800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

reply to post by Iwinder

Basically yes that is what I am saying, BTW how many articles (Scientific ones) have your cited and quoted that are considered old?

Old is not the same as invalidated.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You're really dead set on people not knowing what they eat aren't you?

No. If "everyone" wants it then "everyone" should have it. In California "everyone" does not seem to want it. Though that, of course, could change.

If you believe GMO's should be labeled, I have no idea why you try to justify non-labeling to such a degree. It's actually kind of bizarre.

You find being able to look at and understand two sides of an argument bizarre? I can understand that. Sort of. I guess.

Not every non-GMO food is labeled as such, so it seems like you're all for complicating things for the consumer but not for the multi-billion dollar corporations.

That's right, not every non-GMO food is labeled. That's because the "certification" process is problematic (we've talked about that, remember). But from the consumers' point of view, I don't understand why it is harder to look for a label that says "non-GMO" than it is to look for a label that says "contains GMO".

reply to post by Phage


I understand both sides of the argument as well, but I don't go around arguing against the side I'm on either. So yes, you arguing against your own stance is bizarre, especially since you ONLY argue against your stance.

There's a difference between searching non-GMO out and finding something labeled GMO and setting it down. If GMO's were required to be labeled, you wouldn't have to go searching for a needle in a haystack as you now do with non-GMO's labels which are not required, you'd see the GMO label and move to the next item.

There are way more GMO products than non-GMO in stores. You're comparing apples to oranges again.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Basically yes that is what I am saying, BTW how many articles (Scientific ones) have your cited and quoted that are considered old?

Old is not the same as invalidated.

What is the difference between old and invalidated data?
One is still standing and one is said to be void?
Who actually calls the shots on this?, the Scientists? The corporate Gods?
The banks? The Politicians whom are skimming the pot?

Iv'e posted this crap before but I feel it needs repeating, Canada just banned Asbestos and it was done 60 years too late.

Uptill a few years ago it was considered solid science that this death hag was considered safe for all.

Same as lead paint, DDT, Agent Orange,BPA and the list goes on and on.

Where is the Science now?
The wife just had some procedures done at the University Hospital in London Ontario where they discovered the dangers of BPA.
Let me say that they are very very good, and after what they found out about the BPA the world market could not get it off the shelves fast enough.
I have never seen a toxin removed from the market this fast in my 53 years of life.
They blinded me with Science!
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I understand both sides of the argument as well, but I don't go around arguing against the side I'm on either.

Maybe you should try it. It doesn't mean you have to believe it. But it can be a learning experience. However in this case I do think that if enough people want GMOs labeled they should be labeled. Not enough Californians wanted it.

If GMO's were required to be labeled, you wouldn't have to go searching for a needle in a haystack as you now do with non-GMO's labels which are not required, you'd see the GMO label and move to the next item.

Right. And then go looking for the needle without the label. It's the same needle in the same haystack.

There are way more GMO products than non-GMO in stores.

Yes. I know. And a needle with a flag on it shows up more than one that doesn't have a flag.

reply to post by Phage


I'm sure if the issue was discussed more in the news, people would be more informed and probably would vote for labeling, but unfortunately it is basically non-existent in the MSM.

There's always an easy solution to everything. Separate GMO from non-GMO in the grocery stores or color code the labels so they are easily differentiated.

Everything doesn't have to be as complicated as you try to make them out to be.

reply to post by Iwinder

What is the difference between old and invalidated data?

When the results of a study are not duplicated in subsequent experiments the study is invalidated. That's how science works.

Iv'e posted this crap before but I feel it needs repeating, Canada just banned Asbestos and it was done 60 years too late.

Good.

Same as lead paint, DDT, Agent Orange,BPA and the list goes on and on.

That list gets trotted out a lot. And it's exactly that sort of thing that led to more a more careful examination of the safety of things that were just taken for granted.

But, I went through this earlier, what is it that you think could be inherently dangerous about GMOs that can be tested for and has not been?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me say that they are very very good, and after what they found out about the BPA the world market could not get it off the shelves fast enough.

Really? In some places maybe. Here's the rundown.
en.wikipedia.org...

That list gets trotted out a lot. And it's exactly that sort of thing that led to more a more careful examination of the safety of things that were just taken for granted. But, I went through this earlier, what is it that you think could be inherently dangerous about GMOs that can be tested for and has not been?

reply to post by Phage


Well for one how about death or very serious illness just like the items in the "list that gets trotted out a lot"

Let me assume you are a big fan of BPA and your family all drinks from these contaminated containers as well.
Now I am getting off topic, guilty as charged.......hell no if we can avoid it we don't even consider GMO Foods
From one Cancer survivor to another.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder

Well for one how about death or very serious illness just like the items in the "list that gets trotted out a lot"

How do you test for that?

