Former GMO Activist: Sorry, I was wrong.

reply to post by ObservingYou

...we all know this.

no. we do not.

I will not get steamrolled in this debate, but i congratulate alfa for denying some of the worst ignorance that ATS has ever known.

reply to post by tgidkp

I will not get steamrolled in this debate, but i congratulate alfa for denying some of the worst ignorance that ATS has ever known.

Did you look at the guys credentials????? Ya just got steamrolled!!!!

reply to post by tgidkp


Instead of anybody steam rolling any body - why don't you just present me with your argument?

I'm interested

Cell Research (2012) 22:107–126. doi:10.1038/cr.2011.158; published online 20 September 2011

There is a Corrigendum (1 December 2011) associated with this article.

Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA

www.nature.com/cr/journal/v22/n1/full/cr2011158a.html

Aziz Aris, Samuel Leblanc

Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada

Reproductive Toxicology, Volume 31, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 528–533

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623811000566

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA

Since you didnt put any specific argument forward about this article, I suspect you just blindly threw it out there hoping it sounds evil or something... like DNA stuff=bad.

What it actually does it to prove Mark Lynas correct (and here I quote from his speech)...

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

reply to post by alfa1


The GMO industry spread bad information that makes a microbiology and a nutrition concept, each, suddenly cease to apply to GMO foods alone...

While the obvious angle is epigenetics, this is a secondary reason for posting, and only add concerns for side effects from GMOs.

It's related to the industry claim that it doesn't survive digestive processes.

It demonstrates genetic material of standard rice does survive digestion.

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
It demonstrates genetic material of standard rice does survive digestion.

So... maybe I misunderstand.
You're trying to say that because GMO rice is no different than standard rice, then GMO rice is bad???