than the normal rate observed in the Harlan SD rat strain he used, as reported in the literature.
Finally, the "tumour-prone rat" argument used by Monsanto and others to dismiss Seralini's findings of increased tumours is spurious. The key point about Seralini's tumour findings was that the controls got some tumours, but the treated groups got significantly more tumours, and these appeared sooner and were more aggressive than those of the control groups.

Given Seralini's results,it is now up to Monsanto to pay for a full carcinogenicity study on the NK603 maize, which, however, must be carried out by independent scientists with no conflicts of interest.

As EFSA has repeatedly said, it is industry's responsibility to prove that its products are safe. Clearly it has not done that. So NK603 must be withdrawn from the market until it has been proven safe.

www.gmwatch.org...

reply to post by AliceBlackman

When quoting an outside source you should use proper notation and provide the source. Otherwise people might get the impression that you are plagiarizing.
www.gmwatch.org...

The defense of attacking the de Venomois study is somewhat irrelevant but the "response" does not address all of the issues raised in the Monsanto comments.

• Research protocol does not meet OECD standards
• Source and quality of corn used is unclear.
• Critical details on diet preparation and dietary intake are absent.
• Complete lack of data pertaining to assertions of liver or kidney histopathology, liver function tests, and cytochrome activity.
• Lack of any statistical analysis for mortality or tumor incidence endpoints.
• Mortality rates and tumor incidence in all groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors.
• Data presented are highly sporadic, using different methods for male and female animals, and are not sufficient to support conclusions drawn.
• There is a lack of dose-response relationship throughout the study

www.monsanto.com...

Control group was 20, 10 females & 10 males .. there were 10 groups of 10 for each gender

Yes, I know. I was referring to the statistics for the female group only.

The concurrent control group achieves this because it consists of animals treated identically to the experimental group, except that they are not exposed to the substance under study. Thus, the only variable is exposure to the substance(s) being tested.

www.gmwatch.org...

I find this statement rather odd considering that the Seralini study itself references two other studies on the spontaneous development of tumors in rats. Why do that if such results are irrelevant?

A problem is that the Seralini control group showed unusually low incidence of tumor growth when compared other studies of the same rat strain. Combined with the small size of the group, it becomes statistically likely that the control group was anomalous in having a low rate of spontaneous tumor development.

reply to post by Phage


thanks for the link reminder.

The worse thing about this whole debate is that there aren't any other long term feeding studies to refute his claims, after 20 years and all we have is loads of 90 day animal feeding studies, it's interesting that harm starts to show up at 4 months and tumors only at adulthood, so if we human's are simular to these rats we should start seeing increases in breast cancer within the next 5-10 years (slow start to GMO's). I like this study just because it goes against the common pseudo-admitted fact that GMO are not toxic, which hasn't been scientifically proven.

I personally think that the research by the French Team needs to be replicated by another team for both the toxicological & carcinogenic effects as he called for in his paper, his study has to be replicated before it can be "proven" and a larger control group than the standard specifies would be a very good idea, even though their tumor rate seems reasonably consistent for the type of rat cancerres.aacrjournals.org...
Yes his research isn't in line with "all of the OECD industry standards" but they don't have long term GMO feeding study standards and international industry standards are not the be all and end all of scientific research. The paper was peer reviewed in a journal not known for publishing sub standard material.The findings about dose rate and effect are unusual, but that doesn't make them wrong, just need to be replicated.

Yes the "source of corn" has to be unclear (I think it came from Canada), but you have to have Monsanto's permission to test and obviously they wouldn't give this Proffessor permission, there is a history of bad blood, he previously sued and won a slander case against prior research showing ill effects from Monsanto products.
www.criigen.org...

There's also the threat of ruined careers:
Dr. Arpad Pusztai was fired from his position at the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health after his independent study on GM potatoes revealed that GM traits are inherently dangerous. (30 year career, hundreds of per reviewed journals..but he's the reason non meat items have to be labelled as GMO in the UK)
Rosalind Anderson, Ph.D
Dr Ignacio Chapela
P. M. Bhargava
Dr.Judy Carman
Dr.Terje Traavik
Dr.Andrés Carrasco
Allison Snow
Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey
Professor Bela Darvas
Journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre

Here's the Proffessors resume
nous.depolluer.free.fr...

reply to post by Phage


I thought this article in Nature was pretty good, giving an idea of both sides of the argument.

"Séralini says he won’t release his data until the raw data underpinning the authorization of NK603 in Europe are also made public. And he wants all the data to be assessed by an independent international committee, arguing that experts involved in the authorization of the maize should not be involved. "
"

www.nature.com...

reply to post by Phage


You know tumors in rats and other pets will continue to be more prevalent as the food they eat are laden with monsanto GMOs and the pesticides required to grow and maintain the backing for crop failures.

reply to post by antar


just wanted to share a prop 37 Vid - right to know vid ... loved it