800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

Monsanto has the money to lobby thousands of scientists to produce as many peer reviewed "studies" as they would like to back up their claims, with that said, unless you are doing the studies yourself(this holds true for either side of the debate) you can not trust the research 100 percent. Regardless, It is my personal opinion that not enough research has been done in regard to long term effects on human beings and their anatomy(just like with most pharmaceutical drugs and other chemicals) to claim they are safe for eating by a majority of the united states population. There is evidence of suppression of research and coupled with Monsanto's history(specifically the agent orange debacle), I have seen enough to make myself suspicious to the degree that if these foods were labeled, and I could afford not to/was able to find alternatives easily enough I would not even so much as look at a gmo product, by monsanto or any biotech firm.

More on topic, yield problems, biodiversity concerns, and pesticide use are indeed proven problems with some of these gmo crops and should be addressed.

We don't need to wait for scientists to tell us that it is unsafe to eat. Take your money go to the market, pick and choose the good foods that are not made by those who use GMOs and give them your money. That's right folks you can give your money and support those that give you a good quality product.

I know, some of you might say: "Well I'm the only one doing this, how can little ol' me stop 'em?" It takes a 100 pennies to make a dollar not 99. One makes a HUGE difference. Tell yourself that instead. One more speaker of equal strength (we are all more or less equal) in a sound system makes a huge difference. No?

Money is what they (GMO food makers) want then don't give it to them. That's what capitalism is all about. We have buying power with our dollar.

Let us use it and give it to those who love making GOOD WHOLE foods.

reply to post by bitsforbytes


I agree with your strategy, however, labeling is the first step. People cannot boycott what they cannot identify. Labeling is made difficult, its an uphill battle against an infinite swarm of federal reserve notes. A formidable enemy.

Do like I did and start a petition in your area. You know again you can't be lazy if you want this.

CONgress sure won't listen - they are being fed by the gmo machine - organic is the only food to eat and everyone should start a garden.

reply to post by bitsforbytes


Labeling is already up for a vote in my area in november, I plan on distributing flyers and educating the public.

Originally posted by tigershark1988
It is my personal opinion that not enough research has been done in regard to long term effects on human beings

Now if you had said this in 2002, as you were munching away unknowingly at a Scientific Roundtable dinner, on a Bt Cry1 ear of corn, you would have been correct.

But now the science has been done see. Rats, at 240 days of consumption, outlined in the definitive leading body of research, are not dying or getting sick.

Sources: Food and Chemical Toxicology: Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets... and,
US Dept of Agriculture GMO Corn Reports, 2000 - 2013

Percent by principal corn growing state (last line is US TOTAL)


What do you think? Is this responsible Science?

Priority ONE was obviously USA consumer health.

reply to post by Phage


So I guess since 800 scientists is the minority, that means they are wrong? Pretty weak argument there.

Let's apply the same logic with you and this board. You are in the minority on this board who think GMO's are safe, so I guess that mean you are wrong about them being safe?

Why am I not surprised that you have joined this thread and are making excuses for Monsanto and GMO's?

This is the sort of power struggle I refer to in a thread I wrote recently.

Not all scientists and governments are on-board with the Dark elements of societal governance in the West, and I truly hope & pray that these sorts of endeavours can gain momentum, support & results.

Why must the greed of the few destroy the wellbeing of the many? The lobbyists and so forth are the type of corrupt persons whose efforts will ultimately replace democracy with fascism in those countries which tolerate and encourage such behaviour.

The people behind Monsanto & their ilk are disgusting abusers of Mankind. They need to be stopped, and because they are intelligent, they know they will one day face serious opposition - which is why they've invested in their own private standing army of mercenaries, ready to kill for a pay-packet, no allegiance to peoples or nations, only to the power of their corporate Paymasters (or am I confused with a different company?)

Frightening stuff. These are dark days, to be sure.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So I guess since 800 scientists is the minority, that means they are wrong? Pretty weak argument there.

Not necessarily. But the fact that the research cited in the letter is very obsolete indicates that their opinions (which would seem to be based on that research) as stated in the letter are also obsolete. Like I said, I wonder if they all hold that same opinion now, 13 years later. Maybe the lack of evidence of harm in that period of time has changed some of their minds.

Why am I not surprised that you have joined this thread and are making excuses for Monsanto and GMO's?

Where have I made any "excuses" for Monsanto. Where have I made any "excuses" for GMOs?

reply to post by Phage


Seems like to me that you assume their opinions have changed, since you call the letter "obsolete" and all.

Care to bring sources that show these scientists have changed their opinions? If not, you may want to hold off on calling their opinions "obsolete".

Check any thread calling GMO's unhealthy or dangerous and you'll see your excuses. ANY thread, I'm sure you'll be in it somewhere.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Seems like to me that you assume their opinions have changed, since you call the letter "obsolete" and all.

I have no idea if their opinions have changed. That's why I said "I wonder".

Check any thread calling GMO's unhealthy or dangerous and you'll see your excuses.

You may find me correcting falsehoods and trying to clarify some claims. I guess you have a different definition for "excuses".

reply to post by Phage


The main focus of the letter was to halt or slow down GMO production in order for studies to be conducted on them. IF these scientists still have the same opinion as they did back then, the main focus of the letter is far from "obsolete" as you imply.

Seems to me like you argue against yourself a lot of the time. You agree GMO's should be labeled then go on to make a case for why they shouldn't or don't "need" to be labeled.

You don't seem to have any problem defending Monsanto's falsehoods on why GMO's shouldn't be labeled, so it seems you have set a double standard.

reply to post by Phage


Your still at it...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The main focus of the letter was to halt or slow down GMO production in order for studies to be conducted on them.

Yes, a 5 year moratorium. That was 13 years ago.

IF these scientists still have the same opinion as they did back then, the main focus of the letter is far from "obsolete" as you imply.

You don't think that research which has been done over that 13 years might have changed their opinions?

Seems to me like you argue against yourself a lot of the time.

Yes. It's called critical thinking. You should try it some time. Or are you afraid you might see things differently if you do? en.wikipedia.org...

You don't seem to have any problem defending Monsanto's falsehoods on why GMO's shouldn't be labeled, so it seems you have set a double standard.

What falsehoods on labeling? Are you going to repeat everything we talked about in that other thread? Why not at least try to stay on the topic, which is the obsolete letter.

reply to post by Phage


"At least" 5 years, and the moratorium was never enacted, so I'd say the letter is still open for discussion and consideration.

Care to link us to studies which prove these points are now invalid? I see you saying they are invalid, but I don't see you sourcing anything. I'm sure you can, you always can, but if not all of the points have been proven invalid, I fail to see how the entire notion can be considered obsolete.

reply to post by Phage


I like how you left out your response to xploder's rat argument :

you are reverting to the tobacco industries defence,
if you cant show explicitly the cause/effect then there is no harm that you can directly attribute to tobacco,
its a game of semantics i have seen you play before,

its like saying the rats that eat GMOs become sterile, but unless you can show the pathway,
ie direct cause and effect then all the rats died of natural causes.

Monsanto doesn't ONLY sell GMO seeds and agricultural supplies. You can still order standard seed and hybrid seed through them. For many farmers Monsanto is the only option when it comes to buying their supplies (much like the monopolies in other industry). Just saying!

FYI I am no way involved with Monsanto.

reply to post by bigman88

I like how you left out your response to xploder's rat argument

That would be because his argument seemed to be hypothetical. Or can you point out a rat experiment in which the outcome and conclusions were something like what he suggested?

reply to post by Phage


From reading your posts, you DEFINITELY would not have skipped on that piece of ammo. Bit of schizo behavior there, buddy.

And nope. i can site the pigs being fed GMO feed verses the pigs being fed non-GMO feed, or the rats who were fed GMO corn growing massive tumors, but that also has already been deemed unreliable for some reason. Like what conditions were the GMO fed pigs and rats in? what was there blood sugar? blah blah blah...

look at the rate of people with ailments in this country and others with a primarily GMO diet. Now look at the health statistics of other country's that don't bother with GMO's. You see any diabetes, obesity, cancer, hypertension in 3 out of 5 people? Nope. Two things, either these GMO country's are very junk food centered, which results in higher cancer, obesity, diabetes, whatever disease rates, or there is something in the general foods we eat that is bringing on these sicknesses at alarming rates. In this country, even people who eat relatively to somewhat healthy are still getting cancer, or some other crappy health ailment. Then you have these studies saying that the properties in GMO's are linked to these various ailments. Buy yet, they are ALWAYS concluded as unreliable, by the companies producing the GMO's.

You responded in another thread that it would be very difficult to label GMO products because these products originate from too many sources, so it would be too much trouble to trace which source is GMO. That makes no sense, your saying this multi-billion dollar corporation cant have whatever company that is using their GMO crop make sure to keep it categorized as GMO? You mean it would too troublesome for them to find out which ingredients were GMO, or to know form the beginning before they have the ingredients shipped to them? I do remember one argument a while ago with them saying that it will cost too much extra $ to label GMO products, because of the extra time, personnel, and ink. Does that reason still hold up?

And listen to this www.youtube.com...