Let me assume you are a big fan of BPA and your family all drinks from these contaminated containers as well.

Not a "fan". I don't go looking for BPA contaners. I don't know if we do or not.

Isn't this off topic though? Aren't we supposed to be talking about GMOs?

Isn't this off topic though? Aren't we supposed to be talking about GMOs?

reply to post by Phage

As stated above in my previous post".Now I am getting off topic, guilty as charged."....
You really should watch those nasty BPA's
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm sure if the issue was discussed more in the news, people would be more informed and probably would vote for labeling, but unfortunately it is basically non-existent in the MSM.

Oh I see. The people in California didn't know what they were voting for. Well, maybe next time around they'll be "more informed" and labeling will be required. But let's let them decide.

Everything doesn't have to be as complicated as you try to make them out to be.

I'm not making it complicated. What's simpler than a label that says "non-GMO"? Since, as you say, those items would be in the minority after all. Isn't that easier?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

Nature and in fact the total of everything we know, is in a delicate balance, changing things without full knowledge is foolish and will ultimately lead to unintended consequences there is no doubt about that. It could ultimately lead to our extinction.

Nature changes all the time. Mutation is a natural process.
Can you define "full knowledge"?

Did you take a look at what I linked? I know that any intelligent person can see the problems with humans changing and mixing all of nature in a way it would never have done on it's own. I know well you are intelligent and I don't believe your stance here is inline with what you truly believe.

The damaging effects of genetic engineering cannot be predicted or controlled

Concerns Health Concerns: There have been no studies tracking the long-term effects GMOs may have on humans. Researchers fear that the health risks may include: Exposure to allergens, antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption, reproductive disorders and accelerated aging. Safety Concerns: The FDA does not treat GMOs any differently than conventionally grown crops. Companies can choose to go through a voluntary safety consultation; no additional testing is required.

www.doctoroz.com...

Another concern is that genetic engineering often involves the use of antibiotic-resistance genes as "selectable markers" and this could lead to production of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains that are resistant to available antibiotics. This would create a serious public health problem. The genetically modified crops might contain other toxic substances (such as enhanced amounts of heavy metals) and the crops might not be "substantially equivalent" in genome, proteome, and metabolome compared with unmodified crops. Another concern is that genetically modified crops may be less nutritious; for example, they might contain lower amounts of phytoestrogens, which protect against heart disease and cancer.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A major conclusion is that the present state of scientific knowledge is inadequate for reliable ecological risk assessment. The basic information with regard to mechanisms governing the environmental interactions of GMOs is insufficient. The ecosystems are too complex, and our understanding of them too fragmentary. Furthermore, currently available methods to monitor short and long-term ecological consequences of GMO release are non-existent or unreliable. Read More: informahealthcare.com...

There is also the issue of not being allowed to replant from grown seed. thus making every grower incapable of normal growth. You end up with no crop variety and a handful of people owning the world food supply.

According to the report, Monsanto has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 U.S. states as of January of 2013. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta together hold 53 percent of the global commercial seed market, which the report says has led to price increases for seeds -- between 1995 and 2011, the average cost of planting one acre of soybeans rose 325 percent and corn seed prices went up 259 percent.

The issue gets murky when you consider that if a farmer plants legally purchased seeds, then replanted seeds culled from the resulting crop, he is committing what some companies consider a crime. In the case of "Bowman v. Monsanto Co.," Bowman allegedly replanted second-generation seeds that had been purchased legally from a licensed Monsanto distributor instead of buying new seeds. Monsanto claims that in doing so, Bowman was essentially stealing its product. Monsanto has won battles in several lower courts.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Phage

Oh I see. The people in California didn't know what they were voting for. Well, maybe next time around they'll be "more informed"

Didn't know what they voted for?

Next time, more informed?

Believe it or not, this has happened before.

Can you think of any recent examples of this...not getting what was voted for? Getting in reality the exact opposite?

I think it's de rigeur, nowadaze.

I'll have a review of the particulars in this vote. Typically there are many riders attached which make a good idea, in actuality, a bad one. I'm unsure of what happened in the California case. I don't see how anyone in their right mind would have opposed fair labeling of contents. They sniff through every thought and sentence, so why not apply these skill sets to something such as the fuel we use in our flesh and blood?

As for 'informed'....yeah...corporations have lots and lots of money, and other means of persuasion, to get 'er done.
To 'inform us'. That is the history of media, in a nutshell.

I see you are acting really cool in these arguments. But I think you're sweating pretty hard. I caught your GMO cartoon review. Lies! You called it, from beginning to end. That was almost hysteria, coming from you!

Well...don't mind me. When you say 'buy', I sell. Call it a 'gut feeling'.

Science = fact. Meaning = God.

And you wouldn't want that.

# 27

reply to post by Phage

But, I went through this earlier, what is it that you think could be inherently dangerous about GMOs that can be tested for and has not been?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

aaaaannnnddddd i am back in the debate,

its not up to us to prove it wont kill us,
thats your job,

its our job to chose to believe the bs shovelled our way or not!

we should not have to prove its not poison!!!!!!!!

YOU should have to prove it SAFE
BEFORE you conduct live experiments on your OWN population.

your country should not strong arm us into be FORCED to allow this stuff in to OUR country

FIRST DO NO HARM

the only benefit trousered out to explain why we should go down this dangerous and unpredictable route is
MONEY
plain and simple.

the risk,
the entire planet

the gain,
the entire planet owned by a selective few

and god said go forth and multiply,
and eat of the fruit and plant its seed

you defending an affront to god

you are surprised that i can be science minded?
i study science, but believe in something much more esoteric.

that you can be judged for your actions.
and that there is a great evil on this planet,

and its stupid enough to try to play god.

ever heard of genetic inheritance?
the idea we are who we are from our genes, it is the most valuable gift we can give to our offspring,

and the idea of polluting this inheritance, so some short sighted clowns can make a few bits of paper with ink on them
is very upsetting to me.

the greed of these men belay their true intent,
i could spend the rest of the day posting articles and science here,
and watch you show retorts of tests conducted by the men who want to own the food of the world.

but hey why bother trying to explain it to you when no matter the quality of the science,
ITS ONLY ACCEPTABLE SCIENCE WHEN THE OUT COME PROTECTS SHAREHOLDERS AND NOT CONSUMERS.

i find your behaviour contemptable

im off to have another break before i say something to get me banned

xploder

xploder

reply to post by Phage


The California vote was bombarded with a $45 million Big-Ag propaganda campaign saying that voting yes would raise their grocery bills by $400 a year.

You'd think if Monsanto and other companies were so worried about cost, they'd stop spending so much money on lobbying and propaganda.

What's so hard about labeling things as "GMO"? Let me rephrase what I said, you'd rather it STAY complicated for the consumers to look for non-GMO foods while the corporations laugh all the way to the bank.

All this money Monsanto is spending on campaigning against these bills could have been spent with labeling, plus other more useful things.

Then there is the growing pest and weed resistance factors, what will nature do to recover?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Monsanto's combination of genetically modified seed and Roundup herbicide was supposed to ensure that crops across America grew tall while weeds were laid low.

But a growing number of these crop acres are also reluctant hosts of Roundup-resistant "superweeds." Repeated application of the herbicide has literally weeded out the weak weeds and given the rare resistant weeds the opportunity to take over. The situation, according to a report published last Friday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, has driven growers to use larger quantities of Roundup, more often and in conjunction with a broader arsenal of other weed-killing chemicals.

Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops.

Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Just as I thought, thank you for these facts, and information.

I recall Californians voting down a certain proposal re a criminalized plant. Who would vote against such a thing? Well, me, for instance. The proposal was riddled with holes and rife with tentacles of control for a thing no government on earth has a right to touch, tax, or outlaw. They have decimated enough lives as it is, and do attempt to continue doing so. It was voted down because there were enough persons aware of the stigmatizations inherent in the proposition. It was a piss poor attempt at kontrol, and set the stage for endless manipulation, both psychologically, medically, and judicially.

No proposal is better than a bad one.

In the case of the California GMO labeling proposal, the information was tainted by monied bias. I don't call that 'well informed'.

I call it crooked. Did you know about this, phage?

# 28

Thus the use of GMO's as they currently are, is an experiment on all of nature and humankind. I have a suspicion that they know some of the changes their frankenstein foods will bring about and this is the true goal and not the feeding of the world!
If they wanted to feed the world they could do so now without GMO foods easily but that is not where the riches flow. It is therefor not reasonable to think this is the rich and powerful corporations goal.

i have to say i find the "california doesnt want labeling" thing kind of humorus..you know how many products have a label that states the product "may cause cancer in the state of california"..maybee they are sick of labels..lol..and voting
seriously though man has been burned time and time again when playing around with nature, introducing foreign species and such..i consider gmo a foriegn species
even small changes can have a ripple or butterfly effect..when will we learn?