It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't see anyone defending "this company".
I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could sit back and defend this company after all the stories about their shady business practices coming out.
Originally posted by Phage
External work I have acted as a paid statistical consultant to a variety of organisations, including the Healthcare Commission, World Anti-Doping Agency, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.
Novartis
Novartis and AstraZeneca spun-off and merged to become Syngenta, a Swiss global agribusiness company formed in 2000 from the agrochemical and seed divisions of Novartis, and the agrochemicals and biotechnology research divisions of AstraZeneca. Syngenta is the world’s second biggest player in agrochemicals and the third biggest seed producer. [2]
Syngenta
Syngenta is a global agribusiness, agrochemical and biotechnology corporation based in Basel, Switzerland. It has substantial interests in the seed industry and genetically modified (GMO) crops. The company produces insecticides, herbicides -- including the controversial weedkiller Atrazine -- fungicides, field crop seeds (soybeans), vegetable seeds (corn, beans, tomatoes), and flowers. It is one of the "Big 6" Biotech Corporations, along with BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, and Monsanto (so called because they dominate the agricultural input market -- that is, they own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries).[1][2]
Originally posted by burntheships
Originally posted by Phage
I want to hear what other people have to say on Genetic
Engineering of the food crops, and the research they find.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
So maybe you can explain what is incorrect about their critisms.
so far i haven't found any connection or conflicts of interest with the other one named, but if i do i will post it.
Oh about conflict of interest. Do you happen to know who funded Carman's "study"?
Specific Reply to Mark Lynas, Critic of GMO Pig Study
ML: Funding for the research was derived from anti-GM advocates and therefore biases the results.
Summary: Funding for the study was actually derived from a current supporter of GM technologies. Detailed answer:
It is clearly stated in the paper that the major funder of IHER’s involvement in the study is the Government of Western Australia, and the current governmentt is a supporter of GM crops.
On the contrary it is not clearly stated at all.
It is clearly stated in the paper that the major funder of IHER’s involvement in the study is the Government of Western Australia, and the current governmentt is a supporter of GM crops.
gmojudycarman.org...
This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms.
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...
‘‘(B) NO ADDITIONAL LABEL
.—Subparagraph (A) does
not provide authority to the Secretary to require a label
that is in addition to any label required under any other
provision of this Act
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes EPA to set maximum residue levels, or tolerances, for pesticides used in or on foods or animal feed. FFDCA:
mandates strong provisions to protect infants and children
provides the authority to set tolerances in foods and feeds (maximum pesticide residue levels)
also provides authority to exempt a pesticide from the requirement of a tolerance
rule-making process required to set tolerances or exemptions
before a registration can be granted for a food use pesticide, a tolerance or tolerance exemption must be in place
mandates primarily a health-based standard for setting the tolerance--"reasonable certainty of no harm"
benefits may be considered only in limited extreme circumstances, very unlikely
pesticide residues in foods are monitored and the tolerances enforced by FDA (fruits and vegetables, seafood) and USDA (meat, milk, poultry, eggs, and aquacultural foods)
EPA and FDA Streamline Food Packaging Regulations
EPA Action
Under a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, published in 1998 (63 FR 10717), FDA was given full regulatory authority over the components of food packaging that has been impregnated with an insect repellent impregnated with an insect repellent. This rule eliminates the need for EPA to conduct tolerance assessments on the non-pesticide components (such as paper and paperboards, glue, adhesives, and polymers) of food packaging, as they are excluded from the "pesticide" and "pesticide chemical" definitions. Without this rule, EPA would be required to evaluate each component of insect repellent-impregnated food packaging to either establish food residue tolerances or exempt the component from tolerance requirements on a case-by-case basis. The rule still requires EPA to continue maintaining full regulatory authority over actual pesticides and any potential residues.
The Agency is currently developing new policy to expand on the exceptions given by this ruling, so that food packaging treated with any pesticide, rather than just insect repellents, is under the scope of the provision. The original exceptions are listed at 40 CFR § 180.4. Information on the new proposed rule and where to submit public comments can be found at 72 FR 17068.
The story probably was just emphasizing the label issue.
Can you show me where the act bars pesticide labeling? Nevermind. I know. It doesn't matter. Just like the other lies, it doesn't matter if this is a lie too because matter because they are on the anti-GMO bandwagon. What wrong with just one more lie. Right?
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels
Why?
Originally posted by Phage
I don't like to see good science dragged through the mud in favor of bad science.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by xuenchen
The story probably was just emphasizing the label issue.
Right:
Can you show me where the act bars pesticide labeling? Nevermind. I know. It doesn't matter. Just like the other lies, it doesn't matter if this is a lie too because matter because they are on the anti-GMO bandwagon. What wrong with just one more lie. Right?
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels
Do you actually enjoy being lied to if it's from the right people?
edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
I see. So if the government funds anti-GMO work it's believable but if it funds pro-GMO it isn't. Got it.
On the contrary it is not clearly stated at all.
It is clearly stated in the paper that the major funder of IHER’s involvement in the study is the Government of Western Australia, and the current governmentt is a supporter of GM crops.
gmojudycarman.org...
This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms.
IHER is Judy
www.iher.org.au...
Verity Farms. A food production company which is actively anti-GMO.
oneradionetwork.com... ng-us-november-6-2012/
George Kailis. Another anti-GMO food producer.
www.kailisorganic.com...
Show me where it is clearly stated that the government provided major funding.
edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms
Then why don't you tell us what is wrong with the criticism.
Then, why do you do just that?
Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
here it is on page 52. from the paper you posted earlier.
A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) and Verity Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of Western Australia (WA) and George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity Farms
But that wasn't the claim, was it?
OK, I will try to come to your level (up or down I don't know yet)
Can you show me specific language in any law that says anything about labeling packages with pesticide information ???
here it is on page 52. from the paper you posted earlier.