Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

reply to post by Phage


I have absolutely no problem with any food type having a required label on them informing the public of what they are. That's the right of the people, to know what they are eating. If someone wants companies to be required to label hybrids as hybrids, I'm all for it.

I agree that GMOs should be labeled if enough people want them to be, not because I think there is something wrong with GMOs.

I disagree on you simplistic view of the opposition.


Dude gmo-s are bad. Many experiments on animals have shown that. The thing is that after three generations of rats fed with gmo-s the rats became infertile.

Monsanto gives me the spooks. For a peculiar reason i make an association with the Children of Men movie. Creepy as, but a very probable future scenario indeed. They need to drop the population, and not just that, but they want to control births. What easier way than to slowly and without anybody noticing anything sterilise the population. Don't forget that the cloning-theme has begun. They have that kind of technology and that's how they visualise the future of this planet. Really dark future indeed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I was working under the assumption that consumers would continue to buy food no matter its price, especially if it was only raised by a few cents.

You were working on an invalid assumption. As I said, there is a certain "built in" level of demand for food. But corn is not the only food source and if it gets more expensive people will go to other products. They'll buy the Wheat Thins instead of the tortilla chips.

The graph you provided shows profits staying steady or even increasing with the rise of oil prices

Yes, because the demand was increasing as well. More demand=higher prices=more production=higher profits. There was an ever increasing use of oil so the prices increased. Were the production costs increasing? And look what happened when demand dropped due to the recession.

They'd rather keep their profit than risk consumers having a choice in the matter.

See above. You have a choice. You can buy "guaranteed" non-GMO products and it's pretty safe to assume that anything that doesn't have that lable on it, is GMO (if it's soy or corn based).

If they're willing to keep the consumer in the dark about their food being GMO, what makes you think they wouldn't keep them in the dark about the risks of GMO?

Because there are independant researchers who do good science.

reply to post by tenaciousmidfielder

The thing is that after three generations of rats fed with gmo-s the rats became infertile.

Can you provide a link to that study, please. It sounds interesting and I don't think I've seen it.


Are you talking about the Austrian study with mice (not rats)? The mice did not become infertile and the study was withdrawn.
www.gmo-compass.org...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's the right of the people, to know what they are eating. If someone wants companies to be required to label hybrids as hybrids, I'm all for it.

What about those who do not want to foot the bill? Should they be forced to pay for something they don't really care about?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tenaciousmidfielder

 

The thing is that after three generations of rats fed with gmo-s the rats became infertile.

Can you provide a link to that study, please. It sounds interesting and I don't think I've seen it.


Are you talking about the Austrian study with mice (not rats)? The mice did not become infertile and the study was withdrawn.
www.gmo-compass.org...

edit on 8/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I won't dispute the Austrian Study one way or the other.

But it is a perfect example of how a 'study' and 'experiment' could be funded by the opposite side.

It's perfect because it draws a conclusion and later invalidates the findings.

Easy to do, as the article makes apparent.

The end result makes the original conclusions look dumb, hence the 'opposition' looks good by default.

Very clever indeed.

The 'study' was bait to make the anti-GMO movement look like idiots.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fenson76

 

. I am pointing the lies and distortions of the anti-GMO crowd.

How duplicitous of you. Actually it is the other way around,
we have spent 13 pages pointing out the lies you have spouted
about Monsanto. Phage, I am deeply concerned for you now.

reply to post by burntheships

Actually it is the other way around, we have spent 13 pages pointing out the lies you have spouted about Monsanto.

No. You have spent 13 pages trying to defend the lies and distortions of the anti-GMO crowd.

Phage, I am deeply concerned for you now.

Aww. That's nice. I don't believe a word of it.

reply to post by xuenchen

The 'study' was bait to make the anti-GMO movement look like idiots.

The same about Carman? Seralini?

reply to post by Phage


So again, your argument centers around Monsanto forcefully rejecting people the right to make an informed decision on what they do or do not want to eat.

Who CARES if they go to another food product? Isn't that their right as consumers? Why should Monsanto be able to monopolize the industry and make shady back room deals to keep people from knowing what they're eating?

You say you believe products should be labeled then go on to make an argument against your own stance. How does that make ANY sense?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So again, your argument centers around Monsanto refusing the ability for people to have a choice in the matter.

Monsanto isn't refusing the ability for the people to do anything. Last I heard people were voting on it.

Who CARES if they go to another food product? Isn't that their right as consumers?

Yup.

Why should Monsanto be able to monopolize the industry and make shady back room deals to keep people from knowing what they're eating?

Monsanto hardly has a monopoly.
From 2011:

Monsanto is trying to regain its momentum after a rocky year in which farmers balked at the price of its new premium corn seed, SmartStax, and prices for its glyphosate herbicide tumbled as it lost ground to generic competitors.

online.wsj.com...

You say you believe products should be labeled then go on to make an argument against your own stance. How does that make ANY sense?

Like I said, I take a look at both sides of an issue. Weird, huh? Some might go so far as calling it keeping an open mind.

reply to post by Phage


Them paying politicians to shoot down a bill is forcing their hand isn't it? Tell me any regular John or Sue who can lobby with the likes of Monsanto and maybe you'll have a point.

They are forcing their hand with their bank accounts, and them forcing their hand cuts off any chance for consumers to know what they are eating. It's a fairly simple concept.

You say you look at both sides, yet you seem to be only for one side of the debate. You are defending Monsanto for shooting down bills, yet you believe those bills should be implemented. Seems kind of counter-productive doesn't it?

Your argument makes no sense. It's like someone believing Zimmerman was guilty, yet going on to defend his side of the story, or vice versa. You sound like a lawyer, and we all know lawyers don't care about truth or justice, only what will make them their paycheck.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels

Can you please provide a citation for that claim. I can't seem such a regulation.
www.fda.gov...

Phage, this is a post from you that clearly proves you don't read links at certain times. But you always require that of other posters.

The citation came from a FDA official, describing how the policy in effect was and interpreted on and as of October 1998 as described in NYT Magazine article written by Michael Pollan from xuenchen's post.

The whole section on the legalities was sourced. Read it.

Your fruitless attempt of a supposed debunk of xuenchen's post is a massive exposure of your methodology.

This is the opening phrase in the several paragraphs worth of the legal text of the piece article.

At the F.D.A., I was referred to James Maryanski, who oversees biotech food at the agency.

This is the context around the claim, which you missed by not reading in search of the source

Maryanski had the answer. At least for the purposes of labeling, my New Leafs have morphed yet again, back into a food: the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act gives the F.D.A. sole jurisdiction over the labeling of plant foods, and the F.D.A. has ruled that biotech foods need be labeled only if they contain known allergens or have otherwise been ''materially'' changed.

But isn't turning a potato into a pesticide a material change?

It doesn't matter. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels.

I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe. But this time he went even further. ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,'' he said. ''Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.''

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The 'study' was bait to make the anti-GMO movement look like idiots.

The same about Carman? Seralini?

I'll reserve judgement on the Carman and Seralini efforts until I do more research.

But I will say that studies funded by the ones with the most to gain can be slanted at a steeper angle.

It's difficult to distinguish error from fraud, sloppiness from deception, eagerness from greed or, increasingly, scientific conviction from profit passions and long term social engineering agendas.

reply to post by Phage


You can say whatever you wish, within the limits....

You have used your previously so called "objective" stance on science and your supposed
reputation upholding said stance to hammer away with false accusations, half truths and
outright support for lies from the GMO community, pretty much hijacked this thread
on page one, and have not stopped chasing the tail since.

Well I am sure you are familiar with what Einstein said....

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Rainbow Six
Surely some have heard of it.

“Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on the table.

Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to get killed”

said Jay Byrne, the former head of public relations at Monsanto, back in 2001.

sustainable pulse.com

Now here is a thought, maybe one of the reasons that other nations have decided against
the GMO corn to a large degree is they are afraid of the epicyte genetic GE of corn.

And this might explain the MIC and its observation of the other countries scientists
who continually oppose GMO and expose it for what it is.

New Report:- A real story on The Seeds of Death

The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes -
False Promises, Failed Technologies

A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs
(Genetically Modified Organisms)

Another common story detailed in this Global Citizens Report describes how GM
technology is pushed by intensive lobbying and marketing efforts, “revolving door”
influences, and funding of research and educational institutes. As noted in the report
from the U.S., the leading proponent of GM crops—top food and agricultural
biotechnology firms spent more than $547 million lobbying Congress between 1999
and 2009. The report from Argentina documents that representatives from
biothecnology corporations—Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and Pioneer—sit on a
prominent national panel that directly advises the government agency that approves
field trials and commercialization of GM crops. The Russian essay indicates a similar
story.

www.navdanyainternational.it...

More on the farmers in India who are struggling in the wasetland of GMO

According to data from the Indian government, nearly 75 percent rural debt is due to purchased inputs. Farmers' debt grows as Monsanto profits grow. It is in this systemic sense that Monsanto's seeds are those of suicide. An internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January 2012 had this to say to the cotton growing states in India: "Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers."

Moreover, after the damning report of the parliamentary committee on Bt crops, the panel of technical experts appointed by the supreme court has recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The 'study' was bait to make the anti-GMO movement look like idiots.

The same about Carman? Seralini?

2nd reply...

I would say the Judy Carman reports are genuine IMO.

After reading from their website and about their rebuttals to the critics (many of who are part of the Monsanto Shill-Scam), it appears that Carman isn't a phony.

I'm not detecting any subtle 'between the lines' rumblings, or any 'silence is golden' tactics.

I speak as a regular non-college educated person who doesn't fully understand all the scientific jargon.

Especially convincing are the rebuttals to an obvious shill Mark Lynas.

If Carman was shilled-up, we wouldn't be seeing the type of responses they give, because the original studies would have been tainted enough to easily discredit, and Carmen would have 'turned' by now.


Dr Judy Carman replies to comments that GM crops are safe to eat


A specific reply to Mark Lynas

Just 3 companies control more than half (53%) of the global commercial market for seed.
Submitted on 26 June 2012

•The global commercial seed market in 2009 is estimated at 27,400 million.
•The top 10 companies account for 73% of the global market (up from 67% in 2007).
•Just 3 companies control more than half (53%) of the global commercial market for seed.
•Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company and fourth largest pesticide company, now controls more than one-quarter (27%) of the commercial seed market.
•Dow Agrosciences – the world’s fifth largest pesticide company – made a dramatic re-entry on the top 10 seed company list in 2009 following a seed company-buying spree that included Hyland Seeds (Canada), MTI (Austria), Pfister Seeds (USA) and Triumph Seed (USA), among others.

www.etcgroup.org...

I wish I could flag this post many times not only for the direct content that the OP is discussing but some of the indirect information as well.

I want to quote and highlight a section of the referenced article at Global Research:

Monsanto’s targeting activities made possible through corporate takeover of federal government

Note that BIG BUSINESS is behind this not the government. BIG BUSINESS is the cause, government is effect and instrument (in current vernacular TOOL